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 .
The Applicant amended independent claim 1 and dependent claims 21; and canceled claims 6, 7, 9-20, 27-29. The pending claims are claims 1-5, 8, 21-26, 30-32.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
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) 1-5, 8, 21-26, 30-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin Joon Hyoung et al., KR 10-2014-0062202 (KR 101451349B1), in view of Cesareo et al., US 2017/0190583.
Regarding claim 1, Hyoung et al., teaches a battery active material (0001; 0010) , comprising: a plurality of graphene platelets (graphene nanosheets) (0001; 0010) to which a plurality of heteroatoms and/or heteroionic species are non-covalently adsorbed; wherein the graphene platelets have a lateral size from several um (0048) and a thickness from 10 nm (0048).
Hyoung et al., does not teach the graphene platelets have a carbon to oxygen ratio of at least 100.
Cesareo et al., teaches graphene platelets have a carbon to oxygen ratio of at least 100 (0020).
Hyoung et al., does not teach a plurality of high pressure doped and homogenized graphene platelets.
Cesareo et al., teaches high pressure doped and homogenized graphene platelets (abstract; 0020; 0028; 0056).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to insert the teachings of Cesareo into the teachings of Hyoung because the high pressure homogenization in Cesareo has “ a very important advantage of the process according to the invention consists in the possibility of operating without surfactant. In fact, in this case the graphene nanoplatelets obtained with the process of the invention are highly pure, both due to the high C/0 ratio and to the absence of extraneous substances.” (0068).
Regarding claim 2, Hyoung et al., teaches wherein the plurality of heteroatoms are selected from the group consisting of sulfur (0010; 0020-0021).
Regarding claim 3, Hyoung et al., does not teach wherein the plurality of heteroatoms comprise elemental sulfur in an octagonal ring form.
However, sulfur in an octagonal ring form is a common form of elemental sulfur in an eight-atom ring structure, so it is likely that the sulfur structure in Hyoung would be an octagonal ring form.
Regarding claim 4, Hyoung et al., teaches wherein the heteroionic species is an anionic species (graphene sheet made of graphene oxide and elemental sulfur (0010).
Regarding claim 5, Hyoung et al., teaches wherein the heteroionic species is a sulfate or nitrate species (0006; 0055).
Regarding claim 8, Hyoung et al., teaches an electrode (0001) comprising the active material of claim 1 (0005; 0051-0054).
Regarding claim 21, Hyoung et al., teaches a method of preparing a battery active material (0001; 0008; 0010) comprising: providing expanded graphite flakes in a liquid dispersant (exfoliating graphite; 0025), and admixing a plurality of heteroatoms (sulfur) and/or heteroionic species; with the graphite flakes (exfoliating graphite; 0025) to generate a mixed dispersion (0010-0017); and subjecting the mixed dispersion (0010-0017) to high-pressure homogenization under conditions that produce a plurality of graphene platelets (graphene nanosheets) (0010) to which a plurality of heteroatoms and/or heteroionic species (0018) are non-covalently adsorbed; wherein the graphene platelets have a lateral size from several um (0048) and a thickness from 10 nm (0048).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to insert the teachings of Cesareo into the teachings of Hyoung because the high pressure homogenization in Cesareo has “ a very important advantage of the process according to the invention consists in the possibility of operating without surfactant. In fact, in this case the graphene nanoplatelets obtained with the process of the invention are highly pure, both due to the high C/0 ratio and to the absence of extraneous substances.” (0068).
Hyoung et al., does not teach the graphene platelets have a carbon to oxygen ratio of at least 100.
Cesareo et al., teaches graphene platelets have a carbon to oxygen ratio of at least 100 (0020).
Hyoung et al., does not teach a plurality of high pressure doped and homogenized graphene platelets.
Cesareo et al., teaches high pressure doped and homogenized graphene platelets (abstract; 0020; 0028; 0056).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to insert the teachings of Cesareo into the teachings of Hyoung because the high pressure homogenization in Cesareo has “ a very important advantage of the process according to the invention consists in the possibility of operating without surfactant. In fact, in this case the graphene nanoplatelets obtained with the process of the invention are highly pure, both due to the high C/0 ratio and to the absence of extraneous substances.” (0068).
Regarding claim 22, Hyoung et al., teaches wherein expanded graphite flakes (exfoliating graphite; 0025) are produced by thermal expansion (isothermal heat treatment) of intercalated graphite (0010-0017).
Regarding claim 23, Hyoung et al., teaches wherein the plurality of heteroatoms are selected from the group consisting of sulfur (0010; 0020-0021).
Regarding claim 24, Hyoung et al., does not teach wherein the plurality of heteroatoms comprise elemental sulfur in an octagonal ring form.
However, sulfur in an octagonal ring form is a common form of elemental sulfur in an eight-atom ring structure, so it is likely that the sulfur structure in Hyoung would be an octagonal ring form.
Regarding claim 25, Hyoung et al., teaches wherein the heteroionic species is an anionic species (0006; 0017).
Regarding claim 26, Hyoung et al., teaches wherein the heteroionic species is a sulfate or nitrate species (0006; 0055).
Regarding claim 30, Hyoung et al., teaches wherein the plurality of heteroatoms is in form of micro- (0048) or nanometer sized particles (0048) in the step of admixing (0010-0017).
Regarding claim 31, Hyoung et al., teaches further comprising a step of removing at least a portion of the dispersant (0025).
Regarding claim 32, Hyoung et al., teaches wherein the dispersant is an aqueous solution (0010; 0022; 0025).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that “Hyoung relies on high-temperature thermal doping, while the present claims require high pressure…There is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation in Hyoung to replace its required high-temperature thermal doping with high-pressure homogenization.”
However, new reference, Cesareo et al., US 2017/0190583, teaches “high-pressure homogenization” as the processing technique to make a battery active material.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA J MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1288. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 571-272-1330. 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.
ANGELA J. MARTIN
Examiner
Art Unit 1727
/ANGELA J MARTIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights