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 . If status of the application as subject to 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 a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/13/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-8, 12-19, & 40-42 are pending in the application and are presently examined. Claims 1-8, 10-19, & 40-42 were rejected in the 4/13/2026 office action. Applicant cancelled claims 10-11.
Response to Amendment / Arguments
The 7/13/2026 amendment, in response to the 4/13/2026 office action, has been entered. Applicant’s claim amendments and arguments, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s argument, that Examiner incorrectly interpreted claims 40-42 to be product-by-process, is persuasive. These arguments are discussed in the following several paragraphs.
Applicant argues that US20200295352A1 (Oh) and US20130212879A1 (Ogino) are directed to negative electrode active materials, but the present application is directed to cathode materials (Remarks pp.6-7). The claims (not the application) are examined for obviousness over the prior art. The present claims fail to recite a cathode. Any distinction between the present application (not the claims) and the prior art is irrelevant for examination.
Applicant argues that problems solved by the present application are different from problems solved by the prior art. MPEP 2144(IV) provides the law for this issue:
“The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant.”
Thus, there is no requirement that the prior art discusses the same problems confronted by inventors of the present application. A granted patent claim protects the claimed structure, but not the mental process used to conceive of that claimed structure.
Regarding Oh and Ogino, Applicant argues:
“The Examiner's reliance on these references is akin to combining unrelated art without a reasonable expectation of success.”
Examiner disagrees that the prior art is unrelated. The present claims are broadly directed to “A composite for an electrode for an electrochemical device”. Oh is directed to “a negative electrode active material for non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery” (abstract). Ogino is directed to a negative electrode and a lithium secondary battery (abstract). Thus, the present claims, Oh, and Ogino are all directed to an electrode for a battery / electrochemical device. Applicant failed to explain why combining this prior art would not result in “a reasonable expectation of success”.
Claim 1 was amended to state:
“said surface-refined nanoparticles have a lower electrode polarization during activation, compared to that of nanoparticles of the active material before surface refining”
Regarding this new claim limitation, Applicant argues that Oh and Ogino are not directed to removing surface impurities. Claim 1 doesn’t refer to removing surface impurities, so this argument isn’t helpful at overcoming the claim 1 rejection. Claim 6 states:
“said surface-refined nanoparticles are formed by said surface refining of said nanoparticles of the active material at a temperature in a range of about 150-350°C in an oxidizing environment for about 0.5-2 hours to effectively remove or minimize surface impurities comprising lithium carbonate and/or lithium hydroxide on surfaces of said nanoparticles”
It doesn’t matter what the intent of the prior art is, and whether or not the prior art anneals for the purpose of removing surface impurities. As discussed below, the prior art teaches this annealing process, so the result of removing surface impurities would be achieved, regardless of whether the prior art fails to discuss this objective.
Claim 1 states:
“the conformal graphene coating yields a percolating, electrically conductive network between said surface-refined nanoparticles”
Applicant argues that the prior art fails to teach this. Examiner disagrees.
Although Oh fails to explicitly state that the coating is conformal; Oh teaches use of chemical vapor deposition to form the carbon coating layer (paragraph 48), which would result in a conformal coating. See further discussion in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection below.
Oh doesn’t explicitly state that the graphene is percolating; however, Oh’s graphene must allow ions to pass through in order for the nanoparticle active material to function; therefore, Oh’s graphene must be percolating / porous. See further discussion in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection below.
Applicant next argues limitations that are absent from the claims (underlined):
“Ogino's method of mixing graphene oxide with a precursor does not teach a conformal coating that yields such a well-defined, percolating network on individual nanoparticles. The Examiner has not established that the combination of Oh and Ogino would have enabled the creation of the claimed percolating, conformal graphene network on said surface-refined nanoparticles with the resulting superior performance.” Remarks p.8.
Examiner addressed all of these issues above and in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection below, except for the underlined portions of Applicant’s argument. These underlined portions are not in the claims, and won’t be examined unless Applicant adds them to the claims.
Applicant next argues that Oh or Ogino fail to teach “an annealation product of ethyl cellulose”. Examiner agrees, however, this claim limitation is taught by other prior art, as discussed below.
Applicant next argues that Examiner incorrectly interpreted claims 40-42 to be product-by-process. Examiner agrees. Examiner removed this argument in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection below.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 14 includes some words, such as “high” and “low”, that could be interpreted as indefinite in scope. For present examination, such words are interpreted to be a comparison, thus making definite words such as “high” and “low”. Claim 14 is interpreted to mean the following:
“the electrode haser rate capability, lower impedance, higher volumetric energy and power densities, and longer cycle life, compared with a control electrode that comprises nanoparticles of the active material without surface refining and/or conformal graphene coating”
Examiner encourages Applicant to thus amend claim 14 for improved clarity of meaning.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1 & 14 state that the graphene coating is conformal. The present specification fails to define “conformal”. The phrase “conformal coating” is used in semiconductors and circuit boards to describe a coating that covers contours on the surface of the covered device. Although these conformal coatings can conform carefully to contours with minimal change in coating thickness, the present specification fails to provide such a narrow definition. For present examination, a conformal coating covers contours on the surface of the covered device, but not necessarily with any level of precision or minimal change in coating thickness.
Claim 1 states that “the conformal graphene coating yields a percolating, electrically conductive network between said surface-refined nanoparticles”. A dictionary definition of “percolate” means “to cause (a liquid) to pass through a porous body; filter”1. For present examination, “percolating” means that the graphene coating is porous, and thus can allow ions or liquid to pass through.
Claims 6 & 12 state “about 150-350°C” and “about 0.5-2 hours”. The word “about” in these claims is interpreted according to the specification definition of “about” on page 10, lines 4-8.
Claim 7 recites an “annealing treatment”. Claim 7 doesn’t further define “annealing treatment”. The specification doesn’t provide a special definition for “annealing treatment”. A dictionary definition of “anneal” is “to heat (glass, metals, etc.) and then cool, sometimes slowly”2. For present examination, without further definition in the claim, “annealing treatment” means to heat then cool.
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.
Claims 7-8, 12, & 40-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor(s) regard as the invention.
Claim 7 states: “the post-synthetic annealing treatment”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in this claim.
Claim 7 refers to “said nanoparticles”. It is unclear whether “said nanoparticles” of claim 7 are the “surface-refined nanoparticles” or the “nanoparticles of the active material before surface refining” from claim 1.
Claims 8 & 12 state “the graphene” or “said graphene”. There is lack of antecedent basis for these phrases in these claims. For present examination, Examiner presumes that “the graphene” or “said graphene” in these claims is the same as the “conformal graphene coating” of claim 1.
Claims 40-42 state “said nanoparticles being surface refined such that said surface-refined nanoparticles”. There is lack of antecedent basis for “said nanoparticles being surface refined”. It is unclear whether “said nanoparticles being surface refined” are the “surface-refined nanoparticles” or the “nanoparticles of the active material before surface refining” from claim 1. Examiner suggests removing “said nanoparticles being surface refined such that” in order to overcome this rejection and for improved claim clarity and readability.
Claim 40 states “the intensity of the carbonate peaks decreased dramatically”. The extent or boundary of “decreased dramatically” is indefinite. The present specification fails to define “decreased dramatically” with regard to carbonate peak intensity change.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d), as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Dependent claim 42 repeats a claim 1 limitation, and thus fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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.
The claims are in bold font, the prior art is in parentheses.
Claims 1, 13-19, & 40-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20200295352A1 (Oh) in view of US20180254517A1 (Hersam).
Oh teaches the following claim 1 limitations:
A composite (paragraphs 20, 27, 34, & 41: graphene on silicon & silicon dioxide particles) for an electrode for an electrochemical device (paragraph 32: secondary battery comprising an electrode), comprising:
…nanoparticles (paragraphs 20 & 32: silicon particles & silicon dioxide particles have nanometer diameters) of an active material (paragraph 32)
…graphene coating on each surface of said… nanoparticles (Paragraph 41: The sixth step is forming a carbon coating layer on the silicon oxide composite. Paragraph 27: The carbon coating layer comprises graphene)
Claim 1 also states that the nanoparticles are surface-refined, and further recites:
said surface-refined nanoparticles have a lower electrode polarization during activation, compared to that of nanoparticles of the active material before surface refining
The present specification teaches that surface refinement by annealing results in lower electrode polarization during activation (page 11, lines 7-9 & 22-24; page 21, lines 14-17).
Oh teaches heating then cooling the particles (paragraphs 36-37), i.e. annealing the particles (see the Claim Interpretation section above). Thus, Oh’s silicon & silicon dioxide particles are surface-refined, and will “have a lower electrode polarization during activation, compared to that of nanoparticles of the active material before surface refining”, according to the teachings of the present specification.
Claim 1 also states that the graphene coating is conformal. Oh fails to explicitly state that the coating is conformal; however, Oh teaches use of chemical vapor deposition to form the carbon coating layer (paragraph 48). A coating formed by chemical vapor deposition would result in a conformal coating under the broad definition of conformal in the Claim Interpretation section above.
Hersam provides additional guidance. Hersam describes a conformal graphene coating on active material particle surfaces in order to suppress undesirable electrode/electrolyte reactions and for excellent cycling stability (paragraph 32). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, for Oh’s graphene to be conformal, as taught by Hersam, in order to suppress undesirable electrode/electrolyte reactions and for excellent cycling stability.
Regarding the conformal graphene coating, claim 1 also states:
the conformal graphene coating yields a percolating, electrically conductive network between said surface-refined nanoparticles
Oh doesn’t explicitly state that the graphene is percolating. Oh’s graphene must allow ions to pass through in order for the nanoparticle active material to function; therefore, Oh’s graphene must be percolating. Graphene is inherently electrically conductive, and Oh’s carbon-containing coating layer is for electrical conductivity (paragraphs 25-26); therefore, Oh’s graphene must be electrically conductive.
Oh fails to teach the following claim 1 limitation, which is taught by Hersam:
an annealation product of ethyl cellulose comprising amorphous carbon with sp2-carbon content (paragraph 34)
Hersam describes use of ethyl cellulose with graphene-coated active material in order to improve packing density and active material loading (paragraphs 16 & 32). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for modified Oh’s positive electrode active material to include amorphous carbon, which is an annealation product of ethyl cellulose, as taught by Hersam, for improved packing density and active material loading.
With regard to claims 13 & 19, modified Oh teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Oh also teaches the following limitations of claims 13 & 19:
Claim 13
An electrode for an electrochemical device, comprising: said composite of claim 1. (paragraph 14: negative electrode)
Claim 19
An electrochemical device, comprising the electrode of claim 13. (paragraphs 14 & 27: secondary battery)
With regard to claims 14-18, modified Oh teaches the limitations of claims 1 & 13 as described above. Claims 14-18 recite:
Claim 14
the electrode has superlative performance including high rate capability, low impedance, high volumetric energy and power densities, and long cycle life, compared with a control electrode that comprises nanoparticles of the active material without surface refining and/or conformal graphene coating
Claim 15
the electrode has electrode polarization during activation lower than that of the control electrode
Claim 16
the electrode has initial capacity and rate capability better than that of the control electrode
Claim 17
the electrode has electrochemical reversibility better than that of the control electrode
Claim 18
the electrode has cell impedance substantially lower than that of the control electrode
Oh fails to explicitly describe these properties. Modified Oh, however, teaches the claimed electrode, so presumably modified Oh’s electrode would also have these properties.
With regard to claim 40, modified Oh teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Claim 40 recites:
said nanoparticles being surface refined such that said surface-refined nanoparticles have XPS (X-Ray photoelectron spectroscopy) C 1s and O 1s spectra with the intensity of the carbonate peaks decreased dramatically, compared to that of said nanoparticles before the surface refining
Oh fails to teach this XPS peak decrease. The present specification teaches that surface refinement by annealing results in this XPS peak decrease (page 7, lines 5-12; page 20, line 18 through page 21, line 13). Modified Oh teaches surface refinement by annealing; therefore, modified Oh’s nanoparticles would also have this XPS peak decrease.
With regard to claim 41, modified Oh teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Claim 41 recites:
said nanoparticles being surface refined such that said surface-refined nanoparticles have XPS (X-Ray photoelectron spectroscopy) O 1s spectrum with an increase in the peak intensity assigned to lattice transition metal-oxygen bonds at 529.8 eV, compared to that of said nanoparticles before the surface refining
Oh fails to teach this XPS peak increase. The present specification teaches that surface refinement by annealing results in this XPS peak increase (page 20, lines 18-28; page 21, lines 1-13). Modified Oh teaches surface refinement by annealing; therefore, modified Oh’s nanoparticles would also have this XPS peak increase.
With regard to claim 42, modified Oh teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Claim 42 repeats a claim 1 limitation. See claim 1 for a discussion of the prior art teaching this claim limitation.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20200295352A1 (Oh) in view of US20180254517A1 (Hersam), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of US20130212879A1 (Ogino).
With regard to claim 2, modified Oh teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Oh fails to teach the following claim 2 limitation, which is taught by Ogino:
the active material comprises nickel-rich transition metal oxides, cobalt-rich transition metal oxides, and lithium-rich transition metal oxides (paragraph 103: LiNiPO4, LiCoPO4, & LiFePO4)
Ogino is directed to an electrode with suppressed deterioration and a reliable lithium secondary battery. It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Oh’s active material include to include LiNiPO4, LiCoPO4, & LiFePO4, as taught by Ogino, for an electrode with suppressed deterioration and a reliable lithium secondary battery.
With regard to claim 3, modified Oh teaches the limitations of claims 1-2 as described above. Oh fails to teach the following claim 3 limitation, which is taught by Ogino:
the nickel-rich transition metal oxides comprise nickel-rich lithium oxides, nickel-rich sodium oxides, or nickel-rich magnesium oxides (paragraph 102: LiNiO2 or paragraph 103: LiNiPO4)
With regard to claim 4, modified Oh teaches the limitations of claims 1-3 as described above. Oh fails to teach the following claim 4 limitation, which is taught by Ogino:
the nickel-rich lithium oxides comprise… LiNiO2 (paragraph 102: LiNiO2)
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20200295352A1 (Oh) in view of US20180254517A1 (Hersam) and US20130212879A1 (Ogino), as applied to claims 1-4, and further in view of US20190157681A1 (Ho). Ogino fails to teach the following claim 5 limitation, which is taught by Ho:
the nickel-rich lithium oxides are doped with elements including Al, B, Zr, Nb, Fe, Cr, Cu, Mo, W, and/or V (paragraph 47: the cathode active material is doped with Al)
Ho teaches an active material for increased productivity and reduced manufacturing cost of lithium-ion batteries (abstract; paragraph 46). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Oh’s active material to include an Al dopant, as taught by Ho, as part of lithium-ion battery increased productivity and reduced manufacturing cost.
Claims 6-7 & 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20200295352A1 (Oh) in view of US20180254517A1 (Hersam), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of US20130212879A1 (Ogino) and US20110121240A1 (Amine).
With regard to claim 6, modified Oh teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Oh fails to teach the following claim 6 limitation, which is taught by Ogino:
said surface-refined nanoparticles are formed by said surface refining of said nanoparticles of the active material at a temperature in a range of about 150-350°C… for about 0.5-2 hours (paragraph 77: heated 200-400 oC for 1-2 hours)
Ogino is directed to an electrode with suppressed deterioration and a reliable lithium secondary battery. It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Oh’s active material include to be heated 200-400 oC for 1-2 hours, as taught by Ogino, for an electrode with suppressed deterioration and a reliable lithium secondary battery.
Ogino’s 200-400 oC range overlaps the claimed 150-350 oC range. MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A) provides the law for this issue:
“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)”
Given that Ogino’s range is similar to and substantially overlaps the claimed range, and further given the fact that no criticality is disclosed for the claimed range, the temperature range in claim 6 is an obvious variant of Ogino’s range.
Oh & Ogino fail to teach that the above temperature and time are in an oxidizing environment. Amine teaches this claim limitation (paragraph 31). Amine teaches a graphene-coated electroactive material (abstract) which can be heated at 250-450 oC in an oxidizing atmosphere (paragraph 13). Amine’s objective is to “prepare carbon-coated electroactive materials that avoid the high temperature, pressure, and manufacturing extremes” of other methods (paragraph 27). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for modified Oh’s heat treatment to have been performed in an oxidizing atmosphere, as taught by Amine, to “prepare carbon-coated electroactive materials that avoid the high temperature, pressure, and manufacturing extremes” of other methods (paragraph 27).
Claim 6 also requires that the surface refining is —
to effectively remove or minimize surface impurities comprising lithium carbonate and/or lithium hydroxide on surfaces of said nanoparticles
Claim 6 is a product-by-process claim. MPEP § 2113 provides the law for a recitation of how an article is made:
“‘[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. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.’ In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)”
The initial composite, and how it arrived at the final composite, are not considered for patentability, except to the extent that the final product is affected. Oh doesn’t teach carbonate in the composite. There are two options:
OPTION 1: Before annealing, modified Oh did not have lithium carbonate and/or lithium hydroxide impurities. In this case, the claim requirements are satisfied because there would be no such impurities in the composition after surface refining: “determination of patentability is based on the product itself” (MPEP § 2113).
OPTION 2: Before annealing, modified Oh did have lithium carbonate and/or lithium hydroxide impurities. In this case, these impurities would have been reduced, because modified Oh teach the method described in the present specification for achieving this (page 11, lines 7-9 & 22-24; page 21, lines 14-17).
Thus, under either option, this claim limitation is satisfied by the prior art.
With regard to claim 7, modified Oh teaches the limitations of claims 1 & 6 as described above. Claim 7 recites:
the post-synthetic annealing treatment does not produce any measurable changes to a bulk structure of said nanoparticles
Modified Oh teaches the annealing treatment; therefore, presumably the result of claim 7 would also be achieved by modified Oh.
With regard to claim 12, modified Oh teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Claims 12 states:
The composite of claim 1, being formed by annealing a mixture of said surface-refined nanoparticles, said graphene, and the ethyl cellulose at a temperature in a range of about 150-350°C for a period of time in a range of about 0.5-2 hours to decompose the ethyl cellulose, thereby resulting in said composite having said annealation product of the ethyl cellulose
As discussed above, modified Oh teaches all of these claim limitations, except that annealing a mixture of the surface-refined nanoparticles, graphene, and ethyl cellulose together was not discussed above.
Hersam teaches annealing together a mixture of nano-LMO (paragraph 10: active material, thus equivalent to the claimed nanoparticles), GNF (paragraph 32: graphene nanoflakes which coat the LMO, thus equivalent to the claimed graphene), and ethyl cellulose (paragraph 34: annealing nano-LMO, GNF, & ethyl cellulose together). Hersam teaches annealing these together for amorphous carbon in gaps between GNFs (paragraph 34). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, for modified Oh’s silicon & silicon dioxide particles, graphene, and ethyl cellulose to have been annealed together, as taught by Hersam, for amorphous carbon in gaps between GNFs.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20200295352A1 (Oh) in view of US20180254517A1 (Hersam), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of US20190288260A1 (Delaporte). Oh fails to teach the following claim 8 limitation, which is taught by Delaporte:
the graphene comprises solution-exfoliated graphene (paragraphs 40 & 45: solution-exfoliated graphene on electrochemically active cathode material)
Delaporte is directed to decreasing time, manufacturing cost, toxic solvents, temperature, and pressure of Li-ion battery electrode preparation (paragraph 6). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Oh’s active material to have been coated with solution-exfoliated graphene, as taught by Delaporte, as part of Li-ion battery electrode preparation for decreased time, manufacturing cost, toxic solvents, temperature, and pressure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT WEST whose telephone number is 703-756-1363 and email address is Robert.West@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 am - 7 pm ET.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at 303-297-4684.
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.
/R.G.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1721
1 https://www.dictionary.com/browse/percolate
2 https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/anneal#google_vignette
Prosecution Insights