Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is very vague. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Claim 22 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "one or more metal interaction sites". That limitation is not mention in the claim 19, which claim 22 is dependent upon. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examining purposes, examiner interprets claim 22 being dependent upon claim 20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 6, 12-13, 15, 17-22, 30, 34, and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over non-patent literature "Hydrogen Sensors from Ultra-small Bimetallic Nanoparticle Porous Ion Exchange Polymer Composites" by Koo et al. as cited in the IDS received on 01/03/2024, further in view of non-patent literature “Facile in Situ Silver Nanoparticle Formation in Insulating Porous Polymer Matrice” by Rifai et al. as cited in the IDS received on 01/03/2024.
Regarding claim 1, Koo teaches a composition configured for determining hydrogen gas at low concentration, comprising: a porous polymer (pg 2747, ‘Imidazolium-functionalized triptycene polyether sulfone’, Section: Results and Discussion – Structural Design and Characterizations); and metal nanoparticles contained within the porous polymer (pg 2748, Section: Results and Discussion – Structural Design and Characterizations), wherein an electronic state of at least a portion of the metal nanoparticles changes upon exposure to hydrogen gas (pg 2748, Figure 1) .
However, Koo does not teach the porous polymer having a glass transition temperature greater than or equal to 200 °C.
Rifai teaches poly(aryl ether)s incorporating an oxadiazole which demonstrated selective interaction with silver ions (pg 21, Abstract). Rifai also teaches that polymer that include triptycene units are porous and allow for rapid diffusion of small molecules which is important for sensor applications (pg 21, para 2). Rifai teaches the poly(aryl ether) incorporating triptycene group which is a porous polymer having a glass transition temperature of 267°C (pg 22, Table 1) for the benefit of the rigid framework has the potential to effectively suppress nanoparticle aggregation (pg 21, para 2). Thus, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teaching of Koo with a porous polymer having a glass transition temperature greater than or equal to 200 °C as taught by Rifai for the benefit of the rigid framework has the potential to effectively suppress nanoparticle aggregation (pg 21, para 2).
Regarding claim 6, Koo in view of Rifai suggest the invention of claim 1. Koo further teaches the metal nanoparticles have an average characteristic dimension of 1.07nm (pg 2748, Section: Results and Discussion – Structural Design and Characterizations).
Regarding claim 12, Koo in view of Rifai suggest the invention of claim 1. Koo further teaches a porous polymer.
Koo does not teach the glass transition temperature of the porous polymer is less than or equal to 450 °.
Rifai teaches the poly(aryl ether) incorporating triptycene group which is a porous polymer having a glass transition temperature of 267°C (pg 22, Table 1) for the benefit of the rigid framework has the potential to effectively suppress nanoparticle aggregation (pg 21, para 2). Thus, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teaching of Koo with a porous polymer having a glass transition temperature less than or equal to 450 °C as taught by Rifai for the benefit of the rigid framework has the potential to effectively suppress nanoparticle aggregation (pg 21, para 2).
Regarding claim 13, , Koo in view of Rifai suggest the invention of claim 1. Koo further teaches the metal nanoparticles combination of palladium and platinum (pg 2748, Section: Results and Discussion – Structural Design and Characterizations).
Regarding claim 15, Koo in view of Rifai suggest the invention of claim 1. Koo further teaches the metal nanoparticle being a neutral metal such as palladium (Section Introduction, para 1).
Regarding claim 17, Koo in view of Rifai suggest the invention of claim 1. Koo further teaches the metal nanoparticles combination of palladium and platinum which both have an oxidation state of +2 (pg 2748, Section: Results and Discussion – Structural Design and Characterizations).
Regarding claim 18, Koo in view of Rifai suggest the invention of claim 1.
Koo does not teach the porous polymer being poly(arylene ether).
However, Rifai teaches a porous polymer poly arylene ether (pg 22, Scheme 1. PAE Synthesis). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teaching of Koo with the polymer being poly arylene ether as taught by Rifai because poly(arylene ether)s have excellent thermal stability (pg 21, para 2).
Regarding claim 19, Koo in view of Rifai teaches the composition in claim 18.
Koo does not teach the poly(arylene ether) comprises a triptycene group, a pentiptycene group, a [2.2.2] bicyclic group, a [2.2.1] bicyclic group, a spirobifluorene group, and/or combinations thereof.
However, Rifai teaches poly arylene ethers combined with a triptycene group for the benefit of elevated glass transition temperatures, low dielectric constants, and porosity (pg 21, para 2). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Koo with poly arylene ethers combined with a triptycene group as taught by Rifai for the benefit of elevated glass transition temperatures, low dielectric constants, and porosity (pg 21, para 2).
Regarding claim 20, Koo in view of Rifai suggest the invention of claim 1. Koo further teaches the porous polymer comprises one or more metal interaction sites. The porous polymer is synthesized by chloromethylation which creates a metal interaction site for the PdPt nanoparticles (pg 2748, Section: Results and Discussion – Structural Design and Characterizations).
Regarding claim 21, Koo in view of Rifai suggest the invention of claim 20.
Koo in view of Rifai does not teach that one or more metal interaction sites comprise a P atom, N atom, a S atom, an O atom, and/or combinations thereof.
However, Rifai teaches synthesizing a porous polymer ‘poly(aryl ether)’ with oxadiazole to create metal interaction site for silver ions for the benefit of controlling nanoparticle growth and stabilizing the metal ion (pg 22, left column). Oxadiazole contains N atoms and O atoms. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teaching of Koo with metal interaction sites with O atoms and N atoms as taught by Rifai for the benefit of controlling nanoparticle growth and stabilizing the metal ion (pg 22, left column).
Regarding claim 22, Koo in view of Rifai suggest the invention of claim 20 (see 112b rejection above). Koo further teaches a portion of the metal nanoparticles are bound to the one or more metal interaction sites through anion exchange (pg 2748, Figure 1b).
Regarding claim 30, Koo in view of Rifai suggest the invention of claim 1. Koo further teaches hydrogen gas being sensed with the use of metal nanopores (pg 2748, Figure 1).
Koo in view of Rifai does not teach a porosity of the porous polymer allows diffusion of the hydrogen gas to at least 25% of the metal nanoparticles.
However, since Koo teaches hydrogen gas being sensed by coming into contact with the nanoparticles, it would be obvious that at least 25% of the nanoparticles are coming into contact with hydrogen gas to achieve an ultra-low detection of 4ppm of H2 which thereby confirm the good sensing performance of the PdPt nanoparticles and to increase the hydrogen gas sensor (pg 2746, Section: summary). Thus , it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that at least 25% of the nanoparticles are coming into contact with hydrogen gas to achieve an ultra-low detection of 4ppm of H2 which thereby confirm the good sensing performance of the PdPt nanoparticles and to increase the hydrogen gas sensor (pg 2746, Section: summary).
Regarding claim 34, Koo in view of Rifai teaches the composition in claim 1. Koo further teaches a substrate (pg 2748, Figure 1).
Regarding claim 44, Koo in view of Rifai teaches the composition in claim 34. Koo further teaches a substrate wherein the composition is coated on a portion of the substrate using drop-coating (pg 2748, Figure 1).
Claims 2, 5, 9, 10, 25, 27, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over non-patent literature "Hydrogen Sensors from Ultra-small Bimetallic Nanoparticle Porous Ion Exchange Polymer Composites" by Koo et al. as cited in the IDS received on 01/03/2024 and non-patent literature “Facile in Situ Silver Nanoparticle Formation in Insulating Porous Polymer Matrice” by Rifai et al. as cited in the IDS received on 01/03/2024, further in view of Yuan et al. (US 20060094852 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Koo in view of Rifai teaches the composition in claim 1.
Koo in view of Rifai does not teach the porous polymer comprises a plurality of pores having an average characteristic dimension less than or equal to 10 nm.
However, Yuan teaches functionalized porous poly(aryl ether ketone) articles (Abstract). Yuan teaches a porous poly(aryl ether ketone) blend with average pore diameter of 10nm – 30nm for the benefit of improving permeability, separation efficacy, or mechanical properties (para 007). Thus, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify teaching of Koo and Rifai with a porous polymer with pore size of 10nm as taught by Yuan for the benefit of improving permeability, separation efficacy, or mechanical properties (para 007).
Regarding claim 5, Koo in view of Rifai teaches the composition in claim 1.
Koo in view of Rifai does not teach the porous polymer has a BET surface area greater than or equal to 100 m2/g and less than or equal to 1,000 m2/g.
However, Yuan teaches porous polymer having specific surface area preferably higher than 100m2/g because these porous polymers are useful as sorbents and chromatographic media (para 0076). Thus, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings of Koo and Rifai with a porous polymer with specific surface area preferably higher than 100m2/g as taught by Yuan because these porous polymers are useful as sorbents and chromatographic media (para 0076).
Regarding claim 9, Koo and Rifai in view of Yuan suggest the invention of claim 2. Koo further teaches the metal nanoparticles are contained within the plurality of pores (pg 2747, Section: Introduction, para 3).
Regarding claim 10, Koo and Rifai in view of Yuan suggest the invention of claim 2. Koo further teaches at least a portion of the metal nanoparticles are immobilized within the plurality of pores (pg 2747, Section: Introduction, para 3).
Regarding claim 25, Koo and Rifai in view of Yuan suggest the invention of claim 2. Koo further teaches at least a portion of the metal nanoparticles are immobilized within the plurality of pores (pg 2747, Section: Introduction, para 3).
Koo does not teach at least 50% of the metal nanoparticles are immobilized within the porous polymer.
Although Koo reference does not teach the minimum percentage of metal nanoparticle being immobilized by the porous polymer, it is not inventive to discover the optimum percentage range for immobilized nanoparticles in a method that is taught by the prior art. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to determine the minimum percentage of metal nanoparticle being immobilized by the porous polymer as taught by Koo for the benefit of reducing particle fusion to maintaining sensor activity (pg 2747, Section: Introduction, para 2).
Regarding claim 27, Koo and Rifai in view of Yuan suggest the invention of claim 25. Koo further teaches generating nanoparticle within the rigid porous matrix (pg 2747, Section introduction, para 3).
Koo does not teach at least 25% of a surface area of each metal nanoparticle is exposed to one or more pores of the plurality of pores.
Although Koo reference does not teach the minimum percentage of a metal nanoparticle surface are being exposed to a plurality of pores, it is not inventive to discover the optimum percentage range for a nanoparticle exposed to pores in a method that is taught by the prior art. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to determine the minimum percentage of a metal nanoparticle surface are being exposed to a plurality of pores as taught by Koo for the benefit increasing immobilization of ionic metal nanoparticles (pg 2747, Section: Introduction, para 3).
Regarding claim 33, Koo and Rifai in view of Yuan suggest the invention of claim 2. Koo further teaches at least a portion of the plurality of pores are in fluid communication with an exterior environment of the porous polymer. The porous polymer with the metal nanoparticles can be seen interacting with the exterior environment which includes hydrogen gas in Figure 1b- Figure 1d (pg 2748).
Claims 35, 37, and 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over non-patent literature "Hydrogen Sensors from Ultra-small Bimetallic Nanoparticle Porous Ion Exchange Polymer Composites" by Koo et al. as cited in the IDS received on 01/03/2024 and non-patent literature “Facile in Situ Silver Nanoparticle Formation in Insulating Porous Polymer Matrice” by Rifai et al. as cited in the IDS received on 01/03/2024, further in view of Swager et al. (US 20170322167 A1).
Regarding claim 35, Koo in view of Rifai teaches the article in claim 34.
Koo in view of Rifai does not teach the substrate being electrically conductive material.
Swager teaches a sensor for detecting gas with polymers (Abstract). Swager teaches substrate can be made of metal which is electrically conductive material (para 0118) for the benefit of better bonding with the polymer (para 0128). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify Koo and Rifai with a substrate that is electrically conductive as taught by Swager for the benefit of better bonding with the polymer (para 0128).
Regarding claim 37, Koo in view of Rifai teaches the article in claim 34.
Koo in view of Rifai does not teach the substrate comprising carbon.
Swager teaches substrate can be made of plants which are made out of carbon (para 0118) for the benefit of better bonding with the polymer (para 0112). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify Koo and Rifai with a substrate comprising carbon as taught by Swager for the benefit of better bonding with the polymer (para 0112).
Regarding claim 39, Koo in view of Rifai teaches the article in claim 34.
Koo in view of Rifai does not teach the substrate comprising a conducting polymer.
Swager teaches substrate can be made of polymers (para 0118). Swager teach a conducting polymer can be incorporated into the sensor for the benefit of utilizing the optical properties (para 0123). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify Koo and Rifai with a substrate comprising conducting polymer as taught by Swager for the benefit of utilizing the optical properties (para 0123).
Regarding claim 40, Koo in view of Rifai teaches the article in claim 34.
Koo in view of Rifai does not teach the substrate comprising an oxide.
Swager teaches substrate can be made of oxides for the benefit of better bonding with the polymer (para 0128). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify Koo and Rifai with a substrate comprising an oxide as taught by Swager for the benefit of better bonding with the polymer (para 0128).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENA BERA whose telephone number is (571)272-9964. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00pm EST.
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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at (571) 270-3638. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/H.R.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 1798
/CHARLES CAPOZZI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights