DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 11, 2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7 and 8 are currently amended. Claims 1-3, 5 and 7-14 are pending review in this action. The previous 35 U.S.C 112 rejections are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s corresponding amendments.
New grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendments are presented below.
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 1-3, 5, 7-10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nanotechnol, 28, p 465302, hereinafter Ding in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2020/0001587, hereinafter Zhang, J. Mater. Chem. A, vol. 3, pp 23483-23492, hereinafter Dabol, U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2018/0082796, hereinafter Mahrholz and U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0051639, hereinafter Hussain.
Regarding claim 1, Ding teaches a PDMS flexible substrate (abstract and figure 1).
A carbon-nanotube electrode is formed on one surface of the substrate (abstract and figure 3). The carbon-nanotube electrode includes an array of regularly arranged nanotubes (figure 1) – therefore it is “patterned”. The carbon-nanotube structure is porous due to the spacing between nanotubes and the lumen of each nanotube.
In the process of forming the structure, tips of the carbon nanotubes are partially immersed in the PDMS prior to curing (Section 2, 2nd paragraph). After curing, the carbon nanotubes are rooted into the PDMS (Section 2, 3rd paragraph). Thus, it is understood that PDMS is impregnated at least into the spaces (“pores”) between nanotubes.
The porous carbon-nanotube electrode includes reduced graphene oxide (Section 2, 5th paragraph and figure 1).
Ding teaches that the flexible electrode is suitable for energy devices (abstract).
Ding fails to teach: 1) that the pattern of the patterned porous electrode is an interdigitated shape; 2) a coating layer formed on another surface of the flexible substrate; and 3) that the electrode is “sticker-type”.
Regarding 1), Mahrholz teaches a supercapacitor (1) having two carbon nanotube electrodes (25 and 26) formed on a common substrate (2), such that each electrode (25/26) has an interdigitated shape (paragraphs [0062, 0064, 0067] and figure 4).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Mahrholz’s interdigitated pattern to Ding’s electrode for the purpose of constructing a supercapacitor on Ding’s flexible substrate.
Regarding 2), the Zhang reference has the same authors as Ding and discloses the same porous electrode (abstract and figure 1). Zhang teaches a supercapacitor including the flexible electrode and a gel electrolyte (paragraph [0028]).
It is known in the art to include hydroquinone into a gel electrolyte used in a supercapacitor for the purpose of improving the supercapacitor’s performance – see, e.g. Dubal (p. 23489, Section “Effects of hydroquinone doping in gel-electrolyte”).
It is further well-known to fully enclose carbon nanotubes of supercapacitor electrodes in electrolyte (10) – see, e.g. Mahrholz (paragraphs [0044, 0073]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include hydroquinone in the gel electrolyte of the supercapacitor in the combination of Ding and Zhang for the purpose of improving its performance and to form a coating layer of hydroquinone-doped gel electrolyte onto the flexible electrode such that it fully encloses the carbon nanotubes for the purpose of using the entire surfaces of the carbon nanotubes in the electrochemical reaction.
The structure of Ding as modified by Zhang, Dubal and Mahrholz would include the hydroquinone-doped gel electrolyte (“coating layer”) onto a surface of the flexible substrate that does not include the carbon nanotubes (“another surface”).
Regarding 3), the Zhang reference has the same authors as Ding and discloses the same porous electrode (abstract and figure 1). Zhang teaches a supercapacitor including the flexible electrode and teaches that it is suitable for the field of wearable electronics (paragraphs [0028, 0033]). Further, sticker electronics are well-known in the art – see, e.g. Hussain who teaches electronic stickers comprising flexible substrates and having an adhesive applied to one side to allow their attachment to suitable surfaces (abstract).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the supercapacitor of Ding as modified by Zhang as a “sticker-type” for the purpose of allowing it to be used as a wearable device.
Regarding claim 2, Ding teaches that the substrate is formed of PDMS (abstract). PDMS satisfies the instantly claimed formula 1 with R1 through R8 being CH3 (C1 alkyl groups).
Regarding claim 3, Ding teaches that an average spacing between the nanotubes is 50 nm (0.05 µm) (Section 2, 1st paragraph).
Regarding claim 5, Ding teaches that the porous carbon material includes carbon nanotubes (abstract).
Regarding claim 7, Ding as modified by Zhang and Dubal teaches a hydroquinone-doped gel electrolyte (“coating layer”).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Ding as modified by Muhrholz teaches a supercapacitor comprising the flexible substrate. A part of the flexible substrate is a positive electrode and another part is a negative electrode.
Regarding claim 10, Ding teaches that the height of the carbon nanotubes is about 50 µm (Section 2, 1st paragraph).
Therefore a width of the porous electrode along the length of the carbon nanotubes is 50 µm (0.05 mm).
Regarding claim 12, Ding as modified by Muhrholz teaches that the supercapacitor includes a positive electrode and a negative electrode, each with an interdigitated shape and facing each other (Muhrholz’s figure 4). Electrolyte is positioned between the positive electrode and the negative electrode.
Regarding claim 13, Ding as modified by Zhang teaches that the electrolyte is a solid electrolyte (Zhang’s paragraph [0028]).
Regarding claim 14, Ding as modified by Zhang teaches a wearable device comprising the supercapacitor (Zhang’s paragraph [0033]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nanotechnol, 28, p 465302, hereinafter Ding, U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2020/0001587, hereinafter Zhang, J. Mater. Chem. A, vol. 3, pp 23483-23492, hereinafter Dabol, U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2018/0082796, hereinafter Mahrholz and U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0051639, hereinafter Hussain as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2018/0277313, hereinafter Tabuchi.
Regarding claim 11, Ding as modified by Zhang teaches that in the supercapacitor the two electrodes are spaced apart by the gel electrolyte positioned between them (Zhang’s paragraph [0028]).
Ding as modified by Zhang does not report a thickness of the gel electrolyte.
Ding as modified by Zhang fails to teach the size of the distance between the two electrodes.
Tabuchi teaches a supercapacitor with carbon electrodes and a gel electrolyte positioned between them. Tabuchi teaches that the thickness of the gel electrolyte should be in the range 5 µm to 20 µm in order to ensure that the electrodes are adequately separated, while allowing for sufficient capacity (paragraph [0101]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a thickness for the gel electrolyte in the range 5 µm (0.005 mm) to 20 µm (0.02 mm) in the supercapacitor of Ding as modified by Zhang for the purpose of ensuring that the electrodes are adequately separated, while the capacity of the supercapacitor can be sufficiently high. In the combination of Ding, Zhang and Tabuchi the distance between the two electrodes would be in the range 5 µm (0.005 mm) to 20 µm (0.02 mm).
The optimum range of Ding, Zhang and Tabuchi overlaps the instant application's optimum range of 0.01 mm to 1 mm. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nanotechnol, 28, p 465302, hereinafter Ding, U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2020/0001587, hereinafter Zhang, J. Mater. Chem. A, vol. 3, pp 23483-23492, hereinafter Dabol, U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2018/0082796, hereinafter Mahrholz and U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0051639, hereinafter Hussain as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2015/0098167, hereinafter El-Kady.
Regarding claim 11, Ding as modified by Zhang and Mahrholz teaches that in the supercapacitor the two interdigitated electrodes are spaced apart by the gel electrolyte positioned between them (Zhang’s paragraph [0028]).
Ding as modified by Zhang and Mahrholz fails to teach the size of the distance between the two electrodes.
El-Kady teaches a supercapacitor with interdigitated electrodes. El-Kady teaches that a suitable distance between the electrodes is less than 150 µm (0.15 mm) (paragraph [0109] and figures 18A-20).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a distance between the interdigitated electrodes of less than 150 µm (0.15 mm) for the purpose of ensuring that the electrodes are adequately separated, while the capacity of the supercapacitor can be sufficiently high.
The optimum range of Ding, Zhang, Mahrholz and El-Kady overlaps the instant application's optimum range of 0.01 mm to 1 mm. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s newly added limitations have been considered. However, after further search and consideration, the combination of the Ding, Zhang, Dabol, Mahrholz and Hussain references has been provided, as recited above, to address the amended claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LILIA V NEDIALKOVA whose telephone number is (571)270-1538. The examiner can normally be reached 8.30 - 5.00 PM.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. 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.
LILIA V. NEDIALKOVA
Examiner
Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724