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 . The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 9, 14, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Szaloky 20180013134 taken with Oh et al. 6515845 and optionally in view of Repik et al. 2933454, Cai et al. 20120300364 and Nikova et al. 20140120339.
Szaloky teaches, especially in figure 6 and paragraphs 94-106, 151 and 294, porous carbon material having density of 0.344. Note the discussion of the packing of the articles, which suggests that this is bulk density. In so far as it is not explicitly identified as such, arriving at the claimed bulk density is obvious to achieve the desired electrolyte infiltration; see paras 94-100.
This differs in not teaching the claimed pore sizes, however Oh teaches in col. 2 that pore sizes of 5nm are suitable for organic electrolytes. Thus, forming the claimed size pores in the material of Szaloky is obvious to provide effective molecular mobility and/or the desired results extensively discussed by Szaloky. The intended use of claims 14 and 20 do not limit the material.
In so far as the pore structure is not explicitly described in the claimed terms, Repik teaches in columns 2 and 6 the roles of the various pore sizes and how they are measured, Cai teaches in fig. 2 a representation of pore structure and Nikova teaches, especially in paras. 101 and 127-135, that NOVOLAC resins create the claimed pores. Thus, no differences are seen in the pores.
For the new limitation that several batches are combined, repeating the experiments to create additional material- and arriving a similar products- is obvious to create amounts suitable for sale and assure a homogeneous product.
Claims 1, 2, 9, 10, 14, 16, 17, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cordoneanu et al. 20090093561, alone or in view of Repik et al. 2933454, Cai et al. 20120300364, Nikova et al. 20140120339, Szaloky 20180013134 and Oh et al. 6515845
Cordoneanu teaches, especially in para 14 and table 2, carbonized materials having bulk density of 0.131 and 0.133 and pores of 5-100 microns. Micropores and mesopores are also discussed. While the features claimed are not discussed, forming a pore distribution which would conform to the claimed ratio is obvious to create the desired characteristics as discussed in para 15. While not described in the same manner, no difference is seen since the pore distribution is the same as claimed- especially since both the reference and the specification start with polymers. See also paragraph 33. The teaches of wall pores being microporous is noted, however are encompassed by the variation of ‘about’ 3nm.
The intended use of claims 14 and 20 do not limit the material.
In so far as the pore structure is not explicitly described in the claimed terms, Repik teaches in columns 2 and 6 the roles of the various pore sizes and how they are measured, Cai teaches in fig. 2 a representation of pore structure and Nikova teaches, especially in paras. 101 and 127-135, that NOVOLAC resins create the claimed pores. Slazoky has been discussed above and Oh teaches in figs. 3 and 6 actual micrographs of pores and col.1-2 which discuss pore size versus impregnation issues. Thus, no differences are seen in the pores.
For the new limitation that several batches are combined, repeating the experiments to create additional material- and arriving a similar products- is obvious to create amounts suitable for sale and assure a homogeneous product.
Double Patenting
Claims 1-4, 9-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 12304817.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they claim common subject matter in that the pore and density ranges overlap.
Even though the present material is not described as a ‘foam’ the claims encompass one and the similarity of the synthesis (phenol-formaldehyde resin and hexamine in glycol) implies that a foam is formed.
Repeating the experiments to create additional material- and arriving a similar products- is obvious to create amounts suitable for sale and assure a homogeneous product.
Applicant's arguments filed 7/2/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has taken a suggestion meant to assist them in getting the claims to be patentable and apparently taken it to be an admission that the references have ‘not been applied properly to the claims’ (remarks pg. 7). This is incorrect; the rejections are proper and maintained. The interconnected pore structure argument appears to be essentially the same argument previously made, and was addressed in the last Office Action. No differences are seen in the pore structure and previous remarks are pertinent and are incorporated herein. Nikova paras 57-59 also teach the glycol porogen used by applicant in spec para 31. See also the references cited in the Office Action of 10/15/24.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
/STUART L HENDRICKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights