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 .
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, 3-4 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang in their publication “Self-Healing and Highly Stretchable Hydrogel for Interfacial Compatible Flexible Paper-Based Micro-Supercapacitor”.
Regarding Claim 1: Wang teaches the creation of a hydrogel electrolyte (See Title/Abstract). The claim is noted as containing product-by-process limitations in terms of the ‘product being from a reaction of a mixture of polyvinyl alcohol, polyethylene oxide with a borax aqueous solution’. Product by process limitations are given patentable weight on the basis of the implications of the process and not the actual manipulations as set forth. In terms of the instant claims, any material containing reaction products associated with PVA, PEO and borax meets the claim limitations as set forth.
Wang teaches the creation of a hydrogel from a reaction of PVA with Pluronic and a borax aqueous solution (See Section 2.2). Pluronic is a block copolymer containing PEO. The hydrogel produced by Wang meets all of the implications of the product-by-process limitations as set forth.
Wang teaches that the hydrogel as set forth is equilibrated in 1M KCl aqueous solution and the concentration of KCl can be adjusted in order to adjust the ionic conductivity(See Section 3, Paragraph 7). Equilibrating the hydrogel with KCl, provides the electrolyte with an electrolyzed salt, wherein the equilibration would inherently distribute the salt within the hydrogel and dissociate the cations and anions of the salt.
Regarding Claim 3-4: Wang teaches that a borax aqueous solution is provided by adding 0.75g of borax to 5mL of water. It is noted that the current limitations are in terms of the borax aqueous solution used in the product-by-process limitations of claim 1. As this is the case, these claims are solely drawn to limiting the product-by-process. Claiming the volume and concentration of the borax solution in the process does not provide any further implications in terms of the product. The claims require that the final product includes a borate and does not clearly imply a content thereof. The product of Wang includes a borate from a borax aqueous solution and thus meets the claim limitations as set forth.
Regarding Claim 7-8: Wang teaches that the hydrogel electrolyte as discussed may be used in an electrochemical energy storage device such as a flexible micro supercapacitor (See Figure 5a-b).
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xu in CN112646209 (citations to machine translation attached).
Regarding Claim 1: Xu teaches the creation of a gel electrolyte (See Technical Field). The gel is based on water and is thus a hydrogel. The claim is noted as containing product-by-process limitations in terms of the ‘product being from a reaction of a mixture of polyvinyl alcohol, polyethylene oxide with a borax aqueous solution’. Product by process limitations are given patentable weight on the basis of the implications of the process and not the actual manipulations as set forth. In terms of the instant claims, any material containing reaction products associated with PVA, PEO and borax meets the claim limitations as set forth.
Xu teaches the creation of a hydrogel from a reaction of PVA with Pluronic and a borax aqueous solution (See steps 4-5 in ‘contents of invention’). Pluronic is a block copolymer containing PEO. The hydrogel produced by Xu meets all of the implications of the product-by-process limitations as set forth.
Xu teaches that an NaCl salt is added to the hydrogel (See Step 3). Adding NaCl to the hydrogel, provides the electrolyte with an electrolyzed salt, wherein the addition of the salt to the aqueous gel would inherently distribute the salt within the hydrogel and dissociate the cations and anions of the salt.
Regarding Claim 3-4: Xu teaches that a borax aqueous solution is provided by adding in a solution at a concentration of 1-1.25%. As the solution is based on water, this correlates to a concentration of 26-32 mM ((10-12.5g)/381g/mol per L). The volume of borax solution added is unclear. However, it is noted that the current limitations are in terms of the borax aqueous solution used in the product-by-process limitations of claim 1. As this is the case, these claims are solely drawn to limiting the product-by-process. Claiming the volume and concentration of the borax solution in the process does not provide any further implications in terms of the product. The claims require that the final product includes a borate and does not clearly imply a content thereof. The product of Xu includes a borate from a borax aqueous solution and thus meets the claim limitations as set forth.
Regarding Claim 6: Xu teaches the addition of a sodium salt (See Step 3).
Regarding Claim 7-8: Xu teaches that the hydrogel may be used in an electrochemical energy storage device, such as a supercapacitor (See Technical Field).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu in CN112646209, as evidenced by the Wikipedia article “Poloxamer”(in terms of claim 2).
Xu teaches the creation of a gel electrolyte (See Technical Field). The gel is based on water and is thus a hydrogel. The claim is noted as containing product-by-process limitations in terms of the ‘product being from a reaction of a mixture of polyvinyl alcohol, polyethylene oxide with a borax aqueous solution’. Product by process limitations are given patentable weight on the basis of the implications of the process and not the actual manipulations as set forth. In terms of the instant claims, any material containing reaction products associated with PVA, PEO and borax meets the claim limitations as set forth.
Xu teaches the creation of a hydrogel from a reaction of PVA with Pluronic and a borax aqueous solution (See steps 4-5 in ‘contents of invention’). Pluronic is a block copolymer containing PEO. The hydrogel produced by Xu meets all of the implications of the product-by-process limitations as set forth.
Xu teaches that an NaCl salt is added to the hydrogel (See Step 3). Adding NaCl to the hydrogel, provides the electrolyte with an electrolyzed salt, wherein the addition of the salt to the aqueous gel would inherently distribute the salt within the hydrogel and dissociate the cations and anions of the salt.
Regarding Claim 2: Xu teaches that the hydrogel contains a mass ratio of PVA to Pluronic is 1-4:1-2 (See Step 3). Xu is silent in terms of the mass ratio of PVA to PEO as claimed. However, Pluronic is a triblock copolymer of PEO and PPO. Xu specifically teaches the use of P123, which is PEO20PPO69PEO20 (See evidentiary document ‘Poloxamer’ from Wikipedia). Each PEO block has a molecular formula C2H4O and has a mass of 44 amu. Each PPO block as a molecular formula C3H6O and has a mass of 58 amu. The content of PEO by mass in P123 is (44*40)/(58*69+44*40) is 30.5 wt%. Thus the mass ratio of PVA to PEO in Xu is 1-4:0.30.5-0.61. The maximum ratio of PVA to PEO in Xu is thus 4/0.30.5=13.11 and the minimum ratio is 1/0.61 or 1.639. The mass ratio of PVA to PEO in Xu is then from 1.639:1 to 13.11:1 representing an overlapping range of contents. Overlapping ranges have been held to present a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. Those of ordinary skill in the art would only need to select from the overlapping portion of the range to arrive at the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 5: Xu teaches in step 3 that the mass ratio of NaCl:Pluronic:PVA are 1-2:1-2:1-4 and borax is also included in an amount form 0.8-2 parts by weight (based on 100%). The wt% of electrolyzed salt is in the range from 1/((1/0.98)*(1+2+4) to 2/((1/0.992)*(2+1+1)) or from 14 to 24.8 wt%. Xu therefore teaches an overlapping range of electrolyzed salt contents. Overlapping ranges have been held to establish a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. Those of ordinary skill in the art would only need to select from the overlapping portion of the range to arrive at the invention as claimed.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu as applied to claim 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Sun in their publication “Sustainable and high-performance Zn dual-ion batteries with a hydrogel-based water-in-salt electrolyte”.
Xu teaches the creation of a PVA hydrogel electrolyte meeting the limitations of claim 1 and 7 as is set forth above. Xu teaches that the hydrogel electrolyte may be provided with a NaCl salt and act as a supercapacitor.
Xu is silent in terms of the addition of other salts and the creation of other electrochemical storage devices, such as an aqueous metal ion battery.
However, the use of PVA based hydrogels for other electrochemical devices such as aqueous metal ion batteries is known in the art and taught by Sun. Sun also teaches that PVA based hydrogels can be used in the creation of Zn dual-ion batteries (See abstract). Those of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the addition of ZnCl2 salts to the solution of Xu in place of NaCl would provide for a hydrogel that is capable of use as an electrolyte for an aqueous metal ion battery (See Figure 1). On this basis, those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide various metal salts to the hydrogel of Xu in order to create industrially applicable materials for the creation of such a metal ion battery. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to create the electrochemical devices of Sun from the hydrogel of Xu in order to exploit the flexible and self-healing properties of the composite of Xu and to apply the hydrogel of Xu to additional industrially applicable devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW E HOBAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3585. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6:00pm.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1177. 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.
/Matthew E. Hoban/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights