CTNF 17/961,792 CTNF 95686 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Response to Amendment In response to the amendment received on 05/15/2026: Claims 8-14 and 21-23 are pending in the current application. Claims 8, 10, 12, 21, and 23 have been amended. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks Page 6, filed 05/15/2026, with respect to the objections to the claims have been fully considered. The objections have been withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims. After further search/consideration of the claims and consultation with a Primary Examiner, prior art Sun et al (CN107331528A, using the provided machine English translation from Espacenet) and Hawley et al ( Electrode manufacturing for lithium-ion batteries—Analysis of current and next generation processing ) were found. The combination of Sun in view of Hawley would meet the limitations set forth in independent claim 8. Therefore, claims 8-14 and 21-23 are not allowable. The previous indication claims 8-14 including allowable subject matter is withdrawn . A new rejection of the claims over Sun et al (CN107331528A, using the provided machine English translation from Espacenet) in view of Hawley et al ( Electrode manufacturing for lithium-ion batteries—Analysis of current and next generation processing ) has been set forth below. Specification 07-29 AIA The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Throughout the specification the word “cabode” is used. The word “cabode” needs to be removed as it does not appear to be a battery term nor is it defined in the specification. The Examiner notes that “cabode” has already been removed from the claims and the title in the 05/15/2026 amendments . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 22 recites “active carbon(AC)/black” when it should recite “active carbon (AC)/carbon black” . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-01 AIA The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. 07-31-01 Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 21 states “wherein the first layer includes lithium iron phosphate (LFP), and has a thickness of 110 µm, a press density of 1.5 g/cc, a loading of 2.1 mAh/cm2, and a formulation of LFP/ carbon black Super-P (SP)/carbon nanotubes (CNT)/polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) of 92/4.8/0.2/3 at mass ratio”. Claim 21 depends from claim 8 which sets forth the first layer is formed via a slurry. Applicant’s specification states: “Referring now to FIG. 10, an example of a method 620 for producing dual- layered capacitive cabode electrodes with a high capacitor ratio is shown. At 622, hot jointing is used to join a free-standing capacitive active material (AM) film (such as activated carbon) and a free-standing cathode AM film (such as LFP) to create cabode film.” (P61) “In some examples, the free-standing cathode AM film includes LFP having a thickness of 110 µm, a press density of 1.5g/cc, a loading of 2.1mAh/cm 2 , and a formulation of LFP/SP/CNT/PTFE of 92/4.8/0.2/3 at mass ratio” (P63). “Referring now to FIG. 11, another method 630 for producing dual-layered capacitive cabode electrodes with a high capacitor ratio is shown. At 632, a free-standing capacitive AM film is laminated onto opposite sides of a current collector. At 636, a slurry with cathode active material is provided. At 638, opposite sides of the laminate (including the capacitive AM film and the current collector) is coated with the active material slurry.” (P63) “In some examples, the wet coated cathode AM layer includes LFP having a thickness of 46 µm, a press density of 1.9g/cc, a loading of 1.1mAh/cm 2 and a formulation of LFP/SP/CNT/PVDF of 92/4.8/0.2/3 at mass ratio.” (P64) It appears the limitations described by claim 21 are of an embodiment wherein the first layer is a free-standing film, not an embodiment wherein the first layer is formed via a slurry as required by independent claim 8 (of which claim 21 depends). 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 21-23 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. 07-35-01 AIA Claim s 21-23 contains the trademark/trade name “Super-P” . Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson , 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a type of carbon black and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite. Therefore, in order to advance prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting the claims to recite only carbon black instead of carbon black Super-P. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 8 is r ejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over S un et al (CN107331528A, using the provided machine English translation from Espacenet) in view of Hawley et al ( Electrode manufacturing for lithium-ion batteries—Analysis of current and next generation processing ) in view of Mitchell et al (US 20080236742 A1) . Regarding claim 8 , Sun discloses a dual-layered capacitive electrode (multilayer composite electrode ; see entire disclosure and especially P26) comprising: a first capacitive layer and a second capacitive layer that include a capacitive active material (capacitor layers 3 in Fig. 1; see entire disclosure and especially P27), wherein the first capacitive film is on a first side of a current collector and the second capacitive film is on a second side of a current collector to form a capacitive electrode (there is a capacitor layer 3 on a top side of current collector 1 in Fig. 1 and there is a capacitor layer 3 on a bottom side of current collector 1 in Fig. 1; see entire disclosure and especially P27), and wherein a first side of the capacitive electrode includes a first layer including a cathode active material and wherein a second side of the capacitive electrode includes a second layer including the cathode active material (a battery layer 4 lies on top of capacitor layer 3 on a top side of current collector 1 in Fig. 1 and a battery layer 4 lies on bottom of capacitor layer 3 on a bottom side of current collector 1 in Fig. 1; the active material of battery layer 4 can be a lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide, lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide, lithium iron phosphate, lithium cobalt oxide, or a lithium-rich manganese-based solid solution, P33, which are known cathode materials; also see entire disclosure and especially P27). Sun discloses wherein the first side of the capacitive electrode is coated with a slurry including the cathode active material to create the first layer and the second side of the capacitive electrode is coated with a slurry including the cathode active material to create second first layer (in P51 Sun creates the battery layer by forming a slurry, therefore, to form the battery layers 4 on top of the capacitor layers 3 in Fig. 1, the slurry of the battery layers 4 would be coated onto the capacitor layers 3). However, Sun does not teach the capacitive layers are free-standing films that are laminated to the first and second side of the current collector respectively (given Sun teaches the capacitive layers are formed using a paste in P51). In a similar field of endeavor, Hawley reviews types of electrode manufacturing for lithium-ion batteries (Title, Abstract, Introduction sections). Hawley teaches that wet processing of electrodes is a commonly employed industrial technique (Abstract section). Hawley also teaches that wet slurry processing is a relatively cost effective avenue of production (Conclusions and outlook section). However, Hawley also teaches that the drying needed for wet processing and the drying protocols currently used industrially seem to have unavoidable constraints on drying speed if electrode microstructure is to be preserved (Next generation electrode processing section). Hawley teaches a solution (to the drying process constraints) under development is the elimination of solvent from manufacturing entirely such as using dry methods (Next generation electrode processing section). However, Hawley also notes that some dry processing techniques lead to dry coated electrodes that are slightly less capable than the wet coated control electrodes at high discharge rates (Next generation electrode processing section). Further, Hawley mentions some dry processing techniques are questionable in terms of scalability (Next generation electrode processing section). Hawley further teaches their review contemplates the advantages and disadvantages of each of these approaches and provides a comprehensive outlook on the future of electrode manufacturing (Abstract). From the teaching of Hawley, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that both the wet process and dry process of electrode manufacturing have benefits and disadvantages. Wet processes of electrode manufacture are well known and commonly employed, however, drying of wet processed electrodes can cause constraints. Dry processes of electrode manufacture can avoid the constraints caused by drying of wet processed electrodes, however, in comparison to wet processes, dry processes are not described by Hawley as being commonly employed industrial techniques and Hawley even points out some dry processing techniques are questionable in terms of scalability. Both a wet processing technique and a dry processing technique are known methods and each have their own advantages/disadvantages. Therefore, it would be no more than a matter of routine experimentation to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected whichever processing technique they desire for each layer of the dual-layered capacitive electrode Sun (the first capacitive layer, the second capacitive layer, the cathode active material of the first layer, the cathode active material of the second layer) for the known advantages attributed to each processing technique. One of ordinary skill in the art could choose to form the first capacitive layer and second capacitive layer by a dry process in order to avoid the constraints that would come from drying the first capacitive layer and the second capacitive layer, given Hawley teaches dry processing as a solution to avoid the constraints that would come from drying an electrode. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art could choose to continue to form the first layer and second layer of Sun by a wet process (coating with the slurry of cathode active material), given it is a commonly known and employed method, and Hawley teaches an advantage of wet processing is that it is relatively cost effective. While modified Sun teaches the capacitive layers are formed from a dry process, modified Sun still does not meet the limitation wherein the capacitive layers are free-standing films that are laminated to the first and second side of the current collector respectively. In a similar field of endeavor, Mitchell teaches a current collector and a film of active electrode material are provided and stacked so that a first surface of the current collector is in contact with the film (P15). Mitchell teaches the resulting stack is then laminated by pressing the current collector and the film to cause the film to densify and to adhere to the first surface of the current collector, thereby obtaining a laminated electrode product (P15). Mitchel teaches friction between the current collector and the film helps to prevent spreading of the film during lamination (P16). Mitchel teaches the step of laminating may be performed so that the first film is densified without spreading to an extent necessitating trimming (P22). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand the films of Mitchel are free-standing films, given Mitchel teaches their film is a dry film that is self-supporting (P44-45). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Mitchell and provided both of the capacitive layers to be free-standing films that are laminated to the first and second side of the current collector respectively, given this would allow the capacitive active material on the current collector to be densified and adhered to the surfaces of the current collector while preventing spreading of the film . 07-21-aia AIA Claims 9-14 are r ejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over S un et al (CN107331528A, using the provided machine English translation from Espacenet) in view of Hawley et al ( Electrode manufacturing for lithium-ion batteries—Analysis of current and next generation processing ) in view of Mitchell et al (US 20080236742 A1) as applied to claim 8, further in view of Zhong et al (US 20230411585 A1), which incorporates U.S. Pat. No. 10,069,131 . Regarding claim 9 , modified Sun does not meet the limitation wherein the first capacitive film and the second capacitive film have a thickness greater than 50 µm. In a similar field of endeavor, Zhong teaches free-standing capacitive electrode films having a thickness of less than 200 µm that can be laminated on opposite sides of a current collector (P21; Zhong teaches the electrode films can be used in an Li-ion capacitor, therefore, the free-standing electrode films can be considered capacitive films). Further, Zhong teaches the dry powder mixes used to produce the free-standing capacitive electrode films can found in U.S. Pat. No 10, 069, 131 which is incorporated into Zhong’s disclosure (P22). U.S. Pat. No. 10,069,131 teaches electrodes can be made from active materials, conductive material additives, a binder, and a solvent pressed to form a free standing film (C4 / L59 – C5 / L14; therefore, the capacitive electrode films of Zhong would include a capacitive active material). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Zhong and substituted the first capacitive film and the second capacitive film of modified Sun with the free-standing capacitive electrode films of Zhong, given both are free-standing films used in a capacitive manner, and the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). Through this modification, the first capacitive film and the second capacitive film of modified Sun have a thickness of less than 200 µm, which overlaps the claimed range of a thickness greater than 50 µm, and 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (See MPEP § 2144.05)). Regarding claim 10 , Applicant’s specification states “As used herein, high capacitor ratio corresponds to capacitor ratios greater than 5%, 6%, 7%, 8%, 9%, 10%, 12%, 15% or higher” (P37). Applicant’s specification states “The capacitor ratio of the battery cells is related to the thickness of the capacitive active material (AM) layer. Using the processes described below instead of the wet-coating process, the thickness of the capacitive AM layer can be increased to greater than 50 μm, which enables the high capacitor ratio” (P38). Modified Sun, through the teaching of Zhong, has the thickness of the capacitive films as less than 200 µm, which overlaps the claimed range of greater than 50 µm, and 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (See MPEP § 2144.05). Given modified Sun sets forth a dual-layered capacitive electrode meeting the limitations of claim 1, and wherein the capacitive films having overlapping thicknesses within the claimed range, a capacitor ratio of the dual-layered capacitive electrode would necessarily be greater than 5%. Also to note: Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber , 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.). Regarding claim 11 , modified Sun meets the limitation wherein the capacitive active material is selected from the group consisting of carbon, a metal oxide, a polymer, and combinations thereof (given U.S. Pat. No. 10,069,131, which is incorporated into Zhong, states “The active material could be any active materials commonly used for electrodes in ultracapacitors, Lithium ion capacitors, batteries, fuel cell and hybrid cells, which are the combination of the above devices, such as activated carbon for ultracapacitors electrodes, manganese dioxide or other metal oxide for ultracapacitor or battery electrodes, intercalated carbon, hard carbon or activated carbon for Li-ion capacitor or Li-ion batteries and many other like materials” (C7 / L35-60)). Regarding claim 12 , Sun discloses wherein the cathode active material is selected from the group consisting of rock salt layer oxide, a spinel compound, and an olivine compound, a tavorite compound, and combinations thereof (given the active material of battery layer 4 can be a lithium iron phosphate, P33, and lithium iron phosphate is known to be an olivine compound). Regarding claim 13 , modified Sun meets the limitation wherein the first capacitive film and the second capacitive film include the capacitive active material, a polymer powder, and a processing solvent (given U.S. Pat. No. 10,069,131, incorporated into Zhong, entitled “Electrode for Energy Storage Devices and Method of Making Same” in order to describe the dry powder mixes 12a, 12b used to produce the films 10a, 10b, P22; U.S. Pat. No. 10,069,131 teaches electrodes can be made from active materials, conductive material additives, a binder, and a solvent pressed to form a free standing film, C4 / L59 – C5 / L14; U.S. Pat. No. 10,069,131 teaches the binder can be a flexible binder that can be formed into a sheet or film subject a press force only, such as a fluoropolymer, C7 / L64 – C8 / L1-2 ; given the mixtures are dry powder mixes, the binder would be a polymer powder). Regarding claim 14 , modified Sun meets the limitation wherein: the polymer powder is selected from a group consisting of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), fluorinated ethylene propylene (FEP), perfluoroalkoxy alkanes (PFA), ethylene tetrafluoroethylene (ETFE), and combinations thereof; and the processing solvent is selected from a group consisting of alcohol, ester, and water (given U.S. Pat. No. 10,069,131, incorporated into Zhong, teaches the binder can be PTFE, C7 / L64 – C8 / L1-2) . 07-21-aia AIA Claims 21 and 23 are r ejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over S un et al (CN107331528A, using the provided machine English translation from Espacenet) in view of Hawley et al ( Electrode manufacturing for lithium-ion batteries—Analysis of current and next generation processing ) in view of Mitchell et al (US 20080236742 A1) as applied to claim 8, further in view of Stevanovic et al (US 20150200395 A1) in view of Lee et al (US 20220384775 A1) in view of Liu et al (US 20180212276 A1) . Regarding claim 21 , Sun discloses wherein the first layer includes lithium iron phosphate (P33). However, modified Sun does not meet the limitation wherein the first layer has a thickness of 110 µm, a press density of 1.5 g/cc, a loading of 2.1 mAh/cm2, and a formulation of LFP/ carbon black Super-P (SP)/carbon nanotubes (CNT)/polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) of 92/4.8/0.2/3 at mass ratio. In a similar field of endeavor, Stevanovic teaches a cathode layer can include a cathode active material of lithium iron phosphate in a range of about 80 wt % to about 95 wt %, a conductive agent of a mixture of carbon black and carbon nanotubes in a range of about 1 wt% to 10 wt% a binder of polyvinylidene fluoride in a range of about 1 wt% to 10 wt% (P13, 19, 20-22). Further, Stevanovic teaches their cathode can have an average thickness from about 25 micron to about 125 micron (P31). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Stevanovic and substituted the first layer (battery layer) of modified Sun with cathode layer of Stevanovic, given both are known lithium iron phosphate battery layers, and the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). Given the weight percent ranges provided by Stevanovic, one of ordinary skill in the art could necessarily choose to form the first layer of modified Sun to include lithium phosphate at 92 wt % (lying within the range of 80 to 95 wt %), carbon black at 4.8 wt % (lying within the conductive agent range of 1 to 10 wt %), carbon nanotubes at 0.2 wt % (lying within the conductive agent range of 1 to 10 wt %), and polyvinylidene fluoride at 3 wt % (lying within the range of 1 to 10 wt %). Further, given the thickness range provided by Stevanovic, one of ordinary skill in the art could necessarily choose to form the first layer of modified Sun to have a thickness of 110 micron. However, modified Sun still does not meet the limitation wherein the first layer has a press density of 1.5 g/cc and a loading of 2.1 mAh/cm2. In a similar field of endeavor, Lee teaches a loading amount of a positive active material layer can be in the range of 2 mAh/cm2 to 7 mAh/cm2 (P53). Lee teaches that in ca se in which the above range is satisfied, the energy density of a battery the positive active material layer is in can be increased and life characteristics of the battery can be improved (P53). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Lee and provided to modified Sun wherein the first layer has a loading within the range of 2 mAh/cm2 to 7 mAh/cm2, given Lee teaches a positive active material layer having a loading capacity in this range can increase the energy density and improve the life characteristics of a battery the positive active material layer is in, and the modification would increase the energy density and improve the life characteristics of the lithium-ion battery capacitor the dual-layered capacitive electrode of modified Sun is used within. Given the loading range provided by Lee, one of ordinary skill in the art could necessarily choose to form the first layer of modified Sun to have a loading of 2.1 mAh/cm2. However, modified Sun still does not meet the limitation wherein the first layer has a press density of 1.5 g/cc. In a similar field of endeavor, Liu teaches in order to improve the energy density of lithium ion batteries without changing the existing positive and negative materials, higher capacity of lithium ion batteries may be obtained through increasing compaction density of positive electrode or negative electrode (P3). However, Liu teaches that the greater the compaction density of the electrode, the poorer wettability of electrolyte to the electrode, and insufficient infiltration of the electrolyte to the electrode causes the increasing of migration resistance of lithium ions in the electrode during charging and discharging process (P3). From the teaching of Liu, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the press (compaction) density of an electrode layer is a result effective variable dependent upon the desired balance between gaining the desired capacity and ensuring the wettability of the electrolyte to the electrode. Therefore, the press density of the first layer is a result-effective variable up to one of ordinary skill in the art to decide, through routine experimentation, to reach the desired balance between capacity and wettability of the electrolyte to the first layer. “[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.” See In re Aller , 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch , 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.). Regarding claim 23 , Sun discloses wherein the first layer includes lithium iron phosphate (P33). However, modified Sun does not meet the limitation wherein the first layer has a thickness of 46 µm, a press density of 1.9 g/cc, a loading of 1.1 mAh/cm2, and a formulation of LFP/ carbon black Super-P (SP)/carbon nanotubes (CNT)/polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) of 92/4.8/0.2/3 at mass ratio. In a similar field of endeavor, Stevanovic teaches a cathode layer can include a cathode active material of lithium iron phosphate in a range of about 80 wt % to about 95 wt %, a conductive agent of a mixture of carbon black and carbon nanotubes in a range of about 1 wt% to 10 wt% a binder of polyvinylidene fluoride in a range of about 1 wt% to 10 wt% (P13, 19, 20-22). Further, Stevanovic teaches their cathode can have an average thickness from about 25 micron to about 125 micron (P31). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Stevanovic and substituted the first layer (battery layer) of modified Sun with cathode layer of Stevanovic, given both are known lithium iron phosphate battery layers, and the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). Given the weight percent ranges provided by Stevanovic, one of ordinary skill in the art could necessarily choose to form the first layer of modified Sun to include lithium phosphate at 92 wt % (lying within the range of 80 to 95 wt %), carbon black at 4.8 wt % (lying within the conductive agent range of 1 to 10 wt %), carbon nanotubes at 0.2 wt % (lying within the conductive agent range of 1 to 10 wt %), and polyvinylidene fluoride at 3 wt % (lying within the range of 1 to 10 wt %). Further, given the thickness range provided by Stevanovic, one of ordinary skill in the art could necessarily choose to form the first layer of modified Sun to have a thickness of 46 micron. However, modified Sun still does not meet the limitation wherein the first layer has a press density of 1.9 g/cc and a loading of 1.1 mAh/cm2. In a similar field of endeavor, Lee teaches a loading amount of a positive active material layer can be in the range of 1 mAh/cm2 to 10 mAh/cm2 (P53). Lee teaches that in case in which the above range is satisfied, the energy density of a battery the positive active material layer is in can be increased and life characteristics of the battery can be improved (P53). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Lee and provided to modified Sun wherein the first layer has a loading within the range of 1 mAh/cm2 to 10 mAh/cm2, given Lee teaches a positive active material layer having a loading capacity in this range can increase the energy density and improve the life characteristics of a battery the positive active material layer is in, and the modification would increase the energy density and improve the life characteristics of the lithium-ion battery capacitor the dual-layered capacitive electrode of modified Sun is used within. Given the loading range provided by Lee, one of ordinary skill in the art could necessarily choose to form the first layer of modified Sun to have a loading of 1.1 mAh/cm2. However, modified Sun still does not meet the limitation wherein the first layer has a press density of 1.9 g/cc. In a similar field of endeavor, Liu teaches in order to improve the energy density of lithium ion batteries without changing the existing positive and negative materials, higher capacity of lithium ion batteries may be obtained through increasing compaction density of positive electrode or negative electrode (P3). However, Liu teaches that the greater the compaction density of the electrode, the poorer wettability of electrolyte to the electrode, and insufficient infiltration of the electrolyte to the electrode causes the increasing of migration resistance of lithium ions in the electrode during charging and discharging process (P3). From the teaching of Liu, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the press (compaction) density of an electrode layer is a result effective variable dependent upon the desired balance between gaining the desired capacity and ensuring the wettability of the electrolyte to the electrode. Therefore, the press density of the first layer is a result-effective variable up to one of ordinary skill in the art to decide, through routine experimentation, to reach the desired balance between capacity and wettability of the electrolyte to the first layer. “[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.” See In re Aller , 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch , 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.) . 07-21-aia AIA Claims 22 are r ejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over S un et al (CN107331528A, using the provided machine English translation from Espacenet) in view of Hawley et al ( Electrode manufacturing for lithium-ion batteries—Analysis of current and next generation processing ) in view of Mitchell et al (US 20080236742 A1) as applied to claim 8, further in view of Dandrea (US 20140127570 A1) in view of Galande et al (US 20150104714 A1) in view of Ranade et al ( Optimization Study of Supercapacitor Electrode Material ) in view of Niu et al (US 20050002850 A1) . Regarding claim 22 , modified Sun does not meet the limitation wherein the first capacitive film and the second capacitive film have a thickness of 110 µm, a press density of 0.5 g/cc, loading of 0.17 mAh/cm2, and a formulation of active carbon (AC)/black Super-P (SP)/polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) of 95/2/3 at mass ratio. In a similar field of endeavor, Dandrea teaches a carbon sheet for an electrode of a supercapacitor (P2). Dandrea teaches the carbon sheet can be made from a mixture of activated carbon, polytetrafluoroethylene, and a conductive additive of carbon black (P20). Dandrea teaches the mixture can include 60 – 99 wt % activated carbon, 1 – 20 wt % polytetrafluoroethylene, and 0 – 40 wt % conductive additive (P20). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Dandrea and substituted the first capacitive film and the second capacitive film of modified Sun with the carbon sheet of Dandrea, given both are materials used for capacitive functions, and the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). Given the weight percent ranges provided by Dandrea, one of ordinary skill in the art could necessarily choose to form the first capacitive film and the second capacitive film of modified Sun to include active carbon at 95 wt % (lying within the range of 60 to 99 wt %), carbon black at 2 wt % (lying within the range of 0 to 40 wt %), and polytetrafluoroethylene at 3 wt % (lying within the range of 1 to 20 wt %). However, modified Sun still does not meet the limitation wherein the first capacitive film and the second capacitive film have a thickness of 110 µm, a press density of 0.5 g/cc, and a loading of 0.17 mAh/cm2. In a similar field of endeavor, Galande teaches increasing the thickness of an electrode gives a greater areal capacity. From the teaching of Galande, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the loading (areal capacity) of a capacitive layer is a result effective variable dependent upon the thickness of the layer. Therefore, the loading (areal capacity) of the first capacitive film and the second capacitive film are a result-effective variable up to one of ordinary skill in the art to decide, through routine experimentation, to reach the desired thickness of the layer. “[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.” See In re Aller , 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch , 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.). However, modified Sun still does not meet the limitation wherein the first capacitive film and the second capacitive film have a thickness of 110 µm, a press density of 0.5 g/cc. In a similar field of endeavor, Ranade teaches studies the effects of the thickness of a supercapacitor electrode (Page 730, Right Column). Ranade teaches the thickness of the electrode is important to be optimized as excessive thickness affects the mechanical integrity of the electrode while reduction in thickness reduces its capacitance (Page 730, Right Column). From the teaching of Ranade, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the thickness of a capacitive layer is a result effective variable dependent upon the desired balance between mechanical integrity of the layer and capacitance of the layer. Therefore, the thickness of the first capacitive film and the second capacitive film are a result-effective variable up to one of ordinary skill in the art to decide, through routine experimentation, to reach the desired balance mechanical integrity of the films and capacitance of the films. “[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.” See In re Aller , 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch , 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.). However, modified Sun still does not meet the limitation wherein the first capacitive film and the second capacitive film have a press density of 0.5 g/cc. In a similar field of endeavor, Niu teaches the density of an electrode determines it volumetric capacitance (P142). Niu teaches an electrode with a density of less than 0.4 g/cc is not practical for real devices (P142). Niu teaches a low-density electrode will take up too much electrolyte, which will decrease both volumetric and gravimetric capacitance of a device (P142). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Niu and chosen the press density of the first capacitive film and the second capacitive film to be above 0.4 g/cc, given Niu teaches the density of an electrode determines it volumetric capacitance, an electrode with a density of less than 0.4 g/cc is not practical for real devices, and a low-density electrode will take up too much electrolyte, which will decrease both volumetric and gravimetric capacitance of a device. Given the density range provided by Niu, one of ordinary skill in the art could necessarily choose the press density of the first capacitive film and the second capacitive film to be 0.5 g/cc. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mary Harris whose telephone number is (571)272-0690. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571)272-1481. 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. /MARY GRACE HARRIS/Examiner, Art Unit 1729 Application/Control Number: 17/961,792 Page 2 Art Unit: 1729 Application/Control Number: 17/961,792 Page 3 Art Unit: 1729 Application/Control Number: 17/961,792 Page 4 Art Unit: 1729 Application/Control Number: 17/961,792 Page 5 Art Unit: 1729 Application/Control Number: 17/961,792 Page 8 Art Unit: 1729 Application/Control Number: 17/961,792 Page 9 Art Unit: 1729 Application/Control Number: 17/961,792 Page 10 Art Unit: 1729 Application/Control Number: 17/961,792 Page 12 Art Unit: 1729 Application/Control Number: 17/961,792 Page 13 Art Unit: 1729 Application/Control Number: 17/961,792 Page 14 Art Unit: 1729 Application/Control Number: 17/961,792 Page 15 Art Unit: 1729 Application/Control Number: 17/961,792 Page 16 Art Unit: 1729 Application/Control Number: 17/961,792 Page 17 Art Unit: 1729 Application/Control Number: 17/961,792 Page 18 Art Unit: 1729 Application/Control Number: 17/961,792 Page 19 Art Unit: 1729 Application/Control Number: 17/961,792 Page 20 Art Unit: 1729 Application/Control Number: 17/961,792 Page 21 Art Unit: 1729 Application/Control Number: 17/961,792 Page 22 Art Unit: 1729 Application/Control Number: 17/961,792 Page 23 Art Unit: 1729 Application/Control Number: 17/961,792 Page 24 Art Unit: 1729
Prosecution Insights