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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/04/2025 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites the limitation “good solvent” has been interpreted as “any solvent selected from the group consisting of water, glycerol, ethylene glycol, ethanol, acetonitrile, acetone, methanol, acetic acid, dimethyl sulfoxide, dimethylformamide and any combination thereof” which is consistent with page 2, lines 29-31 of the instant application.
Claims 1 recites the limitation “poor solvent” has been interpreted as “any solvent selected from the group consisting of ethanol, acetonitrile, acetone, methanol, acetic acid and any combination thereof” which is consistent with page 3, lines 13-14 of the instant application.
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) 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Supramolecular Ionogels Tougher than Metals (“Li et al” hereinafter Li), NPL copy provided, in view of CN113956501 (“Lu et al” hereinafter Lu), machine translation provided.
Regarding Claim 1, Li teaches a method for preparing an ionogel fiber based on a halogenometallate ionic liquid (abstract), comprising: (1) dissolving a polymer in a good solvent to obtain a polymer solution (Figure 1, PVA solution and page 2, para. 3, solution (20 wt%) was transferred to a silicone mold and subsequently evaporated at room temperature until the water content was 40 wt%, which implied the PVA is dissolved in water to obtain PVA solution); and carrying out a polymerization reaction under an action of an initiator to obtain a polymer solution (page 2, para. 2); and (3) immersing the polymer fiber in the halogenometallate ionic liquid for solvent exchange to obtain the ionogel fiber (Figure 1 and page 2, para. 2, the obtained PVA hydrogels were then immersed in the prepared halometallate ionic liquid (Figure S1, Supporting Information) for 24 h to ensure that the water is completely replaced to prepare ionogels).
Li fails to teach spinning the polymer solution obtained in Step (1) in a poor solvent to obtain a polymer fiber.
However, in the same field of manufacturing polyvinyl alcohol fiber, Lu teaches spinning the polymer solution (page 2, lines 1-5, mixing polyvinyl alcohol and solvent to obtain a spinning dope) obtained in Step (1) in a poor solvent to obtain a polymer fiber (page 2, lines 7-10, extruding the spinning dope into a coagulation bath, where the bath is one or more of acetone, methanol, ethanol and butanol (page 2, line 16)).
Li and Lu are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of manufacturing high-strength structure using polyvinyl alcohol material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the method as taught by Li such that it discloses all of the above mentioned limitations as taught by Lu to reduce the cost of manufacturing, create a reaction process that is green and environmentally friendly, and easily controlled (page 1, lines 37-42).
Regarding Claim 2, the modified Li teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein in Step (1), the polymer is selected from the group consisting of polyvinyl alcohol (Li, Figure 1, PVA solution and page 2, para. 3).
Regarding Claim 3, the modified Li teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein in Step (1), the polymer has a molecular weight of 5kDa-1MDa (Li, Figure 1, PVA solution and page 2, para. 3 discloses the polymer is polyvinyl alcohol which is known to have the molecular weight within the claimed range. Furthermore, page 9, line 16 of instant application discloses PVA having a molecular weight of 198000 Da).
Regarding Claim 4, the modified Li teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein in Step (1), the good solvent is selected from the group consisting of water (Li, Figure 1, PVA solution and page 2, para. 3, solution (20 wt%) was transferred to a silicone mold and subsequently evaporated at room temperature until the water content was 40 wt%, which implied the PVA is dissolved in water to obtain PVA solution), glycerol, ethylene glycol, ethanol, acetonitrile, acetone, methanol, acetic acid, dimethyl sulfoxide, dimethylformamide and any combination thereof.
Regarding Claim 5, the modified Li teaches the method according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein in Step (1), the polymer and the good solvent have a mass ratio of 1: (0.1-10).
However, Lu teaches the polymer and the good solvent page 2, lines 1-5, mixing polyvinyl alcohol and solvent to obtain a spinning dope; where the solvent might be water, page 4, lines 1-3) have a mass ratio of 1: (0.1-10) (page 3, lines 48-50, in the present invention, the mass fraction of polyvinyl alcohol in the spinning dope is preferably 7-50%, more preferably 10%).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the PVA solution disclosed by Li by the PVA spinning dope as taught by Lu because utilizing one known PVA solution in place of another PVA solution also suitability in the field of manufacturing high-strength structure using PVA solution is well within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding Claim 6, the modified Li teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein in Step (2), the poor solvent is selected from the group consisting of ethanol, acetonitrile, acetone, methanol (Lu, page 2, lines 7-10, extruding the spinning dope into a coagulation bath, where the bath is one or more of acetone, methanol, ethanol and butanol (page 2, line 16)), acetic acid and any combination thereof.
Regarding Claim 7, the modified Li teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein in Step (2), the poor solvent has a mass fraction of 5%-100% (Lu, page 4, lines 11-14, the coagulation bath is, more preferably a mixed solution of acetone and methanol; the mixed solution of acetone and methanol in the mixed solution of acetone and methanol The volume ratio is preferably 85:15).
Since the claimed range overlaps or lies inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Please see MPEP 2144.05(I) and In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) for further details.
Regarding Claim 8, the modified Li teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein in Step (3), the halogenometallate ionic liquid is selected from the group consisting of 1-butyl-3-methylimidazolium zinc bromide (Li, page 2, para. 1, halometallate ionic liquids including [Bmim][ZnxBry]).
Regarding Claim 9, the modified Li teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein in Step (3), the polymer fiber and the halogenometallate ionic liquid have a mass ratio of 1: (0.1-100) (Li, page 3, para. 2).
Regarding Claim 10, the modified Li teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising cyclic stretch-release training after the solvent exchange in Step (3) (Li, page 2, para. 2-page 3, para. 1. stretching (orientation regular arrangement of polymer chains) process to strengthen the ionogels and page 6, para. 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XINWEN (Cindy) YE whose telephone number is (571)272-3010. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:30 - 17:00.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. 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.
XINWEN (CINDY) YE
Examiner
Art Unit 1754
/MATTHEW J DANIELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights