Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/811,439

HYGROSCOPIC POLYMER COMPOSITES AND RELATED MANUFACTURING METHODS

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Aug 21, 2024
Examiner
TRIVISONNO, ANGELO
Art Unit
1722
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Arizona Board of Regents
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
53%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
79%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 53% of resolved cases
53%
Career Allow Rate
350 granted / 664 resolved
-12.3% vs TC avg
Strong +26% interview lift
Without
With
+26.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
43 currently pending
Career history
707
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
53.2%
+13.2% vs TC avg
§102
15.8%
-24.2% vs TC avg
§112
25.5%
-14.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 664 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
DETAILED ACTION This is the first Office Action regarding application number 18/811,439, filed on 08/21/2024, which is a claims priority to PRO 63/535,339, filed on 08/30/2023. This action is in response to the Applicant’s Response received 10/28/2025. Election of Restricted Inventions The Applicant’s election of Group I and Species A1 and B1 in the reply is acknowledged. Status of Claims Claims 1-7, 11, 14, 16, 17, 19-21, 31, 32, 48-50, and 54 are currently pending. Claims 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 18, 22, 30, 33, 47, 51, 53, 55, and 58 are canceled. Claims 1, 48-50, and 54 are amended. Claims 1-7, 11, 14, 16, 17, 19-21, 31, 32, 48-50, and 54 are examined below. No claim is allowed. Claims 11 and 14 are understood to be non-obvious in view of the reviewed prior art references. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 Indefiniteness 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. Claims 6, 7, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 6 recites “an ionized polymeric matrix”, but this was already first recited in claim 1, so the examiner cannot determine whether this is the same or a distinct ionized polymeric matrix. Claims 7, 11, and 14 depend on claim 6 and incorporate by reference the same indefinite language, and are similarly rejected. 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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. Claims 1-7, 16, 17, 19-21, 31, 32, and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WEI (WO 2017/045114 A1). Regarding claim 1, WEI teaches a composite (“hydrogel composite”, claim 8) comprising: an ionomeric material having an ionized polymeric matrix to retain an equilibrated water content (poly(sodium acrylate), para. 101); and a water vapor permeable polymer material (“polymer foam” with high porosity, para. 101, and will be water vapor permeable as moisture can move through the porous structure), wherein the water vapor permeable polymer material supports a volume change of the ionomeric material between a contracted state having a first equilibrated water content and a swelled state having a second equilibrated water content, the second equilibrated water content being greater than the first equilibrated water content (para. 11: “The porous elastic polymeric foam provides a synergistic support structure for the hydrogel whist retaining the advantageous aqueous draw and swelling properties of the hydrogel”, describing that the foam supports the ionomeric material as the material swells from one state to another). Regarding claim 2, WEI teaches the composite of claim 1, further comprising: a reinforcement material to support a volume change of the ionomeric material or both the ionic material and the water vapor permeable polymer material between the contracted state and the swelled state (“at least one foam body” is interpreted to mean that multiple foam bodies may be utilized, where another foam body components would function as the recited reinforcement material). Regarding claim 3, WEI teaches the composite of claim 1, wherein the water vapor permeable polymer material comprises a porous matrix to facilitate water vapor permeation and provide a rigid framework to support the volume change of the ionomeric material between the contracted state and the swelled state (para. 11: “The porous elastic polymeric foam provides a synergistic support structure for the hydrogel whist retaining the advantageous aqueous draw and swelling properties of the hydrogel”, describing that the foam supports the ionomeric material as the material swells from one state to another). Regarding claim 4, WEI teaches the composite of claim 1, wherein the water vapor permeable polymer material is an elastomer to facilitate water vapor permeation and exhibits an elastic volume change between the contracted state and the swelled state (para. 11: “The porous elastic polymeric foam provides a synergistic support structure for the hydrogel whist retaining the advantageous aqueous draw and swelling properties of the hydrogel”, describing that the foam supports the ionomeric material as the material swells from one state to another, and is elastic since it is an elastomer). Regarding claim 5, WEI teaches the composite of claim 1, wherein the ionomeric material has a degree of crosslinking between 1-5 mol % (para. 28 describes the incorporation of crosslinking agents, and para. 31 lists several that would be available to skilled artisans; skilled artisans are already aware that crosslinking is useful for forming the polymer hydrogel, and would find it obvious to select an amount/degree of crosslinking greater than zero, and is only a result effective variable adjustable and easily derived according to ordinary design choice). Regarding claim 6, WEI teaches the composite of claim 1, further comprising a hygroscopic salt incorporated within an ionized polymeric matrix of the ionomeric material (multiple salts can be included in the polymer hydrogel, para. 29, and is obvious to duplicate the number of materials therein; para. 30 describes a combination of multiple materials). Regarding claim 7, WEI teaches the composite of claim 6, wherein the hygroscopic salt-incorporated ionomeric material is supported within the water vapor permeable polymer material; and, wherein the composite retains the equilibrated water content absorbed by the hygroscopic salt-incorporated ionomeric material within the water vapor permeable polymer material (each of the present ionomeric materials is supported within the polymer material, e.g., foam; and would therefore satisfy the recited intended function). Regarding claim 16, WEI teaches the composite of claim 1, wherein the composite exhibits a reversible water sorption capacity above 20 weight % of composite mass at 60% RH and 25°C in the absence of weeping (para. 23 describes that the composite may swell above 50 wt%). Regarding claim 17, WEI teaches the composite of claim 1, wherein the composite comprises air-permeable pores in the contracted state and the swelled state (since there are pores, air would be capable of traveling within the porous structure; this is only a functional limitation). Regarding claim 19, WEI teaches the composite of claim 1, wherein the water vapor permeable polymer material comprises a porous matrix, wherein the porous matrix of the water vapor permeable polymer material supports a volume change of the ionomeric material (para. 11: “The porous elastic polymeric foam provides a synergistic support structure for the hydrogel whist retaining the advantageous aqueous draw and swelling properties of the hydrogel”, describing that the foam supports the ionomeric material as the material swells from one state to another). Regarding claim 20, WEI teaches the composite of claim 1, wherein the water vapor permeable polymer material is provided as a foam configured to form around the ionomeric material in a super-swelled state such that air-permeable pores are present when the ionomeric material is in the contracted state, or in both the swelled state and the contracted state (the prior art composite meeting all of the previously recited limitations would be expected by skilled artisans to possess the identical properties and capabilities, including the recited super-swelling feature because the composite is fundamentally the same: a composite of an ionomeric material and a PU foam polymer). Regarding claim 21, WEI teaches the composite of claim 1, wherein the water vapor permeable polymer material comprises a polyisocyanurate foam, a polyurethane foam, a polyimide foam, a phenolic foam, or a combination thereof (para. 36 discloses PU foam). Regarding claim 31, WEI teaches the composite of claim 1, wherein the ionomeric material comprises a polyamide, a polyacrylamide, a polysaccharide, a polycarbonate, a polyisocyanate, a polyepoxide, a polyurethane, a peptide, an alginate, or a combination thereof (para. 26 describes polymers of amides and acrylamides). Regarding claim 32, WEI teaches the composite of claim 1, wherein the ionomeric material comprises poly diallyldimethylammonium chloride (poly-DADMAC), a modified chitosan material, or a combination thereof (para. 26 describes polymers of DADMAC as an alternative to the various other suitable equivalents). Regarding claim 48, WEI teaches the layer comprising: the composite of claim 1, wherein the composite receives heat from a surface such that water is evaporated from the composite to the ambient environment upon transition from the swelled state to the contracted state (the examiner determines that no further structure is recited, and concludes that the prior art composite, identical to and meeting every recitation of the claim 1 composite, would receive heat and evaporate water in an identical manner and would thus also meet the recited functional limitation and intended use). Claims 49, 50, and 54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WEI (WO 2017/045114 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of SIMPSON (US 2017/0263789 A1). Regarding claim 49, WEI teaches the layer of claim 48, but does not disclose expressly that the layer is configured to receive heat generated by a solar panel during a daytime operation such that water is evaporated from the composite to the ambient environment upon transition from the swelled state to the contracted state. The examiner interprets this claim to mean that a solar panel is present and thermally connected to the composite layer. SIMPSON teaches a passive cooling layer for a solar panel, wherein a hygroscopic composition is employed to absorb and evaporate water to perform solar panel cooling. Skilled artisans would have found it obvious to modify WEI and combine its composite layer with the solar panel of SIMPSON in order to provide a desirable cooling function to improve solar panel performance (SIMPSON, para. 58). Regarding claim 50, WEI teaches the layer of claim 48, but does not disclose expressly that the layer comprises: an inner layer contacting a backside of the solar panel; and an outer layer exposed to the ambient environment, the outer layer comprising the ionomeric material and the water vapor permeable polymer material, wherein the outer layer absorbs water vapor from ambient air during a nighttime period, and receives, via the inner layer, heat generated by the solar panel during the daytime operation to decrease the operating temperature of the solar panel, thereby increasing operating efficiency of the solar panel. SIMPSON teaches a passive cooling layer for a solar panel, wherein a hygroscopic composition is employed to absorb and evaporate water to perform solar panel cooling, and that an “inner layer” of a vapor permeable container (para. 23) may separate the passive cooling component from the PV units. Skilled artisans would have found it obvious to modify WEI and combine its composite layer with the solar panel and passive cooling structure components of SIMPSON in order to provide a desirable cooling function to improve solar panel performance (SIMPSON, para. 58). Regarding claim 54, WEI teaches the layer of claim 48, but does not disclose expressly a solar panel comprising: a plurality of solar cells, each of the solar cells comprising: a front side that faces the sun during a daytime operation to convert solar radiation impinging thereon into electrical energy and heat; and a backside opposite the front side; a transparent cover over the front sides of the solar cells; a backsheet on the backsides of the solar cells (all solar panels have a transparent glass/plastic front cover and a backside backsheet for substrate support); and, wherein the composite is configured to receive heat generated by the plurality of solar cells during a daytime operation such that water is evaporated from the composite to the ambient environment upon transition from a first state to a second state, the second state having a lower water content than the first state. SIMPSON teaches a passive cooling layer for a solar panel, wherein a hygroscopic composition is employed to absorb and evaporate water to perform solar panel cooling. Skilled artisans would have found it obvious to modify WEI and combine its composite layer with the solar panel of SIMPSON in order to provide a desirable cooling function to improve solar panel performance (SIMPSON, para. 58). Conclusion No claim is allowed. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELO TRIVISONNO whose telephone number is (571) 272-5201 or by email at <angelo.trivisonno@uspto.gov>. The examiner can normally be reached on MONDAY-FRIDAY, 9:00a-5:00pm EST. The examiner's supervisor, NIKI BAKHTIARI, can be reached at (571) 272-3433. /ANGELO TRIVISONNO/ Primary Examiner
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 21, 2024
Application Filed
Aug 21, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 30, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603601
Storm Resistant Mounting Methods for Renewable Energy Devices
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12604597
PEROVSKITE SOLAR CELL AND MANUFACTURING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601900
OPTICALLY CONCENTRATED THERMALLY STABILIZED PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12589956
DOCK LEVELER WITH SHIMLESS PIVOT BOSS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12587134
RECEIVER FOR FREE-SPACE OPTICAL POWER BEAMING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
53%
Grant Probability
79%
With Interview (+26.2%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 664 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month