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
Claims 5-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/20/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-4 and 13-14 in the reply filed on 01/20/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuhn, Pierre et al. “Toward Tailorable Porous Organic Polymer Networks: A High-Temperature Dynamic Polymerization Scheme Based on Aromatic Nitriles”, published 12/9/2008, retrieved 11/21/2025 from <https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/ma802322j>.
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Kuhn teaches one or more heterocycles formed by alternatively bonding triazine and phenyl or biphenyl (Scheme 1) and teaches that such triazine based polymer scaffolds have a controlled porosity (Abstract). Kuhn shows that the total pore volume and pore size of a dynamic nitrile trimerization reaction changes depending on the monomer used, the temperature, the amount of time, and the amount of halogenated metal (zinc chloride in this case, table 1). While table 1 does not explicitly show a pore volume of 5 cm^3/g or more or an average pore size of 25 nm or more, entry 25 has a pore volume close to it of 4.5 cm^3/g and a pore size of 12.1 nm while using monomers of dicyanobiphenyl (DCBP) to form a covalent triazine framework (CTF) (Scheme 1 shows an example using dicyanobenzene (pDCB) monomers). Kuhn teaches that one of ordinary skill is motivated to increase pore size and connectivity in order to compete with alternative porous structures such as metal organic frameworks or MOFs and amorphous activated carbon (pg 319, Introduction). A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed would be capable of manipulating the above result effective variables to get a pore volume equal to or greater than 5 cm^3/g as well as a pore size greater than 25 nm through routine experimentation as discussed in MPEP 2144.05.II.
Regarding claim 3, Kuhn teaches claim 1 as described above and shows that entry 25 of table 1 has a BET specific surface area of 1510 m2/g which is a value greater than 1000 m2/g and therefore meets the limitation of the claim.
Regarding claim 4, Kuhn teaches claim 1 as described above and shows in scheme 1 an example of dicyanobenzene monomers with triazine to form instant formula 2-1 as well as using dicyanobiphenyl monomers instead of dicyanobenzene, such as in entry 25 of table 1, which would form instant formula 1-1.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuhn in view of Liu, Manying et al. “Covalent triazine frameworks: synthesis and applications” published 31 Jan 2019, retrieved 04/10/2026 from https://doi.org/10.1039/C8TA12442F.
Regarding claim 13, Kuhn teaches claim 1 as described above but is silent to its use as a positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery. Liu teaches the use of covalent triazine frameworks for use in lithium ion batteries for both the cathodes and anodes as they exhibit noticeable performance (Liu page 12 left side paragraphs 1-3 of the provided pdf).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use the covalent triazine framework containing dicyanobiphenyl or dicyanobenzene as described by Kuhn as a positive electrode of a lithium-ion battery, which is known in the art to be a secondary battery, as described by Liu as doing so exhibits noticeable performance.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuhn in view of Liu and further in view of Park et al. (US 20140234732 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Kuhn in view of Liu teaches claim 13 as described above but is silent to specifically lithium metal in the anode. Park teaches a lithium secondary battery with lithium present in the anode and a separator containing an electrolyte present between the anode and cathode (Park 0061-0063).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use modified Liu as described in claim 13 and have lithium in the anode of the battery as described in Park as doing so prevents corrosion of the lithium metal (Park, abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN ROBERT BROWN whose telephone number is (571)272-0640. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 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, Galen Hauth can be reached at (571)270-5516. 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.
/SEAN R. BROWN/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
/GALEN H HAUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights