Response to Amendment
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 .
Claims 1-19 are pending in the application.
Claims 4-19 are withdrawn in the application.
Amendments to the claims, filed on 08/26/2026 , have been entered in the above identified application.
WITHDRAWN REJECTIONS
The objections to the specification made of record in the office action mailed on 05/26/2026 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s arguments being persuasive in the response filed 08/26/2026.
The objections to the claims 1 and 2 made of record in the office action mailed on 05/26/2026 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s arguments being persuasive in the response filed 08/26/2026.
The 35 U.S.C. §102 rejections of claims 1 (Zhang Polyoxomolybdate-Polypyrrole...) made of record in the office action mailed on have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment/argument in the response filed 08/26/2026.
The 35 U.S.C. §102 rejections of claims 1 (Qin “Mesoporous polypyrrole-based”) made of record in the office action mailed on have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment/argument in the response filed 08/26/2026.
REJECTIONS
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 3 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 3 recites “GO” in line 2 There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 on which claim 3 is dependent on recites “rGO”. Thus, it is unclear if the weight ratio is for “GO” or “rGO”.
Claim 3 recites “a weight ratio of “graphene oxide (GO), polypyrrole (PPy), and polyoxometalate (POM) used to produce the L-rGO/PPy/POM laminated composite”, it is unclear whether the ratio defines the precursor formulation or the composition of the resulting final laminated composite or how is it is related to the L- rGO/PPy/POM laminated composite rendering the claim vague and indefinite.
Claim 3 recites “graphene oxide (GO), polypyrrole (PPy), and polyoxometalate (POM) used to produce the L-rGO/PPy/POM laminated composite”, it is unclear of the polypyrrole (PPy) or polypyrrole (PPy) monomer is used, as specification (instant application para. 0134) discloses polypyrrole (PPy) monomer is used to produce the laminated composite rendering the claim vague and indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (Polyoxomolybdate-Polypyrrole...).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses an electrode material that can be used in lithium-ion battery, comprising a multilayer reduced graphene oxide, polypyrrole, and polyoxometalate laminated composite (abstract, page 5684, col. 2, para. 2, page 5685, para. 1, scheme 1) in which a plurality of reduced graphene oxide, polypyrrole, polyoxometalate laminated composites is laminated on one another such that a polyoxometalated layer formed by uniformly dispersing nano-polyoxometalate (abstract, page 5685, col. 1, para. 2, col. 2, para. 2) of one rGO/PPy/Pom laminate composite is positioned on a reduced graphene oxide layer of an adjacent laminated composite (scheme 1, abstract). A plurality of Zhang’s nanocomposite PMo12−PPy/RGO in a multilayer configuration as disclosed in scheme 1, uniformly dispersing nano-polyoxometalate of one rGO/PPy/Pom laminated composite is positioned on a reduced graphene oxide layer of an adjacent rGo/PPy /POM laminated composite. Under broadest reasonable interpretation “positioned on” reasonably encompasses a POM containing region being dispersed over or above an rGO layer for a multilayer stack.
Zhang further discloses rGO/PPy/POM laminated composite comprises: the reduced graphene oxide layer: a polypyrrole layer laminated on the rGO layer (scheme 1, page 5685, col. 1, para. 3); and the polyoxometalated layer formed by uniformly dispersing the nano-polyoxometalate (individual POM molecule, abstract) on the PPy layer (scheme 1, page 5685, col. 1, para. 2, abstract). The POMs is immobilized to RGO via wrapping of PPy (page 5688, col. 1, para. 3). Under broadest reasonable interpretation PPy wrapping constitutes a PPy-containing coating or layer associated with the RGO/POM surface structure and individual POM molecules uniformly immobilized with PPy wrapping reasonably teach the claim limitation POM layer formed by uniformly dispersing nano-POM on the PPy layer.
Zhang discloses nanocomposite exhibits a good cycling reversibility and achieves a high capacity as a LIB anode as well as an impressive rate capability (page 5685, col. 1, para. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to form stacked-layer of mPPy@rGO-POM as taught by Zhang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to form such a stacked layer of mPPy@rGO-POM for good cycling reversibility, a high capacity as a LIB anode as well as an impressive rate capability .
Regarding claim 2, Zhang et al. discloses the POM H3PMo12O40 (page. 5684, col. 2, para. 2, page. 5688, col. 2, para. 4), thereby meeting the limitation.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qin (“Mesoporous polypyrrole-based”…).
Regarding claim 1, Qin discloses an electrode material comprising a multilayer reduced graphene oxide, polypyrrole, and polyoxometalate laminated composite (abstract, page 234, col. 1, para. 3) in which a plurality of reduced graphene oxide, polypyrrole, and polyoxometalate laminated composites is laminated (page. 234, col. para. 3) on one another. Qin discloses forming the compactly stacked and sandwich-like hybrid film from 1, 2, and 4 ml of mPPy@rGO-POM nanosheet ink and the resulting thickness of the films are 4.3, 8.4 and 16.7 μm, respectively ( page 238, col. 2, para. 2 and page. 239, col. 1, para. 1).Therefore a micrometer-thick deposit of the nanosheets comprises of plurality of mPPy@rGO-POM nanosheets laminated on one another. Though Qin doesnot expressively discloses POM layer by uniformly dispersing nano-polyoxometalate of one rGO/PPy/Pom laminated composite is positioned on a reduced graphene oxide layer of an adjacent rGo/PPy /POM laminated composite. In Qin’s stack of nanosheet, the POM-bearing surface of one nanosheet would necessarily lie over the rGO layer of the adjacent nanosheet (figure 1).
Qin discloses free-standing GO nanosheets were employed as 2D substrates
for bottom-up patterning of mesoporous polypyrrole layers which on hydrothermal reduction is converted to rGO (page. 235, col. 2, para. 2) thereby meeting the limitation the composite comprises of the rGO layer and a PPy layer laminated on the rGO. Qin discloses polyoxometalated layer formed by uniformly dispersing nano polyoxometalate (abstract, figure 1, page 236, col. 1, para. 2) is positioned on the surfaces and in the pores of mPPy@rGO nanosheets (figure 1, abstract, 236, col. 2, para. 2) there by disclosing polyoxometalated layer formed by uniformly dispersing the nano-polyoxometalate (page 236, para. 2) on the PPy layer (figure 1, page 235, col. 2, para. 2). Under broadest reasonable interpretation “positioned on” reasonably encompasses a POM containing region being dispersed over or above an rGO layer for a multilayer stack.
Regarding claim 1 limitation "An ion battery electrode" is deemed to be a statement with regard to the intended use and is not further limiting in so far as the structure of the product is concerned. In article claims, a claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. MPEP 2111.02. Furthermore, Qin et al. discloses that the reduced graphene oxide, polypyrrole, polyoxometalate composite can be used as an electrode material (abstract).
Qin discloses impressive areal capacitance, enhanced volumetric capacitance of excellent mechanical flexibility, and outstanding parallel or serial integration (abstract, page. 239, col.1, para. 1 and page 240, col. 2, para. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to form stacked-layer of mPPy@rGO-POM as taught by Qin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to form such a stacked layer of mPPy@rGO-POM to improve volumetric capacitance.
Regarding claim 2, Qin discloses the POM is phosphomolybdic acid (page 234, col. 2, para. 3) which has a chemical formula of H3[Mo12PO40]·12H2O thereby meeting the limitation.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (Polyoxomolybdate-Polypyrrole...) in view of Lu (US PG Pub. 2021/0359292 A1).
Zhang et al. is relied upon as described above
Regarding claim 3 limitation a weight ratio of “graphene oxide (GO), polypyrrole (PPy), and polyoxometalate (POM) used to produce the L-rGO/PPy/POM laminated composite” is a relative amounts of starting material not the composition of the resulting product and is a product-by-process limitation (MPEP 2113). The implied structure is simply L-rGO/PPy/POM of claim 1 which Zhang discloses as set forth above for claim 1.
Alternatively if Zhang fails to disclose the electrode material weight ratio of the GO, PPy and POM in the claimed range.
Regarding claim 3, Lu discloses an electrode for a lithium-ion battery having a composite layer of multiple graphene sheet, conducting polymer network and multiple anode active material (abstract, para. 0016). Lu further discloses the graphene sheet can be reduced graphene (para.0020, 060), the polymer network can be polypyrrole (para. 0018, 0059) and the nano scale anode electrode active material are selected from the group consisting of: (a) phosphorus (P), aluminum (Al), nickel (Ni); (b) alloys or intermetallic compounds of P, Al, Ni, with other elements; (c) oxides, sulfides, phosphides, of Al, Ni, or V and their mixtures, composites, or lithium-containing composites; (e) lithium mixed transition metal oxides and (h) combinations thereof. (para. 0024). Lu et al. further discloses the anode primary particles occupy from 30-98 wt.%, graphene sheets occupy 0.01-25 wt.%. and conducting polymer network occupies 1-30 wt.% overlapping with the claimed range (abstract, para. 0016, 0058) .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the electrode material of Zhang use the weight ratio as taught by Lu teaches an electrode composite layer for lithium-ion battery including graphene, a polypyrrole and an active material, which broadly reads on a polyoxometalate. The electrode composite layer of Lu is similar in composition and function as the electrode material of Zhang using a multilayer reduced graphene oxide, polypyrrole, and polyoxometalate laminated composite. Since Lu et al. teaches that the electrode contains an active material in the range of 30-98 wt%, a graphene sheet content of 0.01-25 wt% and the conductive polymer network of 1-30 wt% produces a workable electrode composition, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in using the same ratios in Zhang for the multilayer reduced graphene oxide, polypyrrole, and polyoxometalate laminated composite to make a working electrode material. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the composition in an electrode material in a lithium-ion battery to solve issues associated with rapid capacity decay.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qin (“Mesoporous polypyrrole-based”…) in view of Lu (US PG Pub. 2021/0359292 A1).
Qin is relied upon as described above.
Regarding claim 3 limitation a weight ratio of “graphene oxide (GO), polypyrrole (PPy), and polyoxometalate (POM) used to produce the L-rGO/PPy/POM laminated composite” is a relative amounts of starting material not the composition of the resulting product and is a product-by-process limitation (MPEP 2113). The implied structure is simply L-rGO/PPy/POM of claim 1 which Qin discloses as set forth above for claim 1.
Alternatively if Qin fails to disclose the electrode material weight ratio of the GO, PPy and POM in the claimed range.
Regarding claim 3, Lu discloses an electrode for a lithium-ion battery having a composite layer of multiple graphene sheet, conducting polymer network and multiple anode active material (abstract, para. 0016). Lu further discloses the graphene sheet can be reduced graphene (para.0020, 060), the polymer network can be polypyrrole (para. 0018, 0059) and the nano scale anode electrode active material are selected from the group consisting of: (a) phosphorus (P), aluminum (Al), nickel (Ni); (b) alloys or intermetallic compounds of P, Al, Ni, with other elements; (c) oxides, sulfides, phosphides, of Al, Ni, or V and their mixtures, composites, or lithium-containing composites; (e) lithium mixed transition metal oxides and (h) combinations thereof. (para. 0024). Lu further discloses the anode primary particles occupy from 30-98 wt.%, graphene sheets occupy 0.01-25 wt.%. and conducting polymer network occupies 1-30 wt.% overlapping with the claimed range (abstract, para. 0016, 0058) .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the electrode material of Qin to use the weight ratio as taught by Lu teaches an electrode composite layer for lithium-ion battery including graphene, a polypyrrole and an active material, which broadly reads on a polyoxometalate. The electrode composite layer of Lu is similar in composition and function as the electrode material of Qin. using a multilayer reduced graphene oxide, polypyrrole, and polyoxometalate laminated composite. Since Lu teaches that the electrode contains an active material in the range of 30-98 wt%, a graphene sheet content of 0.01-25 wt% and the conductive polymer network of 1-30 wt% produces a workable electrode composition, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in using the same ratios in Qin for the multilayer reduced graphene oxide, polypyrrole, and polyoxometalate laminated composite to make a working electrode material. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the composition in an electrode material in a lithium-ion battery to solve issues associated with rapid capacity decay.
ANSWERS TO APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed on 08/26/2026 regarding the objection to the specification of record have been considered but are moot since the objection have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed on 08/26/2026 regarding the objections to claims 1 and 2 of record have been considered but are moot since the objection have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed on 08/26/2026 regarding the 35 U.S.C. §112b rejections of claims 1, 2 and 3 (with respect to weight ratio) of record have been considered but are moot since the rejections have been withdrawn.
The 35 U.S.C. §112b rejection of claim 3 (insufficient antecedent basis) is maintained as the limitation “GO” in amended claim 3 has insufficient antecedent basis therefore the rejection is maintained.
The 35 U.S.C. §102 rejections of claims 1 and 2 as being anticipated by Zhang (polyoxomolybdate-Polypyrrole…) made of record in the office action mailed on 05/26/2026, have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response filed 08/26/2026.
The 35 U.S.C. §102 rejections of claims 1 and 2 as being anticipated by Qin (“Mesoporous polypyrrole-based”…) made of record in the office action mailed on 05/26/2026, have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response filed 08/26/2026.
Regarding applicant’s argument Zhang fails to disclose the claimed laminated architecture on page 12 -13 have been considered but they are not persuasive. Zhang teaches PMo12−PPy/RGO nanocomposite for lithium ion batteries. Zhang discloses stacking of nanocomposite (scheme 1) which teaches the POM layer of one composite positioned on a reduced graphene oxide layer of an adjacent composite. Zhang discloses individual POM molecules are uniformly immobilized on RGO surfaces because of PPy wrapping, thus Zhang disclose an RGO sheet bearing a PPy-containing coating or layer associated with uniformly distributed POM. The claim recites “the polyoxometalated layer (the POM layer) formed by uniformly dispersing the nano-polyoxometalate (POM) on the PPy layer”, under broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation requires only that the POM be located on the PPy layer which Zhang discloses by teaching POM is wrapped by PPy.
Regarding applicant’s argument, Qin fails to disclose the claimed laminated architecture on page 13 have been considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s own layers are not formed by lamination step but rather by self-assemble into a layered structure (instant application specification, para. 0150). Qin’s compactly stacked film has a layered structure as discussed with respect to claim 1.
Regarding applicant’s argument Qin POM clusters are immersed into the mesopores and anchored on the surface of the mPPy@rGO nanosheets, rather than an individual laminated composite on page 13 have been considered but they are not persuasive. Qin’s mesopores are pores in the polypyrrole layer (page 235, col. 2, para. 2), so their walls are PPy, POM anchored within the pores is located on the PPy layer.
Regarding applicant’s argument for the rejection of claim 3, Lu neither discloses nor suggests an individual laminated composite comprising an rGO layer, a PPy layer laminated on the rGO layer, and a POM layer formed by uniformly dispersing nano-polyoxometalate on the PPy layer on page 13 have been considered but they are not persuasive. Lu is relied upon for the weight ratio of a mixture of graphene sheets, a conducting polymer network, and primary particles of an anode active material and Lu is not relied to disclose individual laminated composite comprising an rGO layer, a PPy layer laminated on the rGO layer, and a POM layer formed by uniformly dispersing nano-polyoxometalate on the PPy layer. Qin and Zhang are relied upon to disclose laminated composite comprising an rGO layer, a PPy layer laminated on the rGO layer, and a POM layer formed by uniformly dispersing nano-polyoxometalate on the PPy layer as discussed with respect to claim 1.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ISWARYA MATHEW whose telephone number is (571)272-9515. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 3:00 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, ALICIA CHEVALIER can be reached at (571) 272-1490. 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.
/I.M./
Iswarya MathewExaminer, Art Unit 1788 09/29/2026
/ALEXANDRE F FERRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788
