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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the communication filed on 2/19/26. Applicant’s argument have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. Claims 1-10 are pending. Claims 3-5 and 8-10 are withdrawn.
This Action is Non-FINAL.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/19/26 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/19/26 has been considered by the examiner.
Claims Analysis
Claim 1 recites “for a redox flow battery”, which is an intended use limitation that has not been given patentable weight. Claim 2 recites “for a redox flow battery”, which is an intended use limitation that has not been given patentable weight.
Claims 6 and 7 recite “a redox flow battery using the electrode”, which is considered an intended use limitation. The preamble of the claims is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to the claimed electrode structure.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsukada et al., US 2015/0049415 A1 in view of Igai et al., JP 2006-004997A, as evidenced by the AI generated “Copilot Search” for “activated carbon crystal structure”.
Tsukada teaches an activated carbon for an electrode of a power storage device having uniform consecutive macropores, and a pore size distribution centered within a range of 1.5 to 25 mm, a specific surface area within a range of 1,500 to 2,300 m2/g, a micropore volume within a range of 0.4 to 1.0 mL/g, and an average micropore width within a range of 0.7 to 1.2 nm (abstract). Figure 9 shows an activated carbon electrode having a disk/plate shape. The uniform consecutive macropores have an average pore size within a range of 3 to 35 mm to form a three-dimensional network [0023]. See also [0051]. Examples 1-4 each teach the disk-shaped activated carbon electrode has a thickness of about 0.8 mm.
Tsukada does not explicitly teach the activated carbon material comprises a graphite crystallite wherein an interplanar distance of (002) planes of the graphite crystallite is in a range of from 0.33 nm to 0.40 nm and a crystallite size in the c-axis direction in a range of from 0.9 nm to 8.5 nm, as recited by the pending claims. Tsukada is silent regarding the crystallite properties of the disclosed activated carbon material.
However, Igai teaches activated carbon for an electrode of a power storage device. The activated carbon contains microcrystal carbon having laminar crystalline structure like graphite. In this case, the interlayer distance d002 of the microcrystal carbon is 0.340-0.380 nm and the size Lc002 of the crystallite in the c-axis direction is bigger than 0.7 nm while a specific surface area obtained by nitrogen gas adsorption is large than 30 m2/g (abstract). See [0039] regarding the specific surface area of the activated carbon material. Igai teaches d002 is 0.340-0.380 nm, preferably 0.350-0.370nm. The size Lc 002 along the c-axis crystallite is more than 0.7 nm, more preferably is greater than or equal to 1.0 nm and 4 nm or less. These preferred ranges are common to both electrodes for carbon and pretreatment of activated carbon was obtained [0032]. See also [0038]-[0041].
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed because Igai teaches activated carbon material for an electrode of a power storage device is known to have the disclosed crystalline properties. One of skill would have known the activated carbon material for a power storage device of Tsukada would have had the known crystalline properties as disclosed by Igai. Both Igai and Tsukada teach activated carbon electrode material for power storage devices. Furthermore, the “Copilot Search” teaches activated carbon is largely amorphous but it contains graphite-like microcrystals (crystallites) formed during carbonization and activation processes. The crystallites have an interlayer distance of approximately 3.6 angstroms (0.36 nm), which is slightly larger than in perfect graphite.
Claims 6 and 7 recite “a redox flow battery using the electrode”, which is considered an intended use limitation. The preamble of the claims is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to the claimed electrode structure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 2, 6 and 7 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.
The 35 USC 112 rejections of record have been withdrawn as the claims have been amended. The 35 USC 103 rejection in view of Miyabaysahi has been withdrawn as the claims have been amended to overcome the rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRACY DOVE whose telephone number is (571)272-1285. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-3:00.
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.
/TRACY M DOVE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725