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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 1/23/2026 does not place the application in condition for allowance.
The basis of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Park in view of Wang of claims 1, 3, 10 and 11 is maintained.
In view of the cancellation of claim 10, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Park in view of Wang of claim 10 is withdrawn.
New analysis follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of claim 1, applicant argues due to the use of the transitional phrase “consists of” within claim 1 regarding the diameter of the reduced graphene oxide this distinguish the claim over the cited art of Wang. However, claim 1 requires a diameter of 3 µm to less than 10 µm and Wang discloses a very similar and overlapping range of 1-10 µm which teaches particles only very slightly larger than the claimed less than 10 µm. While the examiner agrees the claimed range is slightly smaller than the cited range, the diameter limitation is still obvious in light of one of ordinary skill in the art having no reason to believe the size difference would result in criticality of the claimed range due to unexpected results. In other words, the claimed range and the range of Wang would not have any functional difference in their properties. In fact, the examiner notes a review of Figure 4 within the instant application of a SEM image of the porous reduced graphene oxide of Example 1 shows numerous spherical particles below the claimed 3 µm in addition to those within the range and this sample still provided improved specific capacity.
[A] prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.”. MPEP §2144.05.I.
Applicant also argues Wang does not clearly teach reduced graphene oxide, the referenced reduced graphene oxide is not a “graphene material”, Wang is directed toward a negative electrode material and makes other materials as positive electrode materials and does not include sulfur containing material as an active material. In the rejection of claim 1 Wang is relied upon to teach coated reduced graphene oxide produced by spray drying similar to Park but with a 1-10 µm particle size and is relied upon only for selecting the particle size to improve electrode fabrication, lithium ion transport and long term cycling. The other cited limitations including reduced graphene oxide, sulfur pores sizes etc. of claim 1 are presented within the Park reference and in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et. al. (WO2018044110, reference made to English translation) in view of Wang (US20150044564).
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses a sulfur-carbon composite comprising a porous reduced graphene oxide (¶[0048]) wherein sulfur is present (¶[0014] see active particle sulfur) in at least a part of the inside and a surface (¶[0015], see active particles are arranged on the inside and the surface of the porous carbon structure) of the porous reduced graphene oxide,
wherein the porous reduced graphene oxide comprises pores, wherein the pores comprise meso pores and macro pores having a size of 2 nm to 500 nm (¶[0066] see first internal pores having a size of 2 to 50 nm as meso pores and second internal pores having a size exceeding 50 nm as macro pores)
wherein the porous reduced graphene oxide is agglomerated to have a spherical shape(see three-dimensionally bonded carbon bodies ¶[0060], Fig. 3). Park also discloses that the size can be controlled by adjusting the nozzle size, and or spray pressure (¶[0059]) and the size may be further controlled by a grinding process after the drying stage (¶[0065]), but does not disclose the spherical shape consists of porous reduced graphene oxide with a diameter of 3 µm or more and less than 10µm.
Wang, related to graphene based particles, teaches reduced graphene oxide (¶[0020]) agglomerated into secondary particles (Fig. 2) by a spray dry technique (¶[0105]) with an ideal particle size of 1-10 µm to provide electrode fabrication ease, lithium ion transport, and long-term cycling stability (¶[0111]).
wherein sulfur is present (¶[0014] see active particle sulfur) in at least a part of the inside and a surface (¶[0015], see active particles are arranged on the inside and the surface of the porous carbon structure) of the porous reduced graphene oxide.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized selecting a particles size of 1-10 µm, as taught by Wang, would have improved electrode fabrication, lithium ion transport and long term cycling.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have produced the particles of Park within the particle size taught by Wang to improve electrode fabrication, lithium ion transport and long term cycling.
Applicant is reminded that a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. M.P.E.P. § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 3, Park discloses a porous reduced graphene oxide according to claim 1, wherein the pores of the porous reduced graphene oxide comprising pores have a hierarchical pore structure (¶[0013]).
Regarding claim 11, Park discloses the sulfur carbon-composite according to claim 10, wherein sulfur is mixed with the reduced graphene oxide at 40 wt% to 99 wt%, which is equivalent to a reduced graphene oxide to sulfur weight ratio of 1:0.67 to 1:99. Applicant is reminded that a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. M.P.E.P. § 2144.05.
Conclusion
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 KAREN J. ARMSTRONG whose telephone number is (703)756-1243. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 am-6 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, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
/K.J.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1726 /RYAN S CANNON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726