Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 17, 2026
Application No. 18/485,454

AUTONOMOUS SELF-HEALABLE AND MECHANICALLY ROBUST HYDROGEL AND TRIBOELECTRIC NANOGENERATOR COMPRISING THE SAME

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Oct 12, 2023
Examiner
CAI, WENWEN
Art Unit
1763
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
City University of Hong Kong
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
60%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
4m
Est. Remaining
80%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 60% of resolved cases
60%
Career Allowance Rate
519 granted / 871 resolved
-5.4% vs TC avg
Strong +20% interview lift
Without
With
+19.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
64 currently pending
Career history
938
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.1%
-38.9% vs TC avg
§103
45.0%
+5.0% vs TC avg
§102
17.2%
-22.8% vs TC avg
§112
28.7%
-11.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 871 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112
DETAILED ACTION The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election with traverse of group I, claims 1-3 in the reply filed on 7/2/2026 is acknowledged. The traverse is on the ground that claim 1 does recite a crosslinked hydrogel. The argument is not persuasive, please refer to 112(b) section below for the details. “Ferric ions cross-linking the GA-grafted AA copolymer” is interpreted as the function or property of the ferric ions. Additionally, the method of claim 4 produces a product that is different from the composition of claim 1. Claims 4-8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made with traverse in the reply filed on 7/2/2026. Specification Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. It is important that the abstract not exceed 150 words in length since the space provided for the abstract on the computer tape used by the printer is limited. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the language are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors, and there are a few technical phrases that are ambiguous. Especially, “graft copolymerized”, “the GA is imparted as a cluster molecule”, “offers a diffusionless solvent independent non-bonding interaction” etc.. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 1-3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites “an AA polymer, GA grafted on the AA to form AA-GA graft copolymer, and ferric ions crosslinking the GA-grafted AA copolymer”. It is noted that “a composition comprising an AA polymer, GA and ferric ions” is different from “a composition comprising a reaction product of an AA polymer, GA and ferric ions”. In the latter, the reagents lose their original characteristic and therefore are not present in the composition, instead the composition comprises a new compound which is a reaction product of an AA polymer, GA and ferric ions. Claim 1 recites “an acrylic acid (AA) polymer, ……grafted on the AA to form AA-GA graft copolymer”. AA refers to monomer acrylic acid, does “grafted on the AA” mean grafted on the monomer? “AA-GA graft copolymer” is not a standard description in polymer field. A proper description is GA-grafted poly(acrylic acid) or poly(acrylic acid) grafted with GA. “GA-grafted AA copolymer” means the backbone is acrylic acid copolymer. Claim 1 recites “the GA is imparted as a cluster molecule”, does it mean GA naturally forms molecular clusters, GA is incorporated into the hydrogel in clustered form, or GA behaves as a cluster-like macromolecule? What is “non-diffusionless bonding interaction”? Does it mean diffusion-based bonding which is a phrasing often used in metallurgy to describe a solid-state joining process that relies on atomic diffusion to create a metallurgical bond across the interface? How is this term applied in polymer science? Claim 1 is indefinite because there is inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure, which renders the scope of the claim uncertain. Claim 1 recites a composition comprising an AA polymer, GA and ferric ions. However, the specification discloses a composition comprising an AA monomer, GA, and ferric chloride hexahydrate; and a reaction product of the composition. The specification does not disclose a composition comprising a poly(acrylic acid). For purposes of expediting prosecution, claim 1 is interpreted as “a composition comprising an acrylic acid monomer which will form a polyacrylic acid, gum Arabic which will graft on the polyacrylic acid to form a GA-grafted poly(acrylic acid), and a ferric compound which will crosslink the GA-grafted poly(acrylic acid).” An additional note from the examiner: if applicants intend to claim a crosslinked product, a product-by-process claim may be considered. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Khan et al (Synthesis of an un-modified gum Arabic and acrylic acid based physically cross-linked hydrogels with high mechanical, self-sustainable and self-healable performance, Materials Science & Engineering C 116 (2020) 111278). Khan teaches a composition comprising AA monomer, GA and ferric chloride hexahydrate (section 2.2). A hydrogel is formed by polymerizing the composition in the presence of a free radical generator. “To be preserved” is the use of the composition. The claimed application can be applied to the composition of Khan. Because Khan teaches the claimed composition, it is therefore inherent that the composition exhibit claimed property since such a property is evidently dependent upon the nature of the composition used, see MPEP 2112.01. Absent an objective showing to the contrary, the addition of the claimed physical properties to the claim language fails to provide patentable distinction over the prior art. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WENWEN CAI whose telephone number is (571)270-3590. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9am-6pm. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph Del Sole can be reached on (571)272-1130. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /WENWEN CAI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 12, 2023
Application Filed
Jul 16, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12702629
EVAPORATION STRATEGY GENERATED ANTIBACTERIAL ENAMEL-LIKE FLUORAPATITE-POLYACRYLIC ACID SHEET FOR FUNCTIONAL DENTAL RESTORATION
3y 9m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12692328
B-STAGEABLE AQUEOUS BINDER COMPOSITIONS
4y 10m to grant Granted Jul 28, 2026
Patent 12655247
TWO COMPONENT COATING COMPOSITIONS
4y 9m to grant Granted Jun 16, 2026
Patent 12630685
MXENE ENHANCED URETHANE FOAM
3y 6m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12617941
HEAT-CURABLE RESIN COMPOSITION
2y 12m to grant Granted May 05, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
60%
Grant Probability
80%
With Interview (+19.9%)
3y 2m (~4m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 871 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month