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 .
Status of Claims
This is a final office action for application 17/691,604 in response to the amendment(s) filed on 06/16/2026. Claims 6 and 8-11 are under examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/19/2026 is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 06/16/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Amended claim 6 incorporates the thickness limitation previously recited in claim 7. As explained in the prior Non Final Office action, He discloses a protective composite layer having a thickness of 1 nm to 100 μm, which encompasses the presently claimed range of about 25 μm to about 50 μm. Accordingly, the claimed range remains obvious.
Furthermore, Applicant relies on paragraph [0049] of the instant specification, but that paragraph provides no comparative data demonstrating that the claimed range produces an unexpected result relative to He’s range. Moreover, the only working example in the instant specification utilizes a 15 μm nanocomposite layer (see e.g. Example 1 in paragraph [0052] of the instant specification), which is outside the presently claimed range, in an anode-free half-cell using a separator and liquid electrolyte. The example compares the 15 μm layer with the absence of a nanocomposite layer (see e.g. Comparative Example 1 in paragraph [0055] of the instant specification) and therefore demonstrates, at most, a benefit attributable to the presence of the layer generally, rather than criticality of the claimed 25–50 μm range. Accordingly, Applicant has not established unexpected results having sufficient patentable weight, that is commensurate scope with amended claim 6. Thus, in conclusion, the U.S.C. 103 rejection is maintained. See claims 6 and 8-11 rejections below.
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 6, 8-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al. (US-20200028178-A1) and further in view of Ding et al. ( Preparation of Amino-functionalized Multiwall Carbon Nanotube/Gold Nanoparticle Composites, 02 March 2010, Chinese Journal of Chemistry, Volume 28).
Regarding Claim 6, He discloses a battery (see e.g. "lithium-sulfur battery" in paragraph [0018] and FIG. 2), comprising:
a negative electrode current collector (see e.g. "anode current collector" in paragraph [0019] and FIG. 2);
a negative electrode disposed on the negative electrode current collector (see e.g. "anode active material layer" in paragraph [0019] and FIG. 2);
a nanocomposite layer in contact with the negative electrode (see e.g. " a discrete anode-protecting layer disposed between the anode active material layer and the porous separator "and "the anode-protecting layer or cathode-protecting layer comprises a conductive sulfonated elastomer composite" in paragraph [0019] and FIG. 2), and the nanocomposite layer has a thickness of about 1 nm to 100 µm (see e.g., "the layer of conductive sulfonated elastomer composite has a thickness from 1 nm to 100 μm" in paragraph [0047])., wherein the nanocomposite layer comprises:
a carbon nanotube material (see e.g. "the conductive reinforcement material is selected from... carbon nanotubes); and
a lithium salt polymer composite (see e.g. "lithium ion-conducting additive" in paragraph [0035]) wrapping the carbon nanotube composite material (see e.g. paragraph [0141]).
While He discloses that the carbon nanotubes are mixed with the polymer electrolyte and the instant application claims wrapping, it appears that mixing meets the definition of wrapping based on the disclosure. Because there is no description as to what wrapping is in the specification under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, the claimed “wrapping” encompasses the mixing or embedding of CNTs within a polymer composite matrix as disclosed by He.
He further discloses that the lithium salt polymer composite comprises a first polymer (see e.g. "the sulfonated elastomer matrix forms a mixture or blend with a lithium ion-c conducting polymer selected from... poly(vinylidene fluoride) (PVDF)" in paragraph [0038]), a second polymer (see e.g. "the sulfonated elastomer matrix forms a mixture or blend with a lithium ion- conducting polymer selected from... poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA)" in paragraph [0038]), and a lithium salt (see e.g. "lithium salts" in paragraph [0036]), wherein the first polymer is a piezoelectric polymer (see e.g. "poly(vinylidene fluoride) (PVDF)" in paragraph [0038]), the second polymer is a doping molecule that is miscible with the first polymer (see e.g. poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA)" in paragraph [0038]).
He does not explicitly disclose that the second polymer is configured to change a crystal structure of the first polymer, however, it is well known in the art that blending PMMA with PVDF alters the crystalline phase of PVDF (see e.g. paragraphs [0036]-[0037] of the instant specification). Therefore the PMMA of He would inherently modify the crystal structure of PVDF.
He further discloses a solid-state electrolyte (see e.g. "The electrolyte for an alkali metal-sulfur cell may be... solid-state electrolyte" in paragraph [0117]) disposed on the nanocomposite layer (see e.g. "separator is not required where a solid state electrolyte is used, for instance" in paragraph [0071] and FIG. 2);
a positive electrode disposed on the solid-state electrolyte (see e.g. "cathode active material layer" in paragraph [0019] and FIG. 2); and
a positive electrode current collector disposed on the positive electrode (see e.g. "cathode current collector" in paragraph [0019] and FIG. 2).
He discloses a range that overlaps with the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a range that overlaps with the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
He does not disclose that the carbon nanotube composite material comprises a surface-modified carbon nanotube with a positively charged group and a plurality of nanoparticles with a negatively charged group, wherein the plurality of nanoparticles are attached to the surface-modified carbon nanotube, and a surface of the surface-modified carbon nanotube has a NH(CH2)2-NH3+ group or a NH3+ group.
Ding, however, in the same field of endeavor, nano materials for electrical applications, discloses a carbon nanotube composite material (see e.g. "MWNT/gold nanoparticle composite" in Abstract of Ding) comprising a surface-modified carbon nanotube with a positively charged group (see e.g. " amino-functionalized MWNT" in Abstract and "Amino-functionalization of MWNT with ethylenediamine" on page 209 of Ding) and a plurality of nanoparticles with a negatively charged group, wherein the plurality of nanoparticles are attached to the surface-modified carbon nanotube (see e.g. "MWNT/gold nanoparticle composites were formed when the amino-functionalized MWNT was interacted with gold colloids" in Abstract and "Negatively charged gold nanoparticles were anchored on the sur-face of the amino-functionalized MWNT." in Introduction of Ding) and a surface of the surface-modified carbon nanotube has a ethylenediamine group (see e.g. "Amino-functionalization of MWNT with ethylenediamine" on page 209 of Ding). Ethylenediamine has the chemical formula NH(CH2)2-NH2, however, Ding also discloses that the amino functionalized carbon nanotubes are dispersed in water (see e.g. "The amino-functionalized MWNT can be easily dispersed in deionized water to form stable suspensions. " on page 209 paragraph starting with "FTIR spectra" of Ding). When dispersed in water ethylenediamine is easily protonated and when protonated become NH(CH2)2-NH3+ which is the same species as what is claimed by the instant application.
Ding also teaches that the amino-functionalized MWNT/gold nanoparticle composite preserves the intrinsic electronic properties of MWNTs, unlike composites prepared with polyelectrolytes, which can alter connectivity; this makes this specific amino-functionalized MWNT/gold nanoparticle composite more advantageous for electronic application, such as batteries (see e.g. MWNT/gold nanoparticle composites section and Conclusion section of Ding). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the carbon nanotube of He et al. such that they include the surface modified carbon nanotubes of Ding et al. in order to preserve the intrinsic electronic properties of MWNTs as suggested by Ding.
Regarding Claim 8, He in view of Ding discloses the battery of claim 6 (see e.g. claim 6 rejection above).
He does not disclose that a surface of the surface-modified carbon nanotube has an amido group.
Ding, however, discloses that the surface of the surface modified carbon nanotube is amino functionalized (see e.g., "the amino-functionalized MWNT" in Abstract of Ding). Ding also discloses the presence of O-C=O (carboxylic acid) and the presence of amide carbonyl groups in the amino-functionalized MWNTs (see e.g. "These results further confirmed the presence of the amide carbonyl group." in FTIR analysis section page 209 and "was attributed to the presence of O—C＝O (carboxylic acid)." and "indicates the conversion of the COOH groups to CONH groups" in the XPS analysis Section page 210 of Ding). In this case Ding discloses that the carbon nanotubes have amido groups present.
Ding also teaches that the amino-functionalized MWNT/gold nanoparticle composite preserve the intrinsic electronic properties of MWNTs, unlike composites prepared with polyelectrolytes, which can alter conductivity; this makes this specific amino-functionalized MWNT/gold nanoparticle composite more advantageous for electronic application, such as batteries (see e.g. MWNT/gold nanoparticle composites section and Conclusion section of Ding). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the carbon nanotube of He et al. such that they include the surface modified carbon nanotube having an amido group as taught by Ding et al. in order to preserve the intrinsic electronic properties of MWNTs as suggested by Ding.
Regarding Claim 9, He in view of Ding discloses the battery of claim 6 (see e.g. claim 6 rejection above).
He does not disclose that that the plurality of nanoparticles comprises silver nanoparticles, gold nanoparticles, aluminum nanoparticles, aluminum oxide nanoparticles, or combinations thereof.
Ding, however, discloses that the plurality of nanoparticles comprises of gold nanoparticles (see e.g., "MWNT/gold nanoparticle composite" in Abstract of Ding).
Ding also teaches that the amino-functionalized MWNT/gold nanoparticle composite preserve the intrinsic electronic properties of MWNTs, unlike composites prepared with polyelectrolytes, which can alter conductivity; this makes this specific amino-functionalized MWNT/gold nanoparticle composite more advantageous for electronic application, such as batteries (see e.g. MWNT/gold nanoparticle composites section and Conclusion section of Ding). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the carbon nanotube of He et al. such that the carbon nanotubes have nanoparticles comprises of gold nanoparticles as taught by Ding et al. in order to preserve the intrinsic electronic properties of MWNTs as suggested by Ding.
Regarding Claim 11, He in view of Ding discloses the battery of claim 6 (see e.g. claim 6 rejection above).
He further discloses that he piezoelectric polymer comprises polyvinylidene difluoride, polydimethylsiloxane, or combinations thereof (see e.g. "the sulfonated elastomer matrix forms a mixture or blend with a lithium ion-conducting polymer selected from... poly(vinylidene fluoride) (PVDF)... polydimethylsiloxane" in paragraph [0038]), and the doping molecule comprises poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) (see e.g. "the sulfonated elastomer matrix forms a mixture or blend with a lithium ion-conducting polymer selected from... poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA)" in paragraph [0038]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al. (US-20200028178-A1) in view of Ding et al. ( Preparation of Amino-functionalized Multiwall Carbon Nanotube/Gold Nanoparticle Composites, 02 March 2010, Chinese Journal of Chemistry, Volume 28) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Chinh et al. (Synthesis of Gold Nanoparticles Decorated with Multiwalled Carbon Nanotubes (Au-MWCNTs) via Cysteaminium Chloride Functionalization, 05 April 2019, Nature Scientific Reports, Volume 9).
Regarding Claim 10, He in view of Ding discloses the battery of claim 6 (see e.g. claim 6 rejection above).
He does not disclose that the plurality of nanoparticles has an average particle size of about 10 to 120 nm.
Ding, however, discloses a plurality of nanoparticles with a particle size of less than 50 nm (see e.g. FIG. 3 of Ding).
Ding does not explicitly disclose an average particle size of 10 to 120 nm, the TEM image with a scale bar provides a visual representation of the gold nanoparticles, demonstrating that they are less than 50 nm.
Furthermore, Chinh, which is in the same field of endeavor as Ding and relates to the synthesis of gold nanoparticles on multiwalled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs), discloses a method of synthesizing gold nanoparticles with a particle size distribution in the range of 15-35 nm (see e.g. “the gold NPs are spheroidal and particle size distribution ranges mainly in the order of 15–35 nm” in the Synthesis of AuNPs Decorated CNTs section, paragraph starting with “To prepare” on page 7, and FIG. 8 on page 6 of Chinh).
Chinh discloses a range that lies within the claimed range of the instant application. In cases where the prior art discloses a range that falls within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Additionally, Chinh teaches that synthesizing gold nanoparticles within a particle size range of 15-35 nm allows for chemical linkage to MWCNTs without the use of hazardous chemicals, providing a safer and more practical approach for manufacturing carbon nanotube composites for battery applications (see e.g. Conclusion of Chinh). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the nanoparticles of He in view of Ding such that the nanoparticles have an average particle size of 15-35 nm as taught by Chinh et al. in order to synthesize these particles without the use of hazardous chemicals, providing a safer more practical approach for manufacturing carbon nanotube composites as suggested by Chinh.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure:
Park et al. (US-20190341601-A1)
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSE EFYMOW whose telephone number is (571)270-0795. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 10:30 am - 8:30 pm EST.
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, TONG GUO can be reached at (571) 272-3066. 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.
/J.J.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/NICHOLAS P D'ANIELLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights