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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II in the reply filed on January 26, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-5 and 12-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Groups I and III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on January 26, 2026.
Examiner’s Notes
In light of the large number of claim objections set forth above, the Examiner suggests that the Applicant thoroughly review the claims for any typographical or grammatical errors in order to ensure they are in good form.
The Examiner notes that a mesh size of 400-800 equates to a particle size of 12-23 µm, as evidenced by the Mesh Conversion Chart (Kramer Industries, Inc., see provided NPL).
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
L6 of the claim should recite “the mixed solution A obtained in step (1)” in order to have correct antecedent basis;
L10-11 of the claim lack antecedent basis for “under the protection of an inert atmosphere”. The Examiner suggests amending the claim to recite “in an inert atmosphere”;
L15-16 of the claim should recite “the surface comprises at least one of an outer surface of conductive polymer particles, a surface and an interlayer of graphene sheets, and an outer surface of carbon nanotubes” in order to set forth correct antecedent basis.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: L1-2 of the claim should recite “wherein a mass ratio of the sulfur powder to the vanadyl acetylacetonate powder in step (1)…” in order to improve clarity of the claim.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
L4 of the claim should recite “optionally, a mass ratio of the graphene oxide to the reducing agent in step (a) is…” in order to improve clarity of the claim;
L5 of the claim should recite “optionally, a mass ratio of the graphene oxide to the surfactant in step (a) is…” in order to improve clarity of the claim;
L8 of the claim should recite “optionally, a power of of the ultrasonic dispersion in step (a) is 50-600 W” in order to improve clarity of the claim; and
L9-10 of the claim should recite “comprises any one or a combination of two of sodium borohydride and hydrazine hydrate
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
L1 of the claim should recite “a time for the continuous subjection to ultrasonics with stirring in step (2) is 0.5-2h” in order to have correct grammar.
L3 of the claim should be canceled because Claim 6 already requires a temperature of the solvothermal reaction in step (3) to be 120-200°C.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
step (4) of the claim should recite “mixing the polymer/graphene/carbon nanotube composite carbon material” in order to have correct antecedent basis;
step (5) of the claim should recite “adding the the the N,N-dimethylformamide, subjecting to the ultrasonics with stirring at 55-80°C for 8-20h so as to obtain the
step (6) of the claim should recite “adding the sulfur-doped three-dimensional network structure conductive polymer/graphene/carbon nanotube composite carbon material…continuously the ultrasonics with stirring for 0.5-2h, so as to obtain the
step (7) of the claim should recite “transferring the mixed solution B into the the
step (8) of the claim lacks antecedent basis for “under the protection of an inert atmosphere”. The Examiner suggests amending the claim to recite “in an inert atmosphere”.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: L2 of the claim should recite “the sulfur powder in step (1) is 1-50 µm; and”.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: L1-2 of the claim should recite “wherein in step (1), the ultrasonics with stirring is performed at a stirring rate of ,000 r/min, a power of of and”.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
L7 of the claim should recite “wherein a molar ratio of the conductive polymer monomer to the surfactant in step (b) is…” in order to have correct antecedent basis and improve clarity of the claim;
L8 of the claim should recite “wherein a molar ratio of the conductive polymer monomer to the initiator in step (b) is…” in order to have correct antecedent basis and improve clarity of the claim; and
L12 of the claim should recite “optionally, a time of the polymerization reaction in step (b) is 18-24h; and”.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
L4 of the claim should recite “…after the reaction in step (c) but before the heat treatment in step (c)” in order to improve clarity of the claim;
L5 of the claim should recite “optionally, the washing uses deionized water is performed 3-5 times” in order to improve clarity of the claim; and
L8 of the claim should recite “optionally, a temperature of the drying is 60-100°C; and”.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: L2-3 of the claim should recite “…after the solvothermal reaction in step (3) but before the microwave treatment in step (4)” in order to improve clarity of the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6-11 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites “a sulfur-doped three-dimensional network structure conductive polymer/graphene/carbon nanotube composite carbon material” in step (2) and the further recites “wherein the composite positive electrode material comprises a sulfur-doped three-dimensional network structure conductive polymer/graphene/carbon nanotube composite carbon material” in step (4).
Therefore, it is unclear if the sulfur-doped three-dimensional network structure conductive polymer/graphene/carbon nanotube composite carbon material in step (4) is the sulfur-doped three-dimensional network structure conductive polymer/graphene/carbon nanotube composite carbon material previously set forth in step (2) or if it is an additional sulfur-doped three-dimensional network structure conductive polymer/graphene/carbon nanotube composite carbon material.
For purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to recite “wherein the composite positive electrode material comprises
Claims 7-11 and 14-19 are dependent on Claim 6 and therefore are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the reasons set forth above.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the interlayer of graphene" in step (a). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to recite “so as to obtain reduced graphene, wherein the reduced graphene comprises micelles formed in an interlayer of graphene ”.
The term “closed condition” in step (c) of Claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “closed condition” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to recite “subjecting to a reaction with 2-5 MPa pressure”.
Claims 9 and 16-18 are dependent on Claim 8 and therefore are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the reasons set forth above.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the interlayer of graphene" in step (1). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to recite “…forms micelles in an interlayer of graphene… so as to obtain reduced graphene, wherein the reduced graphene comprises the micelles formed in the interlayer of the graphene ”.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “centrifuging the product in step (2) and then drying the product under vacuum…”
However, step (2) comprises multiple products (e.g. the centrifuged product in step (1) and the product obtained from step (2)) and therefore it is unclear which product in step (2) the claim is referring to.
For purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to recite “centrifuging the product obtained from step (2) and then drying under vacuum…”.
The term “closed condition” in step (4) of Claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “closed condition” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to recite “subjecting to a reaction with 2-5 MPa pressure”.
The term “rapid stirring” in step (5) of Claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “rapid stirring” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim as set forth in the claim objection above.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “optionally, a molar ratio of the polymer monomer and the surfactant in step (b) is (4-6):1”.
However, the Examiner notes that step (b), set forth in Claim 8, does not recite a surfactant and therefore it is unclear if the surfactant in Claim 15 is referring to the surfactant set forth in step (a) of Claim 8 or if it setting forth an additional surfactant.
The Examiner requests that the Applicant amend the claim to specify what surfactant the limitation is referring to.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “optionally, an ultrasonic power in step (b) is 80-500 W”.
However, step (b) of Claim 8 recites “(b) dispersing the reduced graphene in step (a) in a solvent, subjecting to ultrasonic treatment, adding a conductive polymer monomer, continuously subjecting to ultrasonics…” and therefore sets forth two processes using ultrasonic power.
Therefore, it is unclear which of the ultrasonic treatment and the continued ultrasonics has an ultrasonic power of 80-500 W.
The Examiner requests that the Applicant amend the limitation to specify which of the ultrasonic treatment and the continued ultrasonics in step (b) has the claimed ultrasonic power.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 6-7, 10, 14-15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN 109980208 A, cited on the IDS dated October 13, 2022, see also the provided EPO machine generated English translation) in view of Zhamu et al. (US PGPub 2018/0269479 A1), Tour et al. (US PGPub 2018/0297850 A1), and Huang et al. (CN 105633483 A, see also the provided EPO machine generated English translation).
Regarding Claim 6, Liu discloses a preparation method for a composite positive electrode material, comprising the following steps of:
(1) adding a sulfur powder and a vanadyl acetylacetonate powder into N,N-dimethylformamide, and subjecting to stirring, so as to obtain a mixed solution A ([0015]);
(2) adding a carbon material to the mixed solution A obtained in step (1) ([0017]), to obtain a mixed solution B ([0017]);
(3) transferring the mixed solution B into a reactor, and subjecting the mixed solution B to a solvothermal reaction at 140-180°C ([0017], e.g. [0050]), which falls within and therefore reads on the instantly claimed range of 120-200°C, to obtain a hydrothermal product; and
(4) subjecting the hydrothermal product to a microwave treatment at 400-700°C, which falls within and therefore reads on the instantly claimed range of 300-800°C, under the protection of an inert atmosphere so as to obtain the composite positive electrode material ([0019]).
Liu further discloses wherein the carbon material is carbon fiber ([0011], [0017]) and wherein the composite positive electrode material is utilized in a zinc ion battery ([0002]).
However, Liu does not disclose wherein the carbon material is a sulfur-doped three-dimensional network structure comprises conductive polymer/graphene/carbon nanotubes and consequently does not disclose in step (2) adding a sulfur-doped three-dimensional network structure comprises conductive polymer/graphene/carbon nanotubes into the mixed solution A obtained in step (1).
Zhamu teaches a positive electrode material that may be used in a zinc ion battery ([0016]), wherein the positive electrode material may comprise a three-dimensional network structure comprising carbon fiber, conductive polymer (carbonized polymer fibers), graphene, carbon nanotubes, or a combination thereof in order to facilitate fast and uniform dissolution and deposition of metal ions while also acting to reduce the exchange current density and thus the tendency to form metal dendrites that otherwise could case internal shorting ([0021]).
Furthermore, Tour teaches a variety of graphene suitable for use in a zinc ion battery, such as sulfur-doped graphene ([0110], [0068]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize conductive polymer/graphene/carbon nanotube in addition to the carbon nanofiber of Liu, as taught by Zhamu, in order to facilitate fast and uniform dissolution and deposition of metal ions while also acting to reduce the exchange current density and thus the tendency to form metal dendrites that otherwise could case internal shorting.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize sulfur-doped graphene as the graphene in the three-dimensional network structure conductive polymer/graphene/carbon nanotube/carbon fiber composite carbon material of modified Liu, as taught by Tour, as such as a known variety of graphene in the art suitable for use in a zinc ion battery and therefore the skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation that such would successfully form the in the three-dimensional network structure conductive polymer/graphene/carbon nanotube/carbon fiber composite carbon material desired by modified Liu.
Thus, modified Liu discloses adding a sulfur-doped three-dimensional network structure conductive polymer/graphene/carbon nanotube composite carbon material into the mixed solution A obtained in step (1) ([0017] of Liu, [0021] of Zhamu, [0066] of Tour).
In light of the above, modified Liu discloses wherein the composite positive electrode material comprises a sulfur-doped three-dimensional network structure conductive polymer/graphene/carbon nanotube composite carbon material, and trivanadium tetrasulfide nanoparticles loaded on a surface of the composite carbon material; the surface comprises at least one of the outer surface of conductive polymer particles, the surface and the interlayer of graphene sheets, and the outer surface of carbon nanotubes ([0011], [0017] of Liu, [0021] of Zhamu, [0066] of Tour).
Modified Liu further discloses a desire for the stirring in steps (1) and (2) to ensure a uniform mixture ([0050]) of Lui).
However, modified Liu does not disclose wherein such is done by subjecting to ultrasonics with stirring.
Huang teaches wherein subjecting to ultrasonics may be utilized in order to obtain a uniform mixture (e.g. [0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art modify the stirring in steps (1) and (2) of modified Liu to be ultrasonics with stirring, as taught by Huang, wherein the skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation that such would successfully entire a uniform mixture, as desired by modified Liu.
Regarding Claim 7, modified Liu discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein a mass ratio of the sulfur powder and the vanadyl acetylacetonate powder in step (1) is (0.25-0.67):1 ([0015] of Liu), which falls within and therefore reads on the instantly claimed range of (0.2-0.8):1.
Regarding Claim 10, modified Liu discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein a time for the continuously subjecting to ultrasonics with stirring in step (2) is greater than 0h ([0017], e.g. [0038]), which encompasses the instantly claimed range of 0.5-2h.
For example, Huang further teaches wherein a time for continuously subjecting to ultrasonics with stirring may achieve a uniform mixture in 1.5h ([0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the continuous subjection to ultrasonics in step (2) to be within the encompassing portion of the range disclosed by modified Liu, wherein the skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation that such would successfully form a uniform mixture, as desired by modified Liu.
Regarding Claim 14, modified Liu discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein an average particle size of the sulfur powder in step (1) is 12-23 µm ([0022] of Liu, e.g. 400-800 mesh), which falls within and therefore reads on the instantly claimed range of 1-50 µm.
Regarding Claim 15, modified Liu discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein in step (1), a stirring rate is 300-800 r/min, and for example may be 600 r/min ([0015], [0050] of Liu), which falls within and therefore reads on the instantly claimed range of 500-1000 r/min, a power of the ultrasonics is 60 W (e.g. [0038] of Huang), which falls within and therefore reads on the instantly claimed range of 50-600 W, a time is 12-24h, and for example 12h ([0015], [0050] of Liu), which falls within and therefore reads on the instantly claimed range of 8-20, and a temperature of the ultrasonics with stirring in step (1) is 65-80°C ([0015] of Liu), which falls within and therefore reads on the instantly claimed rage of 55-80°C.
Regarding Claim 19, modified Liu discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses steps of washing with ethanol after the solvothermal reaction but before the microwave treatment ([0050] of Liu).
Modified Liu does not explicitly disclose steps of cooling and drying after the solvothermal reaction but before the microwave treatment.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to cool the hydrothermal product prior to washing and then dry the hydrothermal product after washing in order to ensure proper washing of the hydrothermal and that the ethanol is removed from the hydrothermal prior to the microwave treatment.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9, 11, and 16-18 would be allowed if the claim objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth above are overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The invention of Claim 8 is directed to the method set forth above, wherein a preparation method for the sulfur-doped three-dimensional network structure conductive polymer/graphene/carbon nanotube composite carbon material in step (2) comprises the following steps:
(a) mixing graphene oxide with a surfactant, subjecting to ultrasonic dispersion, then mixing with a reducing agent, and subjecting to a chemical reduction, so as to obtain reduced graphene with micelles formed in the interlayer of graphene;
(b) dispersing the reduced graphene in step (a) in a solvent, subjecting to ultrasonic treatment, adding a conductive polymer monomer, continuously subjecting to ultrasonics, adding an initiator and carbon nanotubes, and subjecting to a polymerization reaction, so as to obtain a composite carbon material; and
(c) mixing the composite carbon material in step (b) with a sulfur source, subjecting to a reaction in a closed condition with 2-5 MPa pressure, and subjecting to a heat treatment under an inert atmosphere to realize in-situ doping, so as to obtain the sulfur-doped three-dimensional network structure conductive polymer/graphene/carbon nanotube composite carbon material.
The closest prior art is considered to be Liu et al. (CN 109980208 A, cited on the IDS dated October 13, 2022, see also the provided EPO machine generated English translation) in view of Zhamu et al. (US PGPub 2018/0269479 A1), Tour et al. (US PGPub 2018/0297850 A1) and Huang et al. (CN 105633483 A, see also the provided EPO machine generated English translation), as applied to Claim 6 above.
Regarding Claim 8, modified Liu discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. However, modified Liu does not disclose a preparation method for the sulfur-doped three-dimensional network structure conductive polymer/graphene/carbon nanotube composite carbon material in step (2) and consequently does not disclose such comprising: (c) mixing the composite carbon material in step (b) with a sulfur source, subjecting to a reaction in a closed condition with 2-5 MPa pressure, and subjecting to a heat treatment under an inert atmosphere to realize in-situ doping, so as to obtain the sulfur-doped three-dimensional network structure conductive polymer/graphene/carbon nanotube composite carbon material.
In light of the above, the closest prior art fails to disclose, teach, suggest, or render obvious the claim limitation “(c) mixing the composite carbon material in step (b) with a sulfur source, subjecting to a reaction in a closed condition with 2-5 MPa pressure, and subjecting to a heat treatment under an inert atmosphere to realize in-situ doping, so as to obtain the sulfur-doped three-dimensional network structure conductive polymer/graphene/carbon nanotube composite carbon material” in combination with all of the other limitations taken as a whole.
Claims 9 and 16-18 are dependent on Claim 6 and therefore contain allowable subject matter for the reasons set forth above.
Claim 11 requires the same limitations as set forth in Claim 8, in combination with additional limitations, and therefore contains allowable subject matter for the reasons set forth above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIMBERLY WYLUDA whose telephone number is (571)272-4381. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7 AM - 3 PM EST.
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, BASIA RIDLEY can be reached at (571)272-1453. 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.
/KIMBERLY WYLUDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights