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 has amended independent claims 1 and 21; and canceled claims 6, 7, 9-20, 27-29. The pending claims are claims 1-5, 8, 21-26, 30-32.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/16/2025 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.
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).
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 are coupled a plurality of heteroatoms and/or heteroionic species; 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.
However, A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979).
Hyoung et al., teaches a plurality of high pressure doped and homogenized graphene platelets, as Hyoung teaches:
“heat-treating a mixture of graphene oxide and elemental sulfur” (0010-0017; 0038).
Additionally, Hyoung et al., teaches wherein the majority of the plurality of heteroatoms (sulfur atoms) (0018) are non-covalently adsorbed to the graphene platelets (0018).
Hyoung et al., teaches wherein the majority of the plurality of heteroatoms (sulfur atoms) (0018) are non-covalently adsorbed to the graphene platelets (0018).
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 are coupled a plurality of heteroatoms and/or heteroionic species (0018); wherein the graphene platelets have a lateral size from several um (0048) and a thickness from 10 nm (0048). Therefore, regarding the lateral sizes and the thicknesses of the graphene platelets,
"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955. Moreover, "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382.
MPEP 2144.05: In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Hyoung et al., teaches a plurality of high pressure doped and homogenized graphene platelets, as Hyoung teaches:
“heat-treating a mixture of graphene oxide and elemental sulfur” (0010-0017; 0038).
Hyoung et al., does not teach the graphene platelets have a carbon to oxygen ratio of at least 100.
However, A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979).
Hyoung et al., teaches a plurality of high pressure doped and homogenized graphene platelets, as Hyoung teaches:
“heat-treating a mixture of graphene oxide and elemental sulfur” (0010-0017; 0038).
Additionally, Hyoung et al., teaches wherein the majority of the plurality of heteroatoms (sulfur atoms) (0018) are non-covalently adsorbed to the graphene platelets (0018).
Hyoung et al., teaches wherein the majority of the plurality of heteroatoms (sulfur atoms) (0018) are non-covalently adsorbed to the graphene platelets (0018).
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 12/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that “Hyoung does not teach or suggest graphene platelets having a carbon to oxygen ratio of at least 100…This ratio is not a mere optimization of a known range, but a structural property resulting from the unique processing conditions described in the application.”
However, Hyoung has a similar method to that of the Applicant:
“In the above step (1), the graphene oxide aqueous solution can be prepared by exfoliating graphite by acid treatment using the Hummers method. More specifically, after dissolving NaNO3 in sulfuric acid, graphite is added, KMnO4 is added, and the mixture is reacted for 2 hours, placed in a mixed solution of H2O2 and water, and then filtered and washed, followed by centrifugation to obtain a graphene oxide aqueous solution as the supernatant.” (0025). Thus, Hyoung also teaches a process of exfoliating graphite.
Therefore, although Hyoung does not recite the “non-covalent of heteroatoms” and does not recite “a carbon to oxygen ratio”, the process of making the graphene oxide by exfoliating the graphite would provide a similar structure of non-covalent heteroatoms and would provide a carbon to oxygen ratio within the claimed range.
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