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 election is noted. Claims 66, 67, 71-75, 77-79, 87-94 are withdrawn.
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 47-51, 54, 61, 64, 80-86 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 47 (a) is unclear as to what the ‘solvated ion’ is. Do the claims attempt to refer to the charge carrier (e.g., lithium ion) or do they intend to describe the ionic electrolyte- in which case ‘solvated’ is unclear as to what is solvating the electrolyte? If the electrolyte has a cation and an anion, which one dictates the size? Specification fig. 24 implies that it is the cation of the electrolyte salt that is of interest. Clarification is requested. See para 83 of 20170256365.
In claim 61, the gases listed are commonly referred to as ‘inert’, in contrast to ‘nearly inert’ in claim 47.
Claim 82 is unclear as to what a ‘cosolvent-in-salt electrolyte’ means. Further, if the electrolyte is ionic, does it also count as the ‘ionic fluid’? If not, why not?
Claim 47 is unclear as to what exactly ‘nearly inert’ means, especially in view of the following:
Noble gases such as Ar and Xe make chemical compounds and are thus not truly inert;
Reagent grade sources of nitrogen, Argon, etc. contain trace amounts of oxidizing gases;
Nitrogen is not an activation agent, however oxygen, steam and CO2 are. In order to activate (absent a salt like KOH in the feed mixture), the ‘nearly inert gas’ would need to contain an oxidant. Are applicants trying to imply that the gas is ‘nearly inert’ because it contains an oxidant?
Claim 51 recites KOH (for example) as the activation agent, somewhat at odds with the phrasing of claim 47 and especially in light of all the above.
Claim interpretation and comments:
Steps a) and b) of claim 47 do not appear to relate to the steps of the claim; no electrolyte is added to make the carbon. Rather, this refers to the intended use of the carbon. In essence, these steps appear to be only mental steps because the reagents are never used in the process. Thus, they do not limit the claims; putting aside the fact that the heating regimens are almost the same regardless of which is chosen and the final product is the same regardless of the choice made.
Figure 24 is confusing because it depicts a carbon of identical pore distribution regardless of what the electrolyte is. This is in contrast to claims 80 and 81, as well as specification pg. 14. Clarification is requested.
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.
Claims 47, 48 and 82 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beguin et al. 20150291432.
Begiuin teaches, especially in ex. 9, table 1 and para 99, heating biomass in nitrogen at 800 C for an hour to make active carbon having 0.053 (0.574-0.430-0.091) cc/g macropores, which is 9.2% of the total pore volume. In so far as the step of selecting the electrolyte is a required step, table 3 teaches 3 different choices including large organic molecules. Having one in mind- and not having the other 2 in mind- is obvious to make the desired capacitor based upon the desired properties.
As to the pressure, flowing nitrogen is used. In so far as atmospheric pressure is not achieved, using the claimed pressure is obvious to optimize the time of treatment and achieve the desired result; see para 4. Furthermore, as no pressure is stated, atmospheric pressure is implied by default.
For claim 48, ex. 9 is 74.9% micropores, 15.8% are mesopores and 9.2% are macropores.
In ex. 3, the macropores are 7.7%, the mesopores are 18.2% and the micropores are 74.4%. Feature V of claim 48 is met when the large organic is chosen (notwithstanding the unclarity alleged above).
Ex 10 is 3.1% macro, 17.9% meso, 78.9% micropores.
Examples 2, 5, 6 and 9 are also noted.
For claim 82, electrolytes are taught in table 3.
Claims 47, 49, 50, 54, 61, 64, 82 and 85 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aziz 20210032113.
Aziz teaches, especially in figs. 1 and 7B and paras 27-33 and 83, making powdered active carbon by adding base to jute and heating under inert atmosphere, acid treating the activated product, sonication, water addition and recovering the carbon. Once cooled, the carbon can be subjected to acid washing and then neutral pH. This differs in teaching an overlapping temperature, however the overlap renders the claims obvious as a matter of selection. As to the pressure, flowing N2 is used and using the claimed pressure is obvious to optimize the time of treatment while removing the effluent gases efficiently. Note the macropores in fig. 7B.
For claim 50, see fig. 1.
For claim 54, these materials need not be chosen.
For claim 61, nitrogen is used.
For claims 64 and 85, para 83 teaches HCl treatment, noting the above clarity issue.
For claim 82, the electrolyte is not actually part of the claimed process and is irrelevant thereto.
Claims 51, 83 and 84 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aziz as applied to claim 49 above, and further in view of Gadkaree 20150364266.
For claim 51, Gadkaree teaches, especially in the figures, overlapping range of KOH. Using the claimed amount of KOH in the process of Aziz is obvious to achieve the activation desired by an in-situ base.
For claim 83, the electrolyte is not relevant to the synthesis of the carbon.
For claim 84, Aziz para 83 teaches HCl wash.
Claims 47, 80 and 82 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lou et al. 20200048099.
Lou teaches, especially in paras 23-30 and the examples, making a powder carbon source, adding inorganic activating agents and heating at 1 atm pressure. This differs in not explicitly requiring inert gas, however N2 is an option taught in para 30, thus rendering the claims obvious. As to the macropore volume, para 32 teaches optimization thereof to minimize macropores- noting that the claims contemplate de-minimus amounts thereof.
For claim 80, the mesopores are primarily 20-50 A with little above 50A, so both of the conditions are met.
For claim 82, the electrolyte is not actually part of the claimed process and is irrelevant thereto.
The claims not rejected over prior art or 112 are allowable over the prior art, as the features are not taught or suggested. Note the pore distribution of the carbon material recited in claim 81 (in view of its dependence of claim 48).
Murakami 6865068 col. 4 is noted.
Derbyshire 6057262 col. 6 is noted.
JP 2001089119 is noted.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STUART L HENDRICKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1351. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 9 to 5. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Anthony Zimmer, can be reached on 571-270-3591. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/STUART L HENDRICKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736