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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/05/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 5 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng, et. al., Editable asymmetric all-solid-state supercapacitors based on high-strength, flexible, and programmable 2D-metal–organic framework/ reduced graphene oxide self-assembled papers, 6 J. Mater. Chem. A. 20254 (2018), in view of Dennis, et. al., High Electrical Conductivity in Ni 3 (2,3,6,7,10,11-hexaiminotriphenylene) 2 , a Semiconducting Metal–Organic Graphene Analogue, J Am Chem Soc. 2014 Jun 25, 136 (25), p. 8859-62 (for attached citation, see p.2-7), Chai, et. al. (US2019103231A1), and Mitlin, et. al. (US 20180083331 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Cheng teaches a two-dimensional Ni-organic framework/rGO composite (“self-assembled 2D metal–organic framework (MOF)/reduced graphene oxide (rGO) papers”) comprising: a two-dimensional electroconductive Ni-organic framework (“2D Ni-MOF nanosheets with similar rectangle-like structures . . . the 2D-MOF/rGO composite papers . . . [have] electrical conductivity”) wherein an organic ligand and Ni (see above) are repeatedly bonded in a branched form; and reduced graphene oxide (rGO) (“reduced graphene oxide”). Cheng at 20254-5.
Cheng teaches an organic ligand 5,10,15,20-tetrakis(4-carboxyl-phenyl)-porphyrin (TCPP) which is repeatedly bonded with Ni, but is silent as to substituted or unsubstituted C6-C30 arylhexamine “are repeatedly bonded in a branched form.”
Dennis teaches a 2D metal-organic network comprising Ni3(2,3,6,7,10,11 hexaiminotriphenylene)2, wherein the metal organic graphene displays semiconducting behavior and high electrical conductivity. Dennis at p.2. Scheme 1 of Dennis depicts a branched cyclical molecule, comprising repeating Ni / arylhexamine groups in a pentagonal ring shape. Id. at p.3 Dennis teaches a benefit to conductivity, namely, “despite the small particle size, the numerous inter-grain boundaries, and the electrode contact resistances, the pellet conductivity of Ni3(HITP)2 was 2 S cm-1. This is on the same order of magnitude as the two probe pellet conductivity of some of the best organic conductors . . . [and] the bulk conductivity of Ni3(HITP)2 is one order of magnitude higher than that of the best s-MOGs, and at least two orders of magnitude better than the most conducting MOFs to date.” Id. at p.5. Further, this at least implies that in a setup with more beneficial conditions without inter-grain barriers, or without the mitigating factor of a low particle size, that conductivity may increase; this indicates a potential benefit to incorporating this molecule into an organic framework – rGO system to improve these conductivity characteristics.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify the two-dimensional Ni-organic framework / rGO composite of Cheng, to utilize the Ni3(2,3,6,7,10,11 hexaminotriphenylene)2 of Dennis, because Dennis teaches a benefit to conductivity.
However, modified Cheng is silent as to wherein the two-dimensional electroconductive Ni-organic framework forms spherical particles by aggregation of two-dimensional structures; the rGO is in the form of overlapping nanosheets; and the spherical particles are stacked on the nanosheets, uniformly distributed over the entire surface of the nanosheets, and interposed between the nanosheets.
Chai teaches a cathode material comprising “a cathode active material that contains both graphene sheets and a 2D inorganic material, in a form of nanodiscs, nanoplatelets, or nanosheets, selected from: . . . (c) sulfide, nickel, or a transition metal . . . wherein the nanodiscs, platelets, or sheets, having a thickness less than 10 nm, are bonded to or supported by primary surfaces (not the edge faces) of the graphene sheets and the 2D inorganic material and the graphene sheets. Chai at [0015]. Chai describes these platelets as having a thickness less than 100 nm; while Chai does not directly state these platelets of the 2D inorganic material may form aggregations of particles, in the case of nano-graphene platelets, Chai notes a platelet thickness of 100 nm indicates a multi-layer. Id. at [0053]. Further, the 2D inorganic nano-platelets of Chai, shown in Fig. 1 below, are depicted as spherical circles 20a bonded to the rGO sheets 20b. Fig. 1 of Chai.
PNG
media_image1.png
464
583
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Chai.
This provides an implied teaching of “the two-dimensional electroconductive Ni-organic framework forms spherical particles by aggregation of two-dimensional structures; the rGO is in the form of overlapping nanosheets; and the spherical particles are stacked on the nanosheets, uniformly distributed over the entire surface of the nanosheets, and interposed between the nanosheets.” Chai teaches that “[0020] The graphene sheets, a 2D carbon-based material, also have an ultra-high aspect ratio. As such, the contact area between a 2D inorganic material (nanodisc, sheet, or platelet) and a graphene sheet is huge, as large as a primary surface area of a 2D inorganic material. Such a face-to-face or primary surface-to-primary surface contact enables fast and massive electron charge transfer between the two members (graphene and 2D inorganic material) of a redox pair, leading to unexpectedly high pseudocapacitance.”
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to further modify the 2D Ni-organic framework / rGO composite of modified Cheng, such that it comprises the two-dimensional electroconductive Ni-organic framework forms spherical particles by aggregation of two-dimensional structures; the rGO is in the form of overlapping nanosheets; and the spherical particles are stacked on the nanosheets, uniformly distributed over the entire surface of the nanosheets, and interposed between the nanosheets, because Chai teaches its configuration improves the contact area, leading to unexpectedly high charge transfer and pseudocapacitance.
However, modified Cheng is silent as to “wherein the two-dimensional Ni-organic framework/rGO composite has a BET surface area of 10-3,000 m2/g and a total pore volume of 0.1 to 5.0 cm3/g.”
Mitlin teaches carbon nanosheets for use in batteries and capacitors, which may comprise graphene planes composed of, for example, a urea-reduced graphene oxide cathode (i.e., a reduced graphene oxide). Mitlin at [0098]. For the peanut skin precursor-derived nanosheets SCN, and the KOH mixed SCN-A nanosheets, Mitlin teaches a beneficial range of “[0046] Brunauer-Emmett-Teller (BET) specific surface area and total pore volume of SCN are 1821 m2 g−1 and 1.94 cm3 g−1 ; and that the surface area and pore volume of SCN-A is higher, at 2070 m2 g−1 and 2.65 cm3 g−1.” This is relevant because Mitlin teaches “[0049] As will be appreciated by a person of ordinary skill in the art, the high surface area, plentiful pores and excellent pore size distribution, and surface troughs of SCN and SCN-A provide tremendous active surface area for ion adsorption combined with wide and interconnected electrolyte-filled pathways for fast ion diffusion. Thus, the carbon nanosheets of the present invention afford excellent rate capability and power characteristics from the material.” In other words, a carbon nanosheet (e.g. reduced graphene oxide) having this BET surface area and pore volume would be expected to display improved rate capability and power characteristics, particularly if paired with a highly conductive particle (e.g. an electroconductive Ni-organic framework).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to further modify the two dimensional Ni-organic framework/rGO composite of Cheng, such that its composite comprises nanosheets having a BET surface area of 2070 m2 g−1 and a total pore volume of 2.65 cm3 g−1, because Mitlin teaches a benefit to rate capability and power characteristics within this range, and because an overlapping range presents a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding the limitation, “and wherein the composite exhibits a discharge capacity of 500 mAh/g or more at a current density of 50 mA/g,” this is a limitation defining a characteristic of the Ni-organic framework /rGO composite at a given current density, that is, while undergoing a specific test. Because modified Cheng recites a material having the same arylhexamine and Ni framework, having the same pore and surface area structure, and the same arrangement of spherical particles as modified, modified Cheng necessarily must teach the claimed discharge capacity. This is because discharge capacity is a product of the structure, composition, and electronic arrangement of the material, all of which are identical; because identical materials have identical properties, modified Cheng teaches “and wherein the composite exhibits a discharge capacity of 500 mAh/g or more at a current density of 50 mA/g.”
Claim 1 is obvious over Cheng, in view of Dennis, Chai, and Mitlin.
Regarding Claim 2, Claim 2 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Cheng.
Cheng teaches its 2D MOF / rGO papers may be utilized as “hybrid electrodes” for supercapacitors. Cheng at Abstract, 20254. This reads upon “one selected from a group consisting of a secondary battery electrode material, a supercapacitor electrode material and an electrochemical sensor material. “
Claim 2 is obvious over Cheng, in view of Dennis, Chai, and Mitlin.
Regarding Claim 5, Claim 5 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Cheng.
Cheng teaches a two-dimensional Ni-organic framework/rGO composite. Modified Cheng comprises the 2,3,6,7,10,11- hexaminotriphenylene of Claim 1. The discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer. MPEP 2112 (I). The claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. Id. If modified Cheng teaches the material of Claim 3, it inherently must disclose the same electroconductivity of 1-10,000 S/m at room temperature. Id. In addition, Dennis presents that the conductivity of Ni3(HITP)2 is 40 cm -1, indicating that the conductivity should fall within this range.
Claim 5 is obvious over Cheng, in view of Dennis, Chai, and Mitlin.
Regarding Claim 8, Claim 8 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Cheng.
Cheng teaches “wherein the two-dimensional Ni-organic framework/rGO composite comprises the two-dimensional Ni-organic framework and the rGO at a weight ratio of 1:0.3-1:1.5.” because “N-M/G-40 paper-based supercapacitors” is taught alongside “For simplicity, the Ni-MOF/rGO hybrid papers are denoted as N-M/G; the Co-MOF/rGO hybrid papers are denoted as C-M/G-x, where x is the weight percent of pristine GO used for the preparation of the hybrid papers; in our study, x = 30, 40, or 50 wt% for C-M/G.” This indicates or at least strongly implies N-M/G-40 refers to 40 wt% of rGO for a total weight ratio of 60 / 40 => 3/2 => 1.5 / 1 => 1 / 0.66667 => 1:0.6.
Claim 8 is obvious over Cheng, in view of Dennis, Chai, and Mitlin.
Regarding Claim 9, Claim 9 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Cheng.
Cheng teaches its 2D MOF / rGO papers may be utilized as “hybrid electrodes” for supercapacitors. Cheng at Abstract, 20254. This reads upon “an electrode for a secondary battery or a supercapacitor, comprising the two-dimensional Ni-organic framework/rGO composite according to Claim 1.”
Claim 9 is obvious over Cheng, in view of Dennis, Chai, and Mitlin.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 5, 8-9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISHNA RAJAN HAMMOND whose telephone number is (571)272-9997. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 6:30 PM M-F.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.R.H./Examiner , Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725