DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
Upon entry of the amendment filed on 19 November 2025, Claim(s) 1, 3-14 and 18 is/are amended and Claim(s) 13-20 is/are withdrawn. The currently pending claims are Claims 1-20.
Based on applicants’ remarks and amendments (e.g. the specific carbon derivatives), the 112 rejections are withdrawn. However, they are not found persuasive regarding the Rangan or Mukhopadhyay reference and the rejections are maintained. Further, new grounds of rejections are provided necessitated by the amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rangan (US-20180043049-A1).
Claims 1, 2 and 5, 8: Ragan discloses a device comprising a film product with a betaine zwitterion intercalated between the layers of a bentonite clay (abs, Figs 2 and 3 with accompanying text, ¶20-23, 62-68, 97 and 99). Regarding the claimed property such as the ionic conductivity, if a prior art reference teaches the substantially identical material, it would be reasonable that the same function and/or property would be imparted or exhibited. See MPEP 2112.01. In particular, it is noted that the ionic conductivity is based on the zwitterion molecule bonded to the clay and Ragan teaches both of the claimed components. There is no evidence that the additional components such as the antimicrobial or the analgesic agent would prevent the ionic conductivity. Applicant is welcomed to provide any evidence that the disclosed material is exceedingly different from the claimed material - thus the claimed properties would inevitably not be present.
Claims 3 and 4: Ragan discloses various carbon chains having different number of carbons (¶23, Figs 2 and 3 with accompanying text).
Claim 6: Ragan disclose the expansion by 1 to 2 Angstroms and up to 20 Angstroms (¶46).
Claims 7, 9-12: Regarding the various claimed properties such as the ion conductivity, thermal stability, spacing and solvent interactions, it is the examiner's position that the composition of Ragan intrinsically displays these properties since such properties are evidently dependent upon the nature of the composition used. In particular, MPEP 2112.01 states that a material and its properties are inseparable, i.e. materials with the same chemical compositions cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The Ragan reference teaches the same components of betaine intercalated within a bentonite clay; thus, it would be reasonably expected that the same chemical behavior would be exhibited since there is no evidence that the claimed properties would be derived from additional components besides the claimed components. Applicant is welcomed to provide any evidence that the disclosed material is exceedingly different from the claimed material - thus the claimed properties would inevitably not be present.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mukhopadhyay (US-20140276484-A1).
Claims 1, 2, 5 and 8: Mukhopadhyay discloses a device comprising a film product with a betaine zwitterion intercalated between the layers of a bentonite clay (abs, Figs 4 and 6 with accompanying text, ¶26, 58, 71, 77, 83, 109-117 and examples). Regarding the claimed property such as the ionic conductivity, if a prior art reference teaches the substantially identical material, it would be reasonable that the same function and/or property would be imparted or exhibited. See MPEP 2112.01. In particular, it is noted that the ionic conductivity is based on the zwitterion molecule bonded to the clay and Ragan teaches both of the claimed components. There is no evidence that the additional components such as the antimicrobial or the organic agent would prevent the ionic conductivity. Applicant is welcomed to provide any evidence that the disclosed material is exceedingly different from the claimed material - thus the claimed properties would inevitably not be present.
Claims 3 and 4: Mukhopadhyay discloses various carbon chains having different number of carbons (¶26, 58-60, 77, 92-93 and examples).
Claim 6: Mukhopadhyay discloses the expansion by 1 to 2 Angstroms and up to 20 Angstroms (¶56-57).
Claims 7, 9-12: Regarding the various claimed properties such as the ion conductivity, thermal stability, spacing and solvent interactions, it is the examiner's position that the composition of Mukhopadhyay intrinsically displays these properties since such properties are evidently dependent upon the nature of the composition used. In particular, MPEP 2112.01 states that a material and its properties are inseparable, i.e. materials with the same chemical compositions cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The Mukhopadhyay reference teaches the same components of betaine intercalated within a bentonite clay; thus, it would be reasonably expected that the same chemical behavior would be exhibited since there is no evidence that the claimed properties would be derived from additional components besides the claimed components. Applicant is welcomed to provide any evidence that the disclosed material is exceedingly different from the claimed material - thus the claimed properties would inevitably not be present.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shen (CN103896295A, a machine translation was previously provided).
Claims 1, 2 and 5, 8: Shen discloses a device comprising a film product with a betaine zwitterion intercalated between the layers of a bentonite clay (abs, pg. 1-3 and examples). Regarding the claimed property such as the ionic conductivity, if a prior art reference teaches the substantially identical material, it would be reasonable that the same function and/or property would be imparted or exhibited. See MPEP 2112.01. In particular, it is noted that the ionic conductivity is based on the zwitterion molecule bonded to the clay and Shen teaches both of the claimed components and does not require any additional components which might impede the conductivity. Applicant is welcomed to provide any evidence that the disclosed material is exceedingly different from the claimed material - thus the claimed properties would inevitably not be present.
Claims 3 and 4: Shen discloses the alkyl chains having different number of carbons (pg. 2-4 and examples).
Claim 6: Shen disclose the expansion to around 2 Angstroms (pg. 4-5 and examples).
Claims 7, 9-12: Regarding the various claimed properties such as the ion conductivity, thermal stability, spacing and solvent interactions, it is the examiner's position that the composition of Shen intrinsically displays these properties since such properties are evidently dependent upon the nature of the composition used. In particular, MPEP 2112.01 states that a material and its properties are inseparable, i.e. materials with the same chemical compositions cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The Shen reference teaches the same components of betaine intercalated within a bentonite clay; thus, it would be reasonably expected that the same chemical behavior would be exhibited since there is no evidence that the claimed properties would be derived from additional components besides the claimed components. Applicant is welcomed to provide any evidence that the disclosed material is exceedingly different from the claimed material - thus the claimed properties would inevitably not be present.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 19 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the conductivity would not be present since Rangan or Mukhopadhyay discloses additional components such as antimicrobial, analgesic and organic agents (pg. 9-11).
The examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that, regarding the claimed property such as the ionic conductivity , if a prior art reference teaches the substantially identical material, it would be reasonable that the same function and/or property would be imparted or exhibited. See MPEP 2112.01. In particular, it is noted that the ionic conductivity is based on the zwitterion molecule bonded to the clay and Ragan or Mukhopadhyay teaches both of the claimed components. Here, the cited references disclose each of the claimed component that would be necessary for the ion conductivity and there is no evidence that the additional components such as the antimicrobial, analgesic or organic agent would prevent the ionic conductivity. In particular, it is noted that applicant has not provided any specific showing and evidence to indicate that the claimed conductivity would not be present. Applicant is welcomed to provide any evidence that the disclosed material is exceedingly different from the claimed material - thus the claimed properties would inevitably not be present. Further, it is noted that applicant seems to be open to additional components – see the presence of biocompatible components.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRI V NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6965. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Arrie Lanee Reuthers can be reached at 571.272.7026. 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.
/TRI V NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights