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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-19) in the reply filed on 1/5/2026 is acknowledged.
Group II (claim 20) is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 without traverse in the reply filed on 1/5/2026. Claims 5-10 and 14-16 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected species as affirmed by the applicant on 6/11/2026.
Claim status
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending with claim(s) 5-10, 14-16 and 20 withdrawn from consideration. Claim(s) 1-4, 11-13 and 17-19 is/are under examination in this office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's argument filed on 6/11/2026, with respect to 103 rejection has been fully considered but is not persuasive.
Applicant argued that Zhang discloses a preparative method for an aqueous graphene oxide solution, which is totally irrelevant to polyamic acid/polyimide gel formation. There is nothing in Zhang to suggest that use of gluconolactone would "allow the forming process of gel to become controlled and to substantially increase gel quality" in the method of Li. Zhang discloses a completely different material and process from that disclosed in Li. Further, Li does not acidify a polyamic acid salt, which is the role of the delta- gluconolactone in the instant claimed method. Accordingly, one of skill would have no reason to modify Li with the addition of an acid, and certainly not with gluconolactone as the acid source. Therefore, even if one were to consider the purported teachings of Zhang as having relevance to the method of Li, which is not conceded, there is nothing in Zhang to suggest use of gluconolactone to solubilize the polyamic acid salt of Li, and nothing to lead one to the method recited in instant claim 1.
In response, the addition of gluconolactone in Li’s method has nothing to do with polyamic acid. Zhang teaches gluconolactone in a graphene oxide gel precursor as a gel promotor that allows the forming process of gel become controlled and substantially increase gel quality [0121]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to add gluconolactone in Li’s graphene oxide gel precursor in order to allow the forming process of gel to become controlled and to substantially increase gel quality. Li does not teach away from adding gluconolactone due to the existence of polyamic acid. The role of gluconolactone in Li does not have to be acidifying a polyamic acid salt, which is the role of gluconolactone in the instant claimed method.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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) 1-2, 11-12, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (CN 111607227 A, machine translation is referenced herein) in view of Zhang et al (CN 102910625 A, machine translation is referenced herein).
Regarding claims 1-2, 11-12, Li teaches a method of forming a monolith graphene polyimide aerogel comprising reacting a diamine such as 4,4'-diaminodiphenyl ether [P6L44] with a dianhydride such as 3,3′,4,4′-benzophenone tetracarboxylic dianhydride [P6L48] in the presence of a basic amine such as triethylamine to form a polyamic acid (polyimide precursor) [P7L36-40]. The reaction mixture is dissolved in water [P2L46]. Therefore, it is an aqueous solution. The aerogel is a three-dimensional material that can withstand 90% of compressive strain, and can quickly restore the original state [P3L26-27]. Therefore, it is in monolithic form.
The polyamic acid precursor solution reads on the claimed aqueous solution of the polyamic acid salt, with the triethylamine reading on the recited base in claim 2.
The polyamic acid comprises 4,4'-oxydiphthalic acid coming from the 3,3′,4,4′-benzophenone tetracarboxylic dianhydride, which reads on the recited tetracarboxylic acid in claim 11.
The 4,4'-diaminodiphenyl ether reads on the recited diamine in claim 12.
Li does not teach “adding delta-gluconolactone to the aqueous solution of the polyamic acid salt to form a gelation mixture”.
In the same field of endeavor, Zhang teaches a method of forming a graphene aerogel comprising using a gel promotor gluconolactone, to not only allow the forming process of gel become controlled, and substantially increase gel quality [0020, 0121].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to add gluconolactone in Li’s method in order to allow the forming process of gel become controlled, and substantially increase gel quality.
The gluconolactone is art recognized as the recited delta-gluconolactone.
Li teaches pouring the precursor solution into a mold to form a wet gel [P2L56].
Li teaches washing the wet gel [P2L43-44].
Li teaches that the precursor aerogel is subjected to microwave imidization to form the polyimide composite aerogel material [P2L12-13].
Li teaches drying to form the aerogel [P2L59-60].
Regarding claim 13, Li teaches 1% imide precursor aqueous solution [P9L50-51], corresponding to 0.01 g of polyamic acid per cm3 of the solution, meeting the claimed range of about 0.01 to about 0.3 g of polyamic acid per cm3 of the solution.
Regarding claim 17, Zhang teaches drying the aerogel by lyophilizing [0024]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use lyophilizing method for drying Li’s polyimide composite aerogel material, as Zhang teaches that lyophilizing is suitable for similar aerogel materials.
Claim(s) 3-4 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Zhang as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Steiner et al (US 20220153951 A1).
Regarding claims 3-4, Li in view of Zhang teaches the method in claim 1. Li teaches basic amine such as triethylamine in preparing the polyamic acid precursor, but does not teach the claimed alkali metal hydroxide.
In the same field of endeavor, Steiner teaches a method of forming a monolith polyimide aerogel comprising reacting a diamine such as p-phenylenediamine with a dianhydride such as 3,3′,4,4′-benzophenone tetracarboxylic dianhydride in the presence of a catalyst [0005, 0033, 0091, 0092, 0096 and Example 4 in 0182-0184]. The solvent or pore fluid can be water [0033, 0129]. Steiner teaches that the catalyst can be tertiary amine and such as triethylamine, or alkali metal and alkaline earth metal hydroxides [0096].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to select lithium hydroxide, sodium hydroxide, or potassium hydroxide as the alkali metal hydroxide, as these are the most common ones in limited number of alkali metals (Lithium, Sodium, Potassium, Rubidium, Cesium, Francium).
It is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents for the same purpose where the equivalence is recognized by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.06. Since Steiner recognized triethylamine and alkali metal hydroxide are equivalent for the same purpose as the base catalyst in polyamic acid making, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of filing to substitute triethylamine with lithium hydroxide, sodium hydroxide, or potassium hydroxide in Li’s method.
Regarding claim 18, Li in view of Zhang teaches the method in claim 1. Li does not teach converting the polyimide aerogel to an isomorphic carbon aerogel, the converting comprising pyrolyzing the polyimide aerogel under inert atmosphere at a temperature of at least about 650 °C.
Steiner teaches a method of forming a monolith polyimide aerogel as stated above. Steiner further teaches carbonizing the polyimide aerogel by pyrolyzing the aerogel under inert atmosphere at a temperature of at least about 700 °C [0128].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to pyrolyze the polyimide aerogel under inert atmosphere at a temperature of at least about 700 °C, as Steiner demonstrated this is suitable for similar polyimide aerogel.
Since Li in view of Zhang and Steiner teaches the same composition and process, the claimed isomorphic carbon aerogel would be expected from this pyrolyzing process.
Regarding claim 19, Li in view of Zhang teaches the method in claim 1. Li does not teach adding an electroactive material to the aqueous solution of the polyamic acid salt.
According to the applicant, the recited electroactive material is silicon [0383 and 0388 spec.].
Stein teaches a method of forming a monolith polyimide aerogel as stated above. Steiner further teaches that the aerogel may contain silicon metalloid [0036].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to add silicon in Li’s composition, as it is expressly disclosed as being useful in this capacity. It has been established that selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious (Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)). See MPEP 2144.07.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIANGTIAN XU whose telephone number is (571)270-1621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
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, Robert Jones can be reached on (571) 270-7733. 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.
/JIANGTIAN XU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762
Prosecution Insights