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 .
Claims 1-19 are pending in the application.
Claims 4-19 are withdrawn in the application.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-3 in the reply filed on 04/24/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 4-19 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/24/2026.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: citing "GO" in specification (para 0027) in place of "rGO".
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 2 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: missing commas between "reduced graphene oxide" and "polypyrrole" and "polyoxometalate" in lines 2 and 3. Missing commas between "reduced graphene oxide" and "polypyrrole" and "polyoxometalate" laminated composites in lines 4 and 5.
Claim 1 recites “nano polyoxometalate” in line 8 and “nano-polyoxometalate’ in line 15. For clarity, applicant should use consistent terminology for the same element in the claim.
Claim 2 is objected for having the chemical symbol of iron “Fe” duplicated in line 6.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1, 2 and 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 1 recites the limitation “configured to comprise” in line 12. The preamble delineates a clear structure where the laminated composite contains reduced graphene oxide, polypyrrole and polyoxometalate materials whereas “configured to comprise” is a functional/intended use limitation and is broader in scope than the preamble since it essentially means “capable of comprising”. It is unclear what is structure of the laminated composite and whether the laminate comprises these layers or not.
Claim 1 recites, “a polyoxometalated layer formed …on a reduced graphene oxide layer” in lines 8-9 and “the polyoxometalated layer formed …on the PPy layer” in lines 14-16. It is unclear if the nano polyoxometalate is formed on a reduced graphene oxide layer or on the PPy layer rendering the claim vague and indefinite.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase "for example" (e.g.) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 2 recites a composition where “c (subscript for O) is a number ranging from 0 to 110”, renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear how the chemical composition claimed in claim 2 will be a polyoxometalate when c = 0.
Claim 3 recites “a weight ratio” in line 2 rendering the claim indefinite. It is not clear if the “weight ratio” refers to multilayer laminated composite or an individual laminated composite layer.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (Polyoxomolybdate-Polypyrrole...).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang et al. 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 such that a polyoxometalated layer formed by uniformly dispersing nano polyoxometalate (abstract, page 5685, col. 1, para. 2, col. 2, para. 2) is positioned on a reduced graphene oxide layer (scheme 1, abstract), wherein the rGO/PPy/POM laminated composite is configured to comprise: 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).
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Qin et al. (Mesoporous polypyrrole-based...).
Regarding claim 1, Qin et al. 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, polyoxometalate laminated composites is laminated (page. 234, col. para. 3) such that a polyoxometalated layer formed by uniformly dispersing nano polyoxometalate (abstract, figure 1, page 236, col. 1, para. 2) is positioned on a reduced graphene oxide layer (figure 1, abstract, 235, col. 2, para. 2), wherein the rGO/PPy/POM laminated composite is configured to comprise: the reduced graphene oxide layer; a polypyrrole layer laminated on the rGO layer; and the 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).
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).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (polyoxomolybdate-Polypyrrole...) in view of Lu et al. (US PG Pub. 2021/0359292 A1).
Zhang et al. is relied upon as described above
Zhang et al. fails to disclose the electrode material weight ratio of the GO, PPy and POM in the claimed range.
Regarding claim 3, Lu et al. 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 et al. 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 et al. use the weight ratio as taught by Lu et al. Lu et al. 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 et al. is similar in composition and function as the electrode material of Zhang et al. 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 et al. 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 et al. (mesoporous polypyrrole-based...) in view of Lu et al. (US PG Pub. 2021/0359292 A1)
Qin et al. is relied upon as described above.
Qin et al. fails to disclose the electrode material weight ratio of the GO, PPy and POM in the claimed range.
Regarding claim 3, Lu et al. 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 et al. 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 Qin et al. to use the weight ratio as taught by Lu et al. Lu et al. 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 et al. is similar in composition and function as the electrode material of Qin et al. 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 Qin et al. 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.
Conclusion
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
5/15/2026
/ALEXANDRE F FERRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 05/21/2026
Prosecution Insights