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Claims 11, 13-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 6/9/2025.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II, claims 1-10, 12, and 17-18, in the reply filed on 6/9/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the pending claims possesses unity of invention. However, the materials and how said materials are linked lack the same or corresponding technical feature.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which are written in dependent form or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowed generic claim.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-10, 12, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lamberti et al. (WO 2019/201887 – see US 2021/0375558).
PNG
media_image1.png
176
652
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Lamberti et al. disclose a molecular hyper capacitor (abstract) comprising:
at least one cell having a positive electrode (1 in 4 or 1 in 8) or and a negative electrode (1 in 8 or 1 in 4),
an electrolyte [0035] between the positive and negative electrode, wherein the surface of at least one of the positive electrode ( 1 in 4 or 1 in 8) and the negative electrode (1 in 8 or 1 in 4) is modified by a composite material having electric conductive material ([0017], carbonaceous matrix, (3 in 4 or 3 in 8) and redox active molecules ([0017]-[0020] - via doping of a carbonaceous matrix)
Regarding claim 2, Lamberti et al. disclose the composite material (3 in 4 or 3 in 8) is at a molecular scale or a mesoscopic scale (carbonaceous matrix doped with redox active molecules) such that quantum mechanical characteristics of the composite material contributes pseudocapacitance to enhance a total equivalent capacitance of the molecular hyper capacitor [0017].
Regarding claim 3, Lamberti et al. disclose the electrically conductive material (3 in 4 or 3 in 8) stores energy at a molecular scale [0017] – doped carbonaceous material.
While Lamberti et al. do not specifically state that the electrically conductive material stores energy at a molecular scale, it is understood to be an inherent feature. When the structure recited in the references is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent.
Regarding claim 4, Lamberti et al. disclose wherein pseudocapacitance of the molecular hyper capacitor is controlled by the redox active molecules [0017]-[0020] immobilized on the surface of the at least one positive electrode or the negative electrode during modification (doping – [0017]) such that shielding of an electric field of the molecular hyper capacitor is of a mechanical quantum nature (see materials – [0018]-[0020]).
While Lamberti et al. do not specifically state that the redox active molecules immobilized on the surface of the at least one positive electrode or the negative electrode during modification such that shielding of an electric field of the molecular hyper capacitor is of a mechanical quantum nature, it is understood to be an inherent feature. When the structure recited in the references is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent.
Regarding claims 8-9, Lamberti et al. disclose the molecular hyper capacitor has a cell capacitance above 500 F g-1 (1000 F g-1), a volumetric energy density above 35 Wh L-1 (70 Wh L-1), and a gravimetric energy density above 140 Wh kg-1 (275 Wh kg-1).
While Lamberti et al. do not specifically state that the molecular hyper capacitor has a cell capacitance above 500 F g-1 (1000 F g-1), a volumetric energy density above 35 Wh L-1 (70 Wh L-1), and a gravimetric energy density above 140 Wh kg-1 (275 Wh kg-1), it is understood to be an inherent feature.
Claims 8-9 recite a feature that has to be certified with specialized testing equipment, not at the disposal of the Office. However, as noted in the rejection of claim 1, 2-4 (above), and 10, 12, 17 (below), the Lamberti et al. references teaches an embodiment that anticipates the claimed invention. When the structure recited in the references is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. MPEP 2112.01 I states: “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Claims were directed to a titanium alloy containing 0.2-0.4% Mo and 0.6-0.9% Ni having corrosion resistance. A Russian article disclosed a titanium alloy containing 0.25% Mo and 0.75% Ni but was silent as to corrosion resistance. The Federal Circuit held that the claim was anticipated because the percentages of Mo and Ni were squarely within the claimed ranges. The court went on to say that it was immaterial what properties the alloys had or who discovered the properties because the composition is the same and thus must necessarily exhibit the properties.). See also In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971) (Claim 1 was directed to a parachute canopy having concentric circumferential panels radially separated from each other by radially extending tie lines. The panels were separated "such that the critical velocity of each successively larger panel will be less than the critical velocity of the previous panel, whereby said parachute will sequentially open and thus gradually decelerate." The court found that the claim was anticipated by Menget. Menget taught a parachute having three circumferential panels separated by tie lines. The court upheld the rejection finding that applicant had failed to show that Menget did not possess the functional characteristics of the claims.); Northam Warren Corp. v. D. F. Newfield Co., 7 F. Supp. 773, 22 USPQ 313 (E.D.N.Y. 1934) (A patent to a pencil for cleaning fingernails was held invalid because a pencil of the same structure for writing was found in the prior art.).
Regarding claim 10, Lamberti et al. disclose redox active molecules include at least a cobalt-based compound [0018].
Regarding claim 12, Lamberti et al. disclose the electric conductive material is a carbonaceous material [0017], wherein the redox active molecule is immobilized at a surface of the carbonaceous material (at least via doping - [0017], [0018]).
Regarding claim 17, Lamberti et al. disclose the electrolyte is an aqueous electrolyte, an organic electrolyte, or an ionic liquid [0035] comprising:
a propylene carbonate solvent (table).
Claim(s) 1, 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xie (US 2014/0118883).
Regarding claim 1, Xie discloses a molecular hyper capacitor [0002]-[0004] comprising:
at least one cell having a positive electrode (30) or and a negative electrode (30), and
an electrolyte [0015] between the positive electrode (30) and the negative electrode (30) wherein the surface of at least one of the positive electrode (30) and the negative electrode (30) is modified by a composite material having electric conductive material (20) and redox active molecules (15)
Regarding claim 4, Xie discloses wherein pseudocapacitance of the molecular hyper capacitor is controlled by the redox active molecules (15) immobilized on the surface of the at least one positive electrode (30) or the negative electrode (30) during modification such that shielding of an electric field of the molecular hyper capacitor is of a mechanical quantum nature (see materials).
While Xie does not specifically state that the redox active molecules immobilized on the surface of the at least one positive electrode or the negative electrode during modification such that shielding of an electric field of the molecular hyper capacitor is of a mechanical quantum nature, it is understood to be an inherent feature. When the structure recited in the references is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent.
Regarding claim 5, Xie discloses the composite material (15, 20) is an interface between the composite material (15, 30) and the electrolyte [0015], and the composite material has a thickness equal to or less than 10 nm (claim 5)
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Xie (US 2014/0118883).
Regarding claim 6, Xie discloses the interface has an electrochemical roughness factor equal to or less than 1.8.
While Xie is silent with regard to the interface having an electrochemical roughness factor equal to or less than 1.8, it is understood to be an inherent feature. When the structure (interface) recited in the references is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent.
However, it is known in the capacitor art to form an interface between a composite material and an electrolyte having a desired roughness factor.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to form the device of Xie so that the interface has an electrochemical roughness factor equal to or less than 1.8, since such a modification would from a device having desired charge storage.
Regarding claim 7, Xie discloses the electrolyte [0015] permits charge mobility of ionic or polarizable molecular entities.
While Xie is silent with regard to the electrolyte permitting charge mobility of ionic or polarizable molecular entities, it is understood to be an inherent feature. When the structure (interface) recited in the references is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent.
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) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lamberti et al. (WO 2019/201887 – see US 2021/0375558) in view of Mushiake et al. (US 6,134,760).
Regarding claim 18, Lamberti et al. disclose the claimed invention except for a concentration of the electrolyte is configured to maintain salt solubility above 0.1 M.
Mushiake et al. disclose an electrolyte for a capacitor, wherein the electrolyte comprises 1.0 M tetraethylammonium tetrafluoroborate in a propylene carbonate solution (C: 7, L: 55-63).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to form Lamberti et al. using the electrolyte of Mushiake et al., wherein the electrolyte is 1.0 M tetraethylammonium tetrafluoroborate in a propylene carbonate solution, since such a modification would form a device having an electrolyte with high ionic conductivity, and electrochemical and thermal stability.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-1985. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 6:00 AM-2:30 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, Timothy Dole can be reached at 571-272-2229. 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.
/ERIC W THOMAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2848
ERIC THOMAS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2848