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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Support for the limitation “wherein the packaging has a water vapor transmission rate in a range of 9.2 x 10-3 g/m2/day or less” is not found in the original closure. Table 1 discloses Example 1 has a WVTR of 9.2 x 10-3 g/m2/day.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 2, 14 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tajima (US 20160329533 A1, disclosed in IDS) in view of Izawa et al. (“Izawa”, JP 2014136653 A, see machine translation).
Regarding claim 2, Tajima teaches a packaging for a flexible secondary battery configured to be disposed around an outer surface of an electrode assembly of the flexible secondary battery (Tajima, Title, Abstract, Figs. 1, 4-6, 9-13 and 16, e.g., flexible secondary battery; a secondary battery comprises an inner structure and an exterior body that surrounds the inner structure; the inner structure comprises a positive electrode and a negative electrode; the exterior body comprises a first exterior film and a second exterior film), the packaging comprising:
a heat shrink layer (Tajima, Figs. 1-2, [0063], [0135], e.g., the exterior body 116 includes exterior films 112 and 113 (one of which is being interpreted as heat shrink layer) and a region 111 therebetween; as the exterior body 116, for example, an exterior film having a three-layer structure can be employed in which a layer (or a region) containing reduced graphene oxide is provided over a film containing an organic material such as polyethylene and a film containing an organic material such as an insulating synthetic resin , e.g. a polyester-based resin; the exterior body is folded inside in two, or two exterior bodies are stacked with the inner surfaces facing each other, in which case application of heat melts the materials on the overlapping inner surfaces to cause fusion bonding between the two exterior bodies (which are being interpreted as heat shrink layers));
a reduced graphene oxide layer disposed on the heat shrink layer, the reduced graphene oxide layer including a plurality of reduced graphene oxide sheets (Tajima, Figs. 1-2, [0063], [0067], [0073], e.g., the exterior body 116 includes exterior films 112 and 113 and a region 111 therebetween; in the region 111 (which is being interpreted as reduced graphene oxide layer), a plurality of thin flakes 114 (which are being interpreted as reduced graphene oxide sheets) including graphene or graphene oxide is stacked; graphene obtained by reducing graphene oxide (abbreviated to GO) is referred to as reduced graphene oxide (RGO); the region 111 may be formed by stacking the thin flakes 114 including sheets of reduced graphene oxide); and
a sealant layer disposed on the reduced graphene oxide layer (Tajima, Figs. 1-2, [0063], [0067], [0073], [0176], e.g., the exterior body 116 includes exterior films 112 and 113 (one of which is being interpreted as sealant layer) and a region 111 therebetween; in the region 111, a plurality of thin flakes 114 including graphene or graphene oxide is stacked; graphene obtained by reducing graphene oxide (abbreviated to GO) is referred to as reduced graphene oxide (RGO); the region 111 may be formed by stacking the thin flakes 114 including sheets of reduced graphene oxide; an exterior film having a three-layer structure can be used in which a layer (or a region) containing reduced graphene oxide is provided over a film containing an organic material such as polyethylene, and a film containing an organic material such as an insulating synthetic resin, e.g. a polyester-based resin, is provided as the outer surface of the exterior body over the layer containing reduced graphene oxide; with such a three-layer structure, permeation of an electrolytic solution and a gas can be blocked and an insulating property and resistance to the electrolytic solution can be obtained),
wherein each sheet of the plurality of reduced graphene oxide sheets has a structure of one to three layers of reduced graphene oxide particles and a thickness overlapping the claimed range of from 1 nm to 10 um (Tajima, Figs. 1-2, [0063], [0064], [0066], [0067], [0070], [0073], e.g., in the region 111, a plurality of thin flakes 114 (which are being interpreted as reduced graphene oxide sheets) including graphene or graphene oxide is stacked; graphene includes single-layer graphene and multilayer graphene including two or more and a hundred or less layers (which is being interpreted as graphene includes 1 to 100 layers graphene); single-layer graphene refers to a one-atom-thick sheet of carbon molecules having π bonds; graphene oxide refers to a compound formed by oxidation of such graphene; when graphene oxide is reduced to give graphene; graphene obtained by reducing the graphene oxide includes a region where an interlayer distance is greater than or equal to 0.335 nm and less than or equal to 0.700 nm (when the graphene includes 1 to 100 layers graphene and the interlayer distance is greater than or equal to 0.335 nm and less than or equal to 0.700 nm, the thickness of the reduced graphene oxide sheet (thin flake 114) overlaps the claimed range of from 1 nm to 10 um, therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.)); graphene obtained by reducing graphene oxide (abbreviated to GO) is referred to as reduced graphene oxide (RGO); the thin flakes 114 containing reduced graphene oxide are dispersed substantially uniformly in the region 111; the thin flakes 114 containing reduced graphene oxide are actually thin films each having a thickness corresponding to the thickness of a single layer or a multi-layer of carbon molecules; the region 111 may be formed by stacking the thin flakes 114 including sheets of reduced graphene oxide), and
wherein the reduced graphene oxide layer has a thickness overlapping the claimed range of from 100 nm to 100 um (Tajima, Figs. 1-2, [0063], [0064], [0066], [0067], [0070], [0073], e.g., in the region 111 (which is being interpreted as reduced graphene oxide layer), a plurality of thin flakes 114 (which are being interpreted as reduced graphene oxide sheets) including graphene or graphene oxide is stacked; graphene includes single-layer graphene and multilayer graphene including two or more and a hundred or less layers (which is being interpreted as graphene includes 1 to 100 layers graphene); single-layer graphene refers to a one-atom-thick sheet of carbon molecules having π bonds; graphene oxide refers to a compound formed by oxidation of such graphene; when graphene oxide is reduced to give graphene; graphene obtained by reducing the graphene oxide includes a region where an interlayer distance is greater than or equal to 0.335 nm and less than or equal to 0.700 nm; graphene obtained by reducing graphene oxide (abbreviated to GO) is referred to as reduced graphene oxide (RGO); the thin flakes 114 containing reduced graphene oxide are dispersed substantially uniformly in the region 111; the thin flakes 114 containing reduced graphene oxide are actually thin films each having a thickness corresponding to the thickness of a single layer or a multi-layer of carbon molecules; the region 111 may be formed by stacking the thin flakes 114 including sheets of reduced graphene oxide; the region 111 may be formed in such a manner that a plurality of thin flakes 114 containing reduced graphene oxide are stacked (when the graphene includes 1 to 100 layers graphene, the interlayer distance is greater than or equal to 0.335 nm and less than or equal to 0.700 nm, and reduced graphene oxide layer (region 111) formed by a plurality of reduced graphene oxide sheets (thin flakes 114) as shown in Figs. 1-2, the thickness of the reduced graphene oxide layer (region 111) overlaps the claimed range of from 100 nm to 100 um, therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.))),
wherein the reduced graphene oxide particles include a plurality of oxygen functional groups and is expected to be disposed at an edge of the reduced graphene oxide particles, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary (see MPEP § 2112) (Tajima, [0064], [0065], [0138], e.g., single-layer graphene refers to a one-atom-thick sheet of carbon molecules having π bonds; graphene oxide refers to a compound formed by oxidation of such graphene; when graphene oxide is reduced to give graphene, oxygen contained in the graphene oxide is not entirely released and part of the oxygen may remain in graphene; the graphene obtained by reducing the graphene oxide contains oxygen; the obtained graphite oxide is graphite which is oxidized in places and thus to which a functional group such as a carbonyl group, a carboxyl group, or a hydroxyl group is bonded (since the single-layer graphene refers to a one-atom-thick sheet of carbon molecules, the functional groups are expected to be bonded/disposed at an edge of the reduced graphene oxide particles, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary (see MPEP § 2112))), and
wherein adjacent sheets of the plurality of reduced graphene oxide sheets have an interlayer spacing overlapping in the claimed range of greater than 0.7 nm to 5.0 nm (Tajima, [0066], e.g., graphene obtained by reducing the graphene oxide includes a region where an interlayer distance is greater than or equal to 0.335 nm and less than or equal to 0.700 nm (which overlaps in the claimed range of greater than 0.7 nm to 5.0 nm)). Tajima’s range overlaps that of the claimed range; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (See MPEP § 2144.05, I.).
Tajima dose not teach the reduced graphene oxide layer including a plurality of reduced graphene oxide sheets and metal cations; and wherein the plurality of reduced graphene oxide sheets in the reduced graphene oxide layer forms electrostatic interactions between adjacent sheets of the plurality of reduced graphene oxide sheets via the metal cations.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Izawa teaches a film comprising a graphene oxide layer including a plurality of reduced graphene oxide sheets and metal cations; wherein the plurality of reduced graphene oxide sheets in the reduced graphene oxide layer is expected to form electrostatic interactions between adjacent sheets of the plurality of reduced graphene oxide sheets via the metal cations (Ag+), the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary (see MPEP § 2112); and wherein the reduced graphene oxide particles include a plurality of oxygen functional groups disposed at an edge of the reduced graphene oxide particles (Izawa, Title, Fig. 2, [0025], [0029], [0022], [0025], e.g., the obtained reduced graphene oxide, especially the metal-doped reduced graphene oxide, has a multilayer structure in which the metal ions intercalate as metal ions between the layers (which is being interpreted as plurality of reduced graphene oxide sheets in the reduced graphene oxide layer forms electrostatic interactions between adjacent sheets of the plurality of reduced graphene oxide sheets via the metal cations) (electrostatic interactions between adjacent sheets/layers via the metal cations (Ag+) is expected to be formed, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary (see MPEP § 2112)); silver metal doped graphene oxide; In graphene oxide, for example, as shown in the conceptual diagram shown in Figure 2, functional groups such as hydroxyl groups, ether groups, and carboxyl groups are assumed to be attached to benzene rings between layers or on the layer surfaces; (as shown in Fig. 2, the reduced graphene oxide particles include a plurality of oxygen functional groups disposed at an edge of the reduced graphene oxide particles)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the reduced graphene oxide layer including a plurality of reduced graphene oxide sheets and metal cations; wherein the plurality of reduced graphene oxide sheets in the reduced graphene oxide layer forms electrostatic interactions between adjacent sheets of the plurality of reduced graphene oxide sheets via the metal cations; and wherein the reduced graphene oxide particles include a plurality of oxygen functional groups disposed at an edge of the reduced graphene oxide particles, for the purpose of providing ionic bonding between layers (Izawa, [0025]).
The atomic radius of silver (Ag) is 0.144 nm. Tajima teaches in the region 111 (which is being interpreted as reduced graphene oxide layer), a plurality of thin flakes 114 (which are being interpreted as reduced graphene oxide sheets) including graphene or graphene oxide is stacked; graphene includes single-layer graphene and multilayer graphene including two or more and a hundred or less layers (which is being interpreted as graphene includes 1 to 100 layers graphene); single-layer graphene refers to a one-atom-thick sheet of carbon molecules having π bonds; graphene obtained by reducing the graphene oxide includes a region where an interlayer distance is greater than or equal to 0.335 nm and less than or equal to 0.700 nm as disclosed above.
Tajima in view of Izawa teaches each sheet of the plurality of reduced graphene oxide sheets has a structure of one to three layers of reduced graphene oxide particles and a thickness overlaps the claimed range of 1 nm to 10 um, and wherein the reduced graphene oxide layer has a thickness overlaps the claimed range of 100 nm to 100 um; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.)).
Regarding claim 14, Tajima teaches wherein each sheet of the plurality of reduced graphene oxide sheets has a thickness ranging from 0.002 to 10 um (Tajima, Figs. 1-2, [0063], [0064], [0066], [0067], [0070], [0073], e.g., in the region 111, a plurality of thin flakes 114 (which are being interpreted as reduced graphene oxide sheets) including graphene or graphene oxide is stacked; graphene includes single-layer graphene and multilayer graphene including two or more and a hundred or less layers (which is being interpreted as graphene includes 1 to 100 layers graphene); single-layer graphene refers to a one-atom-thick sheet of carbon molecules having π bonds; graphene oxide refers to a compound formed by oxidation of such graphene; when graphene oxide is reduced to give graphene; graphene obtained by reducing the graphene oxide includes a region where an interlayer distance is greater than or equal to 0.335 nm and less than or equal to 0.700 nm (when the graphene includes 1 to 100 layers graphene and the interlayer distance is greater than or equal to 0.335 nm and less than or equal to 0.700 nm, the thickness of the reduced graphene oxide sheet (thin flake 114) overlaps the claimed range of from 0.002 to 10 um, therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.)); graphene obtained by reducing graphene oxide (abbreviated to GO) is referred to as reduced graphene oxide (RGO); the thin flakes 114 containing reduced graphene oxide are dispersed substantially uniformly in the region 111; the thin flakes 114 containing reduced graphene oxide are actually thin films each having a thickness corresponding to the thickness of a single layer or a multi-layer of carbon molecules; the region 111 may be formed by stacking the thin flakes 114 including sheets of reduced graphene oxide).
Regarding claim 22, Tajima in view of Izawa teaches the film of claim 1 as disclosed above. Tajima does not teach wherein the metal cations include at least one of Li+, K+, Ag+, Mg2+, Ca2+, Cu2+, Pb2+, Co2+, A13+, Cr3+, or Fe3+.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Izawa teaches a film comprising plurality of reduced graphene oxide sheets in the reduced graphene oxide layer forms electrostatic interaction between adjacent ones of the reduced graphene oxide sheets via a metal ion; and wherein the metal cations include Ag+ (Izawa, Title, [0025], [0029], e.g., the obtained reduced graphene oxide, especially the metal-doped reduced graphene oxide, has a multilayer structure in which the metal ions intercalate as metal ions between the layers; silver metal doped graphene oxide).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the metal cations include Ag+, for the purpose of providing ionic bonding between layers (Izawa, [0025]).
Claims 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tajima (US 20160329533 A1, disclosed in IDS) in view of Izawa et al. (“Izawa”, JP 2014136653 A, see machine translation) and Kwon et al. (“Kwon”, US 20140335391 A1, disclosed in IDS).
Regarding claim 15, Tajima in view of Izawa teaches the packaging comprising the heat shrink layer, the reduced graphene oxide layer, and the sealant layer as disclosed in claim 2 above. Tajima in view of Izawa does not teach an adhesive layer between any two adjacent layers among the heat shrink layer, the reduced graphene oxide layer, and the sealant layer.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kwon teaches a packaging for a cable-type secondary battery, surrounding an electrode assembly in the cable-type secondary battery (Kwon, Title, Abstract, Fig. 7) comprising an adhesive layer may be added between the moisture-blocking film and the sealant polymer layers, so as to more enhance the adhesiveness (Kwon, Title, Fig. 3, [0064]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an adhesive layer between any two adjacent layers among the heat shrink layer, the reduced graphene oxide layer, and the sealant layer, for the purpose of enhancing the adhesiveness (Kwon, [0064]).
Regarding claim 20, Tajima in view of Izawa teaches a flexible secondary battery comprising: an electrode assembly; and the packaging, as disclosed in claim 2 above. Tajima teaches the packaging disposed around an outer surface of the electrode assembly (Tajima, Title, Abstract, Figs. 1, 4-6, 9-13 and 16, e.g., flexible secondary battery; a secondary battery comprises an inner structure and an exterior body that surrounds the inner structure; the inner structure comprises a positive electrode and a negative electrode; the exterior body comprises a first exterior film and a second exterior film).
Tajima in view of Izawa does not teach wherein the electrode assembly including an inner electrode, a separation layer formed around the inner electrode, and an outer electrode formed around an outer surface of the separation layer.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kwon teaches a packaging for a cable-type secondary battery, surrounding an electrode assembly in the cable-type secondary battery (Kwon, Title, Abstract, Fig. 7); and the electrode assembly 100 which comprises an inner electrode including an inner current collector 120 and an inner electrode active material layer 130 formed on a surface of the inner current collector 120, a separation layer 140 surrounding the inner electrode to prevent a short circuit between electrodes, and an outer electrode including an outer electrode active material layer 150 formed to surround the outer surface of the separation layer and an outer current collector 160 surrounding the outer surface of the outer electrode active material layer; and a packaging 170 surrounding the outer surface of the electrode assembly closely 100 (Kwon, Fig. 7, [0079]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the electrode assembly including an inner electrode, a separation layer formed around the inner electrode, and an outer electrode formed around an outer surface of the separation layer, for the purpose of flexibility and/or freely change in shape (Kwon, [0077], [0005]).
The change the stack form or shape of the battery of Tajima to a cylindrical form or shape of battery or cable form or shape of battery as Kwon, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tajima (US 20160329533 A1, disclosed in IDS) in view of Izawa et al. (“Izawa”, JP 2014136653 A, see machine translation) and Raveendran-Nair et al. (“Raveendran-Nair”, US 20170106342 A1, disclosed in IDS).
Regarding claim 16, Tajima in view of Izawa teaches the packaging for a flexible secondary battery as disclosed in claim 2 above. Tajima in view of Izawa does not teach wherein the heat shrink layer is surface modified.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Raveendran-Nair teaches a reduced graphene oxide barrier material for electronics packaging and chemical and corrosion protection applications (Raveendran-Nair, Title, [0026], [0116]); the reduced graphene oxide laminate may itself be the barrier material but more typically the reduced graphene oxide will be supported on a substrate, e.g. a polymer substrate to form a composite material which acts as the barrier (Raveendran-Nair, [0024]); the substrate may be a polymer substrate, e.g. a polymer film, polyethylene (PE) (which is being interpreted as heat shrink layer) (Raveendran-Nair, [0065]); and the substrate is a polymer substrate and the step of modifying the substrate comprises oxidising the surface of the substrate by exposing it to ozone and/or oxygen plasma to form an oxidised polymer substrate (Raveendran-Nair, [0043], Claim 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the heat shrink layer is surface modified, for the purpose of increasing the strength of the association between the substrate and the rGO laminate membrane (Raveendran-Nair, [0042], [0043]).
Claims 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tajima (US 20160329533 A1, disclosed in IDS) in view of Izawa et al. (“Izawa”, JP 2014136653 A, see machine translation) and Chen et al. ("Chen", US 20160293907 A1).
Regarding claim 23, Tajima in view of Izawa teaches the packaging for a flexible secondary battery as disclosed in claim 2 above. Tajima in view of Izawa dose not teach wherein the packaging has a water vapor transmission rate in a range of 9.2 x 10-3 g/m2/day or less.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Chen teaches a packaging for a battery having a water vapor transmission rate of ≦ 10-5 g/m2/day (which falls in the claimed range of 9.2 x 10-3 g/m2/day or less) (Chen, Title, [0085], claim 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the packaging has a water vapor transmission rate in a range of 9.2 x 10-3 g/m2/day or less, for the purpose of providing a hermetic enclosure (Ahn, [0085]).
Regarding claim 24, Tajima in view of Izawa and Ahn teaches the packaging for a flexible secondary battery comprising the water vapor transmission rate as disclosed in claim 23 above.
Claim 24 is considered product-by-process claim. Tajima in view of Izawa and Ahn teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed packaging. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. Claim 24 as written does not distinguish the product of the instant application from the product of the prior art. (See MPEP § 2113).
The closest prior arts to claim 25 are considered to be Tajima and Izawa. However, none of these references, either individually or in combination, teaches or fairly suggests wherein the metal cations include at least one of Li+, K+, Mg2+, Ca2+, Pb2+, Co2+, A13+, Cr3+, or Fe3+ as recited in claim 25.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/03/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “claim 2 now positively recites ‘a plurality of oxygen functional groups disposed at an edge of the reduced graphene oxide particles’ as well as ‘an interlayer spacing,’ which the Advisory Action relied on and which the cited art fails to teach or suggest. … In contrast, Izawa teaches preparing metal-doped graphene oxide first and then reduces it by heat treatment to obtain metal- doped RGO. (See [0023]-[0024] of Izawa). That is, while the present application discloses introducing metal cations after the reduction of graphene oxide, Izawa performs metal doping prior to reduction. As discussed in further detail below, the material obtained by treating RGO with metal cations (as in the instant application) is fundamentally different from the material obtained by reducing metal-doped GO (as in Izawa).
Difference in bonding mechanisms
When metal ions are introduced prior to reduction, as in Izawa, the metal cations form strong coordination or ionic bonds with oxygen-containing functional groups such as -OH, -COOH, and epoxy groups on the graphene oxide. Even after partial removal of these groups during reduction, the metal ions may remain embedded within the GO sheets. (See [0025] of Izawa). On the other hand, when metal cations are added after the reduction, as disclosed in the instant application, the RGO contains fewer oxygen functional groups. As a result, the metal cations interact electrostatically with the remaining functional groups (i.e., ‘a plurality of oxygen functional groups’) on the surface or edge of the RGO. (See [0051] of the application).
Structural differences resulting from bonding mechanisms
In the process described in Izawa, metal ions may intercalate between graphene layers or strongly bind with oxygenated groups, leading to increased interlayer spacing and a hydrophilic structure. Specifically, the interlayer spacing increases due to the size of the metal ions themselves. In addition, metal ions form coordination bonds with the oxygen-containing groups on the GO. These coordination bonds require specific directional geometry and bonding distances, which force the GO layers to be separated by a certain minimum distance. In particular, multivalent cations such as Cu+ and Al3 tend to coordinate with multiple oxygen groups simultaneously, thereby requiring even greater interlayer spacing. (See [0008], [0010], [0022] of Izawa). In contrast, when metal ions are added after reduction as disclosed in the instant application, the ions are mainly located at the edges and cannot easily penetrate into the basal planes. Thus, the recited ‘interlayer spacing’ is maintained, resulting in a less hydrophilic and more hydrophobic structure with improved moisture barrier properties. (See [0051] of the application).
Differences in material properties
The approach of introducing metal ions before reduction, as in Izawa, yields materials with good dispersibility in water, which is suitable for aqueous processing. However, such materials tend to have high water uptake, leading to poor moisture resistance. (See [0024] of Izawa). In contrast, the method of post-reduction metal ion treatment as disclosed in the instant application provides enhanced moisture barrier performance. (See [0048] and [0145] of the application).
As discussed above, the Advisory Action alleged that the arguments directed to differences in material properties are not commensurate with the scope of the claim because the moisture barrier property of the packaging is not positively recited in the claim. Newly presented dependent claim 23 positively recites a moisture barrier property of the packaging (i.e., ‘a water vapor transmission rate’) and newly presented dependent claim 24 further recites the method for determining the ‘water vapor transmission rate.’ (See [0048], [0143]-[0145] and Table 1 of the application). In contrast, Tajima fails to teach the recited range and merely teaches a general method that is distinct from that recited in newly presented claim 24. (See [0363]-[0365] of Tajima).
Electrostatic Interaction
Independent claim 2 recites ‘wherein the plurality of reduced graphene oxide sheets in the reduced graphene oxide layer forms electrostatic interactions between adjacent sheets of the plurality of reduced graphene oxide sheets via the metal cations.’ For such interactions to occur, metal cations like Cu+ must remain mobile and electrostatically interact with negatively charged groups on the RGO, effectively acting as a bridge between the sheets. (See [0051]-[0056] of the application). In contrast, in the process described in Izawa, metal ions are strongly bound to the oxygen functional groups of GO before reduction. During the reduction step, most of these groups are removed, and the metal ions become embedded within the material or immobilized in the structure. As a result, the metal ions cannot move freely or bridge adjacent RGO sheets. Therefore, the structure disclosed in Izawa does not enable electrostatic interaction between neighboring RGO layers through metal cations. (See [0024] of Izawa).” (Remarks/Arguments, Pages 9-11).
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Tajima teaches wherein the reduced graphene oxide particles include a plurality of oxygen functional groups and is expected to be disposed at an edge of the reduced graphene oxide particles, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary (see MPEP § 2112) (Tajima, [0064], [0065], [0138], e.g., single-layer graphene refers to a one-atom-thick sheet of carbon molecules having π bonds; graphene oxide refers to a compound formed by oxidation of such graphene; when graphene oxide is reduced to give graphene, oxygen contained in the graphene oxide is not entirely released and part of the oxygen may remain in graphene; the graphene obtained by reducing the graphene oxide contains oxygen; the obtained graphite oxide is graphite which is oxidized in places and thus to which a functional group such as a carbonyl group, a carboxyl group, or a hydroxyl group is bonded (since the single-layer graphene refers to a one-atom-thick sheet of carbon molecules, the functional groups are expected to be bonded/disposed at an edge of the reduced graphene oxide particles, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary (see MPEP § 2112))), and
wherein adjacent sheets of the plurality of reduced graphene oxide sheets have an interlayer spacing overlapping in the claimed range of greater than 0.7 nm to 5.0 nm (Tajima, [0066], e.g., graphene obtained by reducing the graphene oxide includes a region where an interlayer distance is greater than or equal to 0.335 nm and less than or equal to 0.700 nm (which overlaps in the claimed range of greater than 0.7 nm to 5.0 nm)). Tajima’s range overlaps that of the claimed range; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.).
Izawa teaches a film comprising a graphene oxide layer including a plurality of reduced graphene oxide sheets and metal cations; wherein the plurality of reduced graphene oxide sheets in the reduced graphene oxide layer is expected to form electrostatic interactions between adjacent sheets of the plurality of reduced graphene oxide sheets via the metal cations (Ag+), the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary (see MPEP § 2112); and wherein the reduced graphene oxide particles include a plurality of oxygen functional groups disposed at an edge of the reduced graphene oxide particles (Izawa, Title, Fig. 2, [0025], [0029], [0022], [0025], e.g., the obtained reduced graphene oxide, especially the metal-doped reduced graphene oxide, has a multilayer structure in which the metal ions intercalate as metal ions between the layers (which is being interpreted as plurality of reduced graphene oxide sheets in the reduced graphene oxide layer forms electrostatic interactions between adjacent sheets of the plurality of reduced graphene oxide sheets via the metal cations) (electrostatic interactions between adjacent sheets/layers via the metal cations (Ag+) is expected to be formed, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary (see MPEP § 2112)); silver metal doped graphene oxide; In graphene oxide, for example, as shown in the conceptual diagram shown in Figure 2, functional groups such as hydroxyl groups, ether groups, and carboxyl groups are assumed to be attached to benzene rings between layers or on the layer surfaces; (as shown in Fig. 2, the reduced graphene oxide particles include a plurality of oxygen functional groups disposed at an edge of the reduced graphene oxide particles)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the reduced graphene oxide layer including a plurality of reduced graphene oxide sheets and metal cations; wherein the plurality of reduced graphene oxide sheets in the reduced graphene oxide layer forms electrostatic interactions between adjacent sheets of the plurality of reduced graphene oxide sheets via the metal cations; and wherein the reduced graphene oxide particles include a plurality of oxygen functional groups disposed at an edge of the reduced graphene oxide particles, for the purpose of providing ionic bonding between layers (Izawa, [0025]).
Tajima in view of Izawa teaches the limitations “wherein the reduced graphene oxide particles include a plurality of oxygen functional groups disposed at an edge of the reduced graphene oxide particles, and wherein adjacent sheets of the plurality of reduced graphene oxide sheets have an interlayer spacing ranging from 0.7 nm to 5.0 nm” of claim 2 as disclosed above.
The product-by-process arguments is not commensurate in scope with claim 2. Tajima in view of Izawa teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claim 2. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. (See MPEP § 2113). The product-by-process arguments does not distinguish the product of the instant application from the product of the prior art.
Chen teaches a packaging for a battery having a water vapor transmission rate of ≦ 10-5 g/m2/day (which falls in the claimed range of 9.2 x 10-3 g/m2/day or less) (Chen, Title, [0085], claim 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the packaging has a water vapor transmission rate in a range of 9.2 x 10-3 g/m2/day or less, for the purpose of providing a hermetic enclosure (Ahn, [0085]).
Tajima in view of Izawa and Ahn teaches the packaging for a flexible secondary battery comprising the water vapor transmission rate as disclosed in claim 23 above. Claim 24 is considered product-by-process claim. Tajima in view of Izawa and Ahn teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed packaging. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. Claim 24 as written does not distinguish the product of the instant application from the product of the prior art. (See MPEP § 2113).
Electrostatic interactions are the forces between electric charges, either attractive (opposite charges) or repulsive (like charges). When two elements are brought together, either they attract each other or repull from each other, there is expected to have an electrostatic interaction, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary (see MPEP § 2112).
Izawa teaches the obtained reduced graphene oxide, especially the metal-doped reduced graphene oxide, has a multilayer structure in which the metal ions intercalate as metal ions between the layers (which is being interpreted as plurality of reduced graphene oxide sheets in the reduced graphene oxide layer forms electrostatic interactions between adjacent sheets of the plurality of reduced graphene oxide sheets via the metal cations) as disclosed above. Applicant has not provided proof of evidence to the contrary that a multilayer structure in which the metal ions intercalate as metal ions between the layers would not create electrostatic interaction.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAIXIA ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5697. The examiner can normally be reached Monday and Tuesday 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, Tiffany Legette can be reached at (571) 270-7078. 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.
/HAIXIA ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723