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 I, claims 1-12, in the reply filed on 1/29/2026 is acknowledged. Applicant further elected Species A directed to ethyl cellulose (claims 2, 5, and 6) and Species X directed to MOF-808 (claim 7).
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 1, 2, 5-7, and 10-12 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 1 recites “particles and flakes are small relative to said electrodes”. The term “small” is not clear because there are no metes and bounds and it is not defined in the specification.
Claims 2, 5-7, and 10-12 are rejected by virtue of their dependency to claim 1.
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 1, 2, 5-7, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 2019/0036700 to Kyung et al. (hereinafter “Kyung”) in view of “Graphene/Na carboxymethyl cellulose composite for Li-ion batteries prepared by enhanced liquid exfoliation”, Naboka et al., Materials Science and Engineering B, published 24 April 2016 (hereinafter “Naboka”).
With respect to claim 1, Kyung discloses a composition for producing electrodes a positive electrode for a lithium-sulfur battery (see [0011] & [0016]), comprising:
carbonized metal-organic framework (MOF) structure (see [0013]) with well-defined pores (see [0027]); and
sulfur compound introduced into at least a portion of the outer surface and the interior of the carbonized MOF (see [0023]).
Kyung further discloses that a conductive material and a binder can be mixed with said carbon-sulfur composite to form said positive electrode(see [0079]), wherein said conductive material may be graphene (see [0082]) and said binder (equivalent to claimed polymer residue) may be cellulose-based such as carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) (see [0086]).
Kyung fails to explicitly disclose (i) graphene flakes and (ii) particles and flakes (claimed graphene flakes) are small relative to said electrodes to form a composite electrode bound at least partially by said polymer residue.
With respect to (i) difference, it is noted Kyung discloses graphene in general which would encompass graphene flakes. Furthermore, Naboka discloses graphene is commonly used for electrodes in energy storage applications (see pg. 1, col. 1, 1st paragraph). Naboka further discloses graphene flakes are one of the options within the genus of graphene in the context of electrodes (see pg. 4, col. 1, paragraph 3 and pg. 6, col. 1, paragraphs 3-4).
With respect to (ii) difference, Kyung discloses the content of the binder may be 0.5 may be 0.5-30 wt% of the total weight of the positive electrode (see [0087]) which is reasonably considered small relative to the weight of the electrodes. Kyung further discloses a weight ratio of 90:5:5 of a sulfur-carbon composite material to conductive material to binder (see [0151]). In view of these disclosures, Kyung is reasonably considered to read upon claimed particles and flakes (graphene) are small relative to the total weight of the electrode.
With respect to claimed graphene flakes obtained by polymer enhanced solvent exfoliation and polymer residue from said polymer enhanced solvent exfoliation, it is noted these claimed recitation is drawn to products-by-process. Per MPEP2113, “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.” Additionally, Kyung discloses solvent is used for preparing the positive electrode composition for a lithium-sulfur batter (see [0079]-[0090]).
With respect to claim 2, Kyung broadly discloses cellulose-based which would encompass ethyl cellulose. Additionally, Naboka discloses that a polymer for graphene exfoliant includes ethyl cellulose.
With respect to claims 5 and 6 directed to weight ratio of graphene flakes to ethyl cellulose, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to determine optimum effective ratio of graphene flakes to ethyl cellulose through routine experimentation absent any evidence of criticality.
With respect to claims 10-12 directed to lateral dimensions of graphene flakes, Naboka discloses graphene flakes with lateral size in range of ~100-500 nm (page 4, col. 1, 2nd paragraph) which falls within claimed ranges.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 2019/0036700 to Kyung et al. (hereinafter “Kyung”) in view of “Graphene/Na carboxymethyl cellulose composite for Li-ion batteries prepared by enhanced liquid exfoliation”, Naboka et al., Materials Science and Engineering B, published 24 April 2016 (hereinafter “Naboka”) as applied to claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 10-12 above, and further in view of WO 2019/212944 A1 to Thoi et al. (hereinafter “Thoi”).
With respect to claim 7, Kyung discloses MOF-5 and does not explicitly disclose claimed MOF-808.
Thoi is directed to high capacity lithium-sulfur batteries. Thoi specifically discloses utilization of MOF-808 (see [0051]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to have substituted MOF-55 in Kyung for MOF-808 disclosed by Thoi with an expectation of equal success since both are porous and used for making similar lithium-sulfur batteries.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IN SUK C BULLOCK whose telephone number is (571)272-5954. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-4:30 PM.
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.
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.
/IN SUK C BULLOCK/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights