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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 1/22/26 is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 4 and 8 are 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 4 recites that “the metal oxide is contained in an amount of 1% by weight to 10% by weight” but does not specify what these values are in relation to. Weight percentage is a relationship between multiple materials. Is the metal oxide present in an amount of 1% by weight to 10% by weight as compared to the graphene, the combination of graphene and metal oxide, or the electrode material at-large (which can contain additional materials)? In other words, what is in the denominator of this fraction?
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the electrode" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Only an electrode material is recited.
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 1-3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu (US 2011/0033746 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Liu discloses a material comprising: a free-standing metal oxide formed on a graphene film (paragraph 37).
Regarding claim 2, Liu discloses that the graphene film contains graphene or a plurality of stacked graphenes (paragraph 8).
Regarding claims 3 and 6, Liu discloses that the graphene film is surface-activated so that a functional group containing oxygen (O) exists on a surface (paragraph 59).
Regarding claim 5, Liu discloses that the metal oxide (the nanocomposite materials) has a length of 3 nm to 20 nm in a direction perpendicular to a surface of the graphene film (paragraph 23).
Regarding claim 7, Liu discloses that the flexible electrode material is binder-free (paragraph 68).
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites that the electrode is “for a zinc ion battery.” First, as stated in the USC 112 rejection above, no electrode is positively recited. Second, the claimed material need only be capable of use in a zinc ion battery. We know that Liu is because it is the same material as claimed.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (US 2016/0099466 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a material comprising: metal oxide particles nucleated and grown on a graphene surface (paragraph 31). The Office considers such a structure free-standing as no other materials need be present.
Regarding claim 4, Kim discloses that the metal can be Mn or V (paragraph 19) and the weight ratio between the graphene and the metal oxide is 1:0.01 to 1:5 (paragraph 23). It is assumed by the Office for purposes of prosecution that the claimed weight percentage is the weight of metal oxide compared to the weight graphene present.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IMRAN AKRAM whose telephone number is (571)270-3241. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-5p.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/IMRAN AKRAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725