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 .
Summary
Since the Office Action mailed on 03 February 2026, claims 1, 4, 11-12, and 16 have been amended, and claims 1-8 and 10-16 remain pending in the application, which are further examined in this Office Action.
The 102 and 103 rejections in this Office Action are new, necessitated by amendment.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1-2, 5-8, 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Landi et al (US 2010/0282496 A1). This prior art reference being cited to as Landi hereinafter.
Regarding claim 1, Landi discloses a method of forming a self-standing electrode (“making freestanding carbon nanotube paper according to the present invention” [0054]), the method comprising:
introducing a suspension or dispersion of nanotubes (“contacting purified carbon nanotubes with an organic solvent under conditions effective to form a dispersion comprising the purified carbon nanotubes involves rendering the purified carbon nanotubes mobile in solution under specific conditions” [0054] and “a gradient of purified SWCNTs followed by a weighted blend of purified SWCNTs” [0086] with italics added for emphasis on the corresponding nanotubes disclosed), a suspension or dispersion of electrode active material (“The SWCNTs were dispersed in N,N-dimethylacetamide prior to the addition of the MCMBs.” [0086] with italics added for emphasis on the corresponding electrode active material disclosed, and “carbon microparticles” [0056]), and a suspension or dispersion of conductive material (“Semiconductor nanoparticles can be optionally incorporated with the purified carbon nanotubes at either the dispersion stage or after the purified carbon nanotubes have been formed into a paper.” [0058] with italics added for emphasis on the corresponding conductive material disclosed) to a pressure-controlled system (“The resulting solution was vacuum filtered” [0086]), the pressure-controlled system comprising a container (“vacuum filtration, a procedure familiar to those of skill in the art.” [0060] where vacuum filtration is known in the art to comprise of at least a suction pump, a liquid collection container, and a filter vessel disposed on top of the liquid collection container) and an element (“0.2 gm teflon filter” [0086]) having a porous substrate disposed therein (“the freestanding carbon nanotube paper was easily removed.” [0086]), the porous substrate disposed above the container (“vacuum filtration, a procedure familiar to those of skill in the art.” [0060] where the filter vessel of the vacuum filtration setup is known to collect the retentate, which is the disclosed freestanding carbon nanotube paper and is “easily removed” from the “teflon filter” [0086]), wherein:
the conductive material of the suspension or dispersion of conductive material is in the form of, or derived from, a powder (“carbon microparticles” [0056]), a particle, or combinations thereof;
applying a pressure differential across the porous substrate (“forming the dispersion may
be carried out by membrane filtration using a vacuum or pressurized system” [0043]) to draw liquids of the suspension or a dispersion of nanotubes, the suspension or dispersion of electrode active material, and the suspension or dispersion of conductive material from the element, through the porous substrate and to the container to form a filtrate disposed within the container (“vacuum filtration, a procedure familiar to those of skill in the art.” [0060] where the liquid collection container of the vacuum filtration setup is known in the art to collect the filtrate after completing vacuum filtration) and a retentate disposed above the porous substrate (“vacuum filtration, a procedure familiar to those of skill in the art.” [0060] where the filter vessel of the vacuum filtration setup is known to collect the retentate, which is the disclosed freestanding carbon nanotube paper), the retentate comprising the self-standing electrode, the self- standing electrode comprising the nanotubes, the electrode active material, and the conductive material (“A representative image of a 1 cm freestanding electrode from the 75:25 blend is shown in FIG. 2. Scanning electron micrographs of this sample are shown in FIGS. 3A-H. The nested MCMBs are in excellent physical contact with the SWCNTs,” [0086] and “The carbon nanotube paper of the present invention may include semiconductor nanoparticles present with the purified carbon nanotubes and the carbon microparticles” [0043]); and
removing the self-standing electrode from the porous substrate (“the freestanding carbon nanotube paper was easily removed.” [0086]).
Regarding claim 2, Landi discloses the method with all the limitations set forth in claim 1 above, and wherein the conductive material of the self-standing electrode is dispersed, embedded, or otherwise incorporated (“Semiconductor nanoparticles may be incorporated with the purified carbon nanotube paper” [0044]) in the nanotubes of the self-standing electrode, the electrode active material of the self-standing electrode, or both (“A representative image of a 1 cm2 freestanding electrode from the 75:25 blend is shown in FIG. 2. Scanning electron micrographs of this sample are shown in FIGS. 3A-H. The nested MCMBs are in excellent physical contact with the SWCNTs,” [0086] in which the disclosed freestanding electrode produced consists of both the corresponding nanotubes and the corresponding electrode active material).
Regarding claim 5, Landi discloses the method with all the limitations set forth in claim 1 above, and wherein:
the self-standing electrode is free of a binder material (“MCMB-SWCNT electrode paper (binder free)” [0089]); and
the self-standing electrode is free of a separate current conductor layer (“the catalyst layer, gas diffusion layer, and current collector are combined into a single layer made of the freestanding carbon nanotube paper of the present invention” [0082] in which the disclosed freestanding carbon nanotube paper is interpreted to be multi-functional where the function of the current collector is included, and “An additional advantage to the capacity improvements of the MCMB-SWCNT freestanding electrode compared to conventional lithium ion batteries is the absence of copper foil on the anode side.” [0090]).
Regarding claim 6, Landi discloses the method with all the limitations set forth in claim 1 above, and wherein:
the nanotubes comprise single-walled nanotubes, few-walled nanotubes, multi- walled nanotubes, double-walled nanotubes, or combinations thereof (“Carbon nanotubes may be obtained in a variety of forms of nanostructured carbon including, without limitation, as single wall carbon nanotubes, double wall carbon nanotubes, multi-wall carbon nanotubes, or mixtures thereof” [0037]); and
the conductive material comprises copper, aluminum, nickel, platinum, zinc, titanium, stainless steel, sintered carbon, or combinations thereof (“The carbon nanotube paper of the present invention may include semiconductor nanoparticles present with the purified carbon nanotubes and the carbon microparticles. Suitable nanoparticles include, without limitation, nanoparticles selected from compositions containing Si, Ge. GaSb, InSb, SnSe, SnTe, GaP. GaAs, InAs, TiO, InP, AlP. AlAs. ZnTe. CdSe, CdTe. and mixtures or alloys thereof” [0043] with italics added for emphasis on the compounds that read on the disclosed aluminum, zinc, titanium, or combinations thereof).
Regarding claim 7, Landi discloses the method with all the limitations set forth in claim 1 above, and wherein the conductive material comprises copper, aluminum, nickel, platinum, zinc, titanium, stainless steel, sintered carbon, or combinations thereof (“The carbon nanotube paper of the present invention may include semiconductor nanoparticles present with the purified carbon nanotubes and the carbon microparticles. Suitable nanoparticles include, without limitation, nanoparticles selected from compositions containing Si, Ge. GaSb, InSb, SnSe, SnTe, GaP. GaAs, InAs, TiO, InP, AlP. AlAs. ZnTe. CdSe, CdTe. and mixtures or alloys thereof” [0043] with italics added for emphasis on the compounds that read on the disclosed aluminum, zinc, titanium, or combinations thereof).
Regarding claim 8, Landi discloses the method with all the limitations set forth in claim 1 above, and wherein:
the self-standing electrode is an anode (“An additional advantage to the capacity improvements of the MCMB-SWCNT freestanding electrode compared to conventional lithium ion batteries is the absence of copper foil on the anode side.” [0090]); and
the electrode active material comprises graphite, hard carbon, silicon, activated carbon, carbon black, or combinations thereof (“graphite is used as a negative active material to prepare a negative electrode” [0010] and “graphitic carbons like mesocarbon microbeads (“MCMB')” [0022]).
Regarding claim 10, Landi discloses the method with all the limitations set forth in claim 1 above, and wherein the porous substrate is a movable porous substrate (“the freestanding carbon nanotube paper was easily removed.” [0086]).
Regarding claim 11, Landi discloses a method of forming a self-standing electrode (“making freestanding carbon nanotube paper according to the present invention” [0054]), the method comprising:
introducing a suspension or dispersion of nanotubes (“contacting purified carbon nanotubes with an organic solvent under conditions effective to form a dispersion comprising the purified carbon nanotubes involves rendering the purified carbon nanotubes mobile in solution under specific conditions” [0054] and “a gradient of purified SWCNTs followed by a weighted blend of purified SWCNTs” [0086] with italics added for emphasis on the corresponding nanotubes disclosed) and a suspension or dispersion of electrode active material (“The SWCNTs were dispersed in N,N-dimethylacetamide prior to the addition of the MCMBs.” [0086] with italics added for emphasis on the corresponding electrode active material disclosed, and “carbon microparticles” [0056]) to a pressure-controlled system (“The resulting solution was vacuum filtered” [0086]), the pressure-controlled system comprising:
a container (“vacuum filtration, a procedure familiar to those of skill in the art.” [0060] where vacuum filtration is known in the art to comprise of at least a suction pump, a liquid collection container, and a filter vessel disposed on top of the liquid collection container);
an element (“0.2 gm teflon filter” [0086]) having a porous substrate disposed therein (“the freestanding carbon nanotube paper was easily removed.” [0086]), the porous substrate disposed above the container (“vacuum filtration, a procedure familiar to those of skill in the art.” [0060] where the filter vessel of the vacuum filtration setup is known to collect the retentate, which is the disclosed freestanding carbon nanotube paper and is “easily removed” from the “teflon filter” [0086]); and
a conductive material disposed above the porous substrate (“when semiconductor nanoparticles are incorporated with the purified carbon nanotubes after formation of the purified carbon nanotubes into a carbon nanotube paper” [0058]), wherein the conductive material is in the form of a mesh, wire, strip, foil, sponge, foam, or combinations thereof (“semiconductor nanoparticles … The nanoparticles may have a three-dimensional geometric shape that is spherical, cubic, rod, oligopod, pyramidal, or highly branched” [0043] with italics added for emphasis on the corresponding mesh recited in the claim limitation); and
applying a pressure differential across the porous substrate to draw the liquids of the suspension or dispersion of nanotubes and the suspension or dispersion of electrode active material from the element, through the porous substrate, and to the container to form a filtrate disposed within the container and a retentate disposed above the porous substrate, the retentate comprising the self-standing electrode, the self-standing electrode comprising the nanotubes, the electrode active material, and the conductive material.
Regarding claim 12, Landi discloses the method with all the limitations set forth in claim 11 above, and wherein the both the suspension or dispersion of nanotubes and the suspension or dispersion of electrode active material are free of the conductive material of the self-standing electrode (“semiconductor nanoparticles are incorporated with the purified carbon nanotubes after formation of the purified carbon nanotubes into a carbon nanotube paper” [0058]).
Regarding claim 13, Landi discloses the method with all the limitations set forth in claim 11 above, and wherein the conductive material is in the form of a mesh (“semiconductor nanoparticles … The nanoparticles may have a three-dimensional geometric shape that is spherical, cubic, rod, oligopod, pyramidal, or highly branched” [0043] with italics added for emphasis on the corresponding mesh recited in the claim limitation).
Regarding claim 14, Landi discloses the method with all the limitations set forth in claim 11 above, and wherein the self-standing electrode is free of a binder material (“MCMB-SWCNT electrode paper (binder free)” [0089]).
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:
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 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landi (US 2010/0282496 A1) in view of Friesen et al (US 2010/0243459 A1). The latter prior art reference being cited to as Friesen hereinafter in this Office Action.
Regarding claim 3, Landi discloses the method with all the limitations set forth in claim 1 above, but does not disclose wherein an amount of conductive material in the self-standing electrode formed is determined by an electrical conductivity percolation point of the conductive material.
However, Friesen discloses a method of forming an electrode (“a method for manufacturing an electrode” [0027]) that comprises introducing a suspension or dispersion of an electrode active material (“measuring and mixing particulates comprising an active material N*” [0027]), and a suspension or dispersion of conductive material (“measuring and mixing particulates comprising … an electroconductive material M*” [0027]) to a pressure-controlled system ([0029]-[0030]).
Friesen teaches an amount of conductive material in the self-standing electrode formed is determined by an electrical conductivity percolation point of the conductive material (“the electroconductive material particles (e.g., metal particles) M begin to coarsen and sinter together facilitating the percolated intimate contact for electrical conduction” [0034], “The sintered electroconductive particles provide the electrical conduction” [0041], and “Between 20% and 45% Volume nickel, the specific capacitance increases linearly with nickel content, indicating that the increase in nickel Volume ratio increases the amount of active material manganese in contact with the electroconducting material nickel. In this example, beyond 45% volume nickel, a decrease in bulk capacitance seems to indicate a transition to a system limited by the decreasing active material (manganese) content. The calculated capacitance with respect to the active material manganese does not show a maximum at the 45 percent mark due to the simultaneous decrease in active material (manganese) content.” [0050]).
Friesen further teaches that relying on the percolation the conductive material for the electrical conductivity of the electrode forms a structure where the conductive material oxidizes as ridges on the electrode active material that provides an increased surface that comes in contact with an electrolyte, and hence provides an enhanced reactive surface to provide a pseudocapacitive behavior to the electrode ([0042]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to add the feature of wherein an amount of conductive material in the self-standing electrode formed is determined by an electrical conductivity percolation point of the conductive material to the method of forming an electrode of Landi in view of Friesen in order to achieve a means to increasing the surface that comes in contact with an electrolyte, which provides an enhanced reactive surface to provide a pseudocapacitive behavior to the electrode.
Regarding claim 15, Landi discloses the method with all the limitations set forth in claim 11 above, but does not disclose wherein an amount of conductive material in the self-standing electrode is the amount of about the percolation point of the conductive material or exceeding the percolation point of the conductive material.
However, Friesen discloses the method of forming an electrode as set forth in the rejection of claim 3 above, and teaches wherein an amount of conductive material in the self-standing electrode is the amount of about the percolation point of the conductive material or exceeding the percolation point of the conductive material (“the electroconductive material particles (e.g., metal particles) M begin to coarsen and sinter together facilitating the percolated intimate contact for electrical conduction” [0034], “The sintered electroconductive particles provide the electrical conduction” [0041], and “Between 20% and 45% Volume nickel, the specific capacitance increases linearly with nickel content, indicating that the increase in nickel Volume ratio increases the amount of active material manganese in contact with the electroconducting material nickel. In this example, beyond 45% volume nickel, a decrease in bulk capacitance seems to indicate a transition to a system limited by the decreasing active material (manganese) content. The calculated capacitance with respect to the active material manganese does not show a maximum at the 45 percent mark due to the simultaneous decrease in active material (manganese) content.” [0050]).
Friesen further teaches that relying on the percolation the conductive material for the electrical conductivity of the electrode forms a structure where the conductive material oxidizes as ridges on the electrode active material that provides an increased surface that comes in contact with an electrolyte, and hence provides an enhanced reactive surface to provide a pseudocapacitive behavior to the electrode ([0042]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to add the feature of wherein an amount of conductive material in the self-standing electrode is the amount of about the percolation point of the conductive material or exceeding the percolation point of the conductive material to the method of forming an electrode of Landi in view of Friesen in order to achieve a means to increasing the surface that comes in contact with an electrolyte, which provides an enhanced reactive surface to provide a pseudocapacitive behavior to the electrode.
Claims 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landi (US 2010/0282496 A1) in view of Hong et al (US 2017/0222212 A1). The latter prior art reference being cited to as Hong hereinafter in this Office Action.
Regarding claim 4, Landi discloses the method with all the limitations set forth in claim 1 above, but does not disclose wherein one or more of the suspension or dispersion of nanotubes, the suspension or dispersion of electrode active material, and the suspension or dispersion of conductive material further comprise a solvent and a surfactant.
However, Hong discloses a method of forming an electrode (“the present methods for making the electrode compositions” [0115]) that comprises introducing a suspension or dispersion of an nanotubes (“a first suspension is prepared using carbon nanoparticles. For example, a first Suspension of carbon nanoparticles (for example, graphene, carbon nanotubes, …” [0138]), and a suspension or dispersion of conductive material (“a second suspension is prepared using one or more of metal oxide particles, metal particles, metalloid particles, and/or metalloid oxide particles.” [0141] and “Exemplary metal oxides, MgO, CuO, Al2O3, Fe2O3 and Fe3O4” [0048]) to a pressure-controlled system (“the combined first and second Suspensions are filtered (for example, using a funnel or filter and vacuum)” [0144]).
Hong teaches wherein one or more of the suspension or dispersion of nanotubes, and the suspension or dispersion of conductive material further comprise a solvent (“a fluid (for example, deionized water)” [0139]) and a surfactant ([0139] where the disclosed dispersion of nanotubes comprises the disclosed surfactant).
Hong further teaches that the surfactant is used as a dispersant to facilitate uniform dispersion of the nanotubes in the electrode and to enhance stabilization of the dispersion ([0054]), and that it causes the conductive material to attach to the nanotubes by electrostatic attraction ([0115]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to add a surfactant to at least one or more of the suspension or dispersion of nanotubes, the suspension or dispersion of electrode active material, and the suspension or dispersion of conductive material to the method of Landi in view of Hong, in order to achieve a uniform and stabilized dispersion of at least the suspension or dispersion of nanotubes, and a means to attach the conductive material to the nanotubes through electrostatic attraction.
Regarding claim 16, Landi discloses the method with all the limitations set forth in claim 11 above, but does not disclose wherein the one or more of the suspension or dispersion of nanotubes, the suspension or dispersion of electrode active material, or both, further comprise a solvent and a surfactant.
However, Hong discloses the method of forming an electrode as set forth in the rejection of claim 4 above, and teaches wherein the suspension or dispersion of nanotubes further comprise a solvent and a surfactant a solvent (“a fluid (for example, deionized water)” [0139]) and a surfactant ([0139] where the disclosed dispersion of nanotubes comprises the disclosed surfactant).
Hong further teaches that the surfactant is used as a dispersant to facilitate uniform dispersion of the nanotubes in the electrode and to enhance stabilization of the dispersion ([0054]), and that it causes the conductive material to attach to the nanotubes by electrostatic attraction ([0115]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to add a surfactant to at least the suspension or dispersion of nanotubes to the method of Landi in view of Hong, in order to achieve a uniform and stabilized dispersion of at least the suspension or dispersion of nanotubes, and a means to attach the conductive material to the nanotubes through electrostatic attraction.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLENE BERMUDEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-0610. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday generally from 12 PM to 5 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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303) 297-4684. 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.
/CHARLENE BERMUDEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights