DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This Office action is based on the 18/688,653 application filed 1 March 2024, which is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 11-14, 18-19, 22-24, 27, 31, 33-35, and 38-39 are pending and have been fully considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: the amended claim set filed 1 March 2024 indicates that claims 19-21 are canceled. However, there is also a recitation for claim 19. Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: “3-piperidinemthanol, and 4-piperidinemthanol” appear to be mis-spelled. See, e.g., paragraphs 0204, 0209, and 0210 of the published application. Appropriate correction is required.
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 22-24 are 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.
Claims 22-24 recite the limitation "the liquid swelling agent" in lines 1-2, 1, and 1-2, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Perhaps said claims should depend from claim 19.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7, 11-14, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Tang et al in the Journal of Applied Polymer Science (2008, vol 108, pp 1490-1495).
With respect to claims 1, 5, 7, and 11-14, Tang et al discloses “[p]olyacrylamide/graphite superabsorbent composite was synthesized by free radical polymerization of acrylamide monomer using N, N'-methylene-bis-acrylamide as crosslinker, potassium persulfate as initiator, and graphite as functional filler. On the basis of the superabsorbent composite, a hydrogel with a conductivity of 0.86 mS cm-1 was obtained…A predetermined amount of acrylamide monomer and graphite micropowder was dissolved and dispersed in distilled water thoroughly to form a mixed solution. A given amount of crosslinker N,N'-(dimethylene)acrylamide was dissolved in the monomer/graphite mixed solution. Then the system was degassed under vacuum for about 30 min. Radical initiator potassium persulfate was added to the solution consisting of monomer, graphite, and crosslinker. Under a nitrogen atmosphere, a polymerization reaction took place under stirring and heating at 80°C in a water bath for 20 min. After completion of the polymerization reaction, the resultant mixture was immersed in excess distilled water and then filtered through Whatman filter paper No. 54 to remove any impurities. The product, a typically black [gel], was dried under vacuum at 80°C for more than 3 h to constant weight, and ground and screened using a 40-mesh screen. Thus a powdered polyacrylamide/graphite superabsorbent composite was obtained” [abstract & 1st paragraph after the heading “Preparation of polyacrylamide/graphite superabsorbent composite” on page 1490]. The graphite micropowder corresponds to the thermally conductive particulate material of the instant application. Additionally, Tang et al discloses “[t]he polymerization of acrylamide monomer is an exothermic reaction (enthalpy decrease, -DH). According to the rate law, under a higher concentration of acrylamide monomer, the reaction takes place faster, which causes the uneven dispersion of the network of polymer and graphite particles, and the connections between graphite particles are interdicted. Thus lower conductivity occurs. On the other hand, under a lower concentration of acrylamide monomer, the reaction becomes slower, and can not polymerize effectively, the monomer exists in small molecule or oligomer instead of polymer, a three-dimensional polymer network can not be formed effectively, and graphite particle can not be held in the polymer network, which leads to the lower conductivity. In our experimental conditions with a monomer concentration of 46 wt %, the reaction can take place effectively and evenly, the hydrogel possesses the highest conductivity” [see 1st full paragraph on right hand side of page 1492]. Consequently, there is a functional connection between conductivity and graphite particle connectivity within the polymer network, wherein high conductivity requires said connectivity. Therefore, at least the hydrogel with highest conductivity corresponds to the requirement “wherein the thermally conductive particulate material is intersperse…within the hydrogel” and/or such would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Last, note that the instant specification discloses “…graphite is chemically inert…” [paragraph 0135 of the published application].
With respect to the requirement “wherein the hydrogel…incorporates one or more acidic gas absorbents,” the Examiner notes that the instant application discloses “the hydrogel incorporates an acidic gas absorbent as one or more reactive functional groups on the cross-linked hydrophilic polymer for binding to the acidic gas…the acidic gas absorbent is the same (e.g. the hydrogel may comprise a cross-linked hydrophilic polymer having one or more amine functional groups capable of binding to the acidic gas” [paragraph 0245 of the published application]. The aforementioned polyacrylamide
PNG
media_image1.png
101
234
media_image1.png
Greyscale
of Tang et al contains said amine (-NH2) functional group. Also note that the instant application states “[i]n some embodiments, the hydrogel comprises a cross-linked polyamine or copolymer thereof. In some embodiments, the hydrogel comprises a cross-linked polyacrylamide or co-polymer thereof. In some embodiments, the hydrogel comprises a cross-linked polyamine or a cross-linked polyacrylamide, or copolymers thereof” [paragraph 0234].
With respect to claim 18, Tang et al does not disclose a support material (e.g. scaffold). Thus, the hydrogel isself-supported.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al in the Journal of Applied Polymer Science (2008, vol 108, pp 1490-1495).
With respect to claim 3, Tang et al discloses “[f]rom Figure 6, it can be seen that the conductivity of hydrogel increases slowly with the increase of graphite amount in the range of 0–3 wt %, and sharp increase in the amount of 3–8 wt %. When graphite content is 8 wt % and water absorbency is 160 times, the conductivity of hydrogel reaches 0.52 mS cm-1. Beyond an amount of 8 wt %, the conductivity of hydrogel decreases” [see 1st paragraph under the heading “Influence of graphite amount on the conductivity of hydrogel” on page 1493 & Figure 6]. Alternatively, as noted above, the graphite content is a result effective variable. Applicant is reminded that “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.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19, 27, 31, 33-35, and 38-39 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 22-24 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with respect to claims 19, 22, and 24, the prior art does not teach the hydrogel of claim 1 with a liquid swelling agent; with respect to claim 27, the prior art does not teach “mixing a solution comprising a hydrophilic polymer and a cross-linking agent under conditions effective to cross-link the hydrophilic polymer to form the hydrogel;” instead, as previously discussed, Tang et al teaches adding graphite to an acrylamide monomer prior to the making of the polymer; also, Tang et al does not teach the grinding/crushing required in instant claim 27; with respect to claims 31 and 39, Tang et al does not teach or render obvious removing an acidic gas or contacting the hydrogel taught therein with an acidic gas or a gaseous stream containing the same.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN A MCCAIG whose telephone number is (571)270-5548. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8 to 4:30 Mountain Time.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at 571-272-5954. 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.
/BRIAN A MCCAIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
31 July 2026
Prosecution Insights