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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 27, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on December 29, 2025 have been entered. Claims 8-11, 22, and 24-34 are pending in the application.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 24-34 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Group I (claims 8-11 and 22) and Group II (claims 24-34) are related as combination and subcombination. The material of Group I could be used in a materially different application than the supercapacitor of Group II, such as in bottles, packages, or coatings. In addition, the supercapacitor of Group II does not require that the sulfur nanoparticles be dispersed in the amorphous phase of a semicrystalline LDPE, which indicates that the supercapacitor does not rely on the specific limitations of the material of Group I. MPEP 806.05(c).
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 24-34 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 recites “10 wt.% to 30 wt.%” in lines 7-8. Claims must be one sentence in length, so the presence of a period calls into question if the claim is one sentence or more. For the purpose of further examination, it is taken to read as “10 wt% to 30 wt%”. Appropriate correction is required.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 8-11 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alkhazraji et al (US 2015/0057386 A1), as evidenced by Li et al (Effect of Crystallinity of Polyethylene with Different Densities on Breakdown Strength and Conductance Property, 29 May 2019, Materials, Vol. 12, p.1-13) and Zhao et al (Tunable Multiscale Nanoparticle Ordering by Polymer Crystallization, 2017, ACS Central Science, Vol. 3, p.751-758).
Regarding Claims 8 and 22: Alkhazraji teaches a material comprising elemental sulfur dispersed in a polymer matrix (Abstract), wherein the polymer matrix comprises low density polyethylene (para. 0020), wherein the sulfur content is up to 20wt%, with examples comprising 10wt% and 20wt% of elemental sulfur (para. 0039) and the particle size is 1 to 100-300nm (para. 0014). This overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use elemental sulfur particles with an overlapping particle size and would have been motivated to do so since Alkhazraji teaches that the large surface area of nanosized particles allows for the “quantum size effect,” which can dramatically alter a material’s electronic properties (para. 0015).
Alkhazraji does not explicitly teach that the LDPE is semicrystalline or that the sulfur is dispersed in the amorphous phase. However, Li teaches that LDPE is naturally semicrystalline (p.4, Table 1), and Zhao teaches that the distribution of nanoparticles in semicrystalline polymers is dependent on factors such as crystal growth but that the nanoparticles are always at least partially dispersed in the amorphous/interlamellar phase (p.754, Figure 3B).
Alkhazraji does not teach that the material is used in a supercapacitor electrode. However, the preamble (“supercapacitor electrode material) merely states the purpose/intended usage of the material and therefore is not considered a limitation. MPEP 2111.02(II).
Regarding Claim 9: Alkhazraji teaches fillers such as carbon nanotubes (para. 0014), which are known to be conductive fillers.
Regarding Claims 10-11: Alkhazraji does not teach that the material is in contact with a metal electrode. However, the claim is directed toward the material/composition itself, rather than an article comprising metal electrode and the claimed material. As such, the presence of a metal electrode is not considered to limit the claimed composition.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on December 29, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument that the references do not teach the sulfur being dispersed in the amorphous phase of a semi-crystalline LDPE: This limitation has been addressed by Li and Zhao, as set forth above.
Regarding applicant's argument that Alkhazraji and Watanabe are not combinable because Watanabe teaches a significantly higher loading of sulfur (50-98%): The new rejection under Alkhazraji, not in view of Watanabe, renders this argument moot.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLIN N ILLING whose telephone number is (571)270-1940. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4PM.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at (571)272-1197. 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.
/C.N.I./Examiner, Art Unit 1767
/MARK EASHOO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767