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 in the reply filed on 7/21/26 is acknowledged.
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.
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) 1, 2, 4, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alkordi (GB 2565044) and in view of Kang (CN 112133918).
As to Claims 1, 2, 4 and 6, Alkordi describes a metal-organic framework tha tis combined with a conductive carbon material (abstract). In some embodiments, the metal-organic framework (MOF) forms a layer on the surface of the electrically conductive carbon and has thickness of 100-15nm (page 4, lines 25-29). The conductive carbon core can have an average size of 10nm to 500 microns (page 7, lines 9-10). The carbon core can be considered the seed particle. The MOF can be considered the coating part.
Alkordi explains that their composition can be used together with an electrode comprising an electrocatalyst (page 1, lines 5-9), but does not explain that the coating includes a binder or that the entire particle diameter is 110% to 700% of the seed particle.
Kang describes a metal-organic framework used as a cathode protection material in batteries (title). The composition includes mixing the MOF with a binder (page 3, para. 1) and a carbon material (page 3, para. 1). The total thickness of the MOF on the battery is from 10-1,000µm (page 4, third para from bottom). The thickness will not impede the battery or negatively affect the battery performance and can also serve a protecting role on the battery electrode (page 4, third para from the bottom).
As to the size being 110-700%, 110% of 150µm is about 165µm, which overlaps the claimed thickness of the MOF in Kang.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to increase the thickness of the MOF layer, as taught by Kang for use with the carbon coated MOF of Alkodi because Kang explains that this thickness range will not negatively affect the battery performance but it also serves a protective role on the battery electrode.
As to the size being within the range of 150µm to 300µm, A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges overlap or are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 I.”
As to Claim 2, Alkordi teaches that the carbon can be carbon nanotubes (page 5, lines 11-12).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alkordi and Kang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cao (CN 112397690).
The references do not describe the core as spherical or pseudo-spherical.
Cao describes a core-shell structure placed on the surface of an electrode material used to form a physical protection barrier on the surface of the electrode (page 2, lines 9-15). Cao explains that the core particle may include a carbon material (page 3, lines 4-6), such as a carbon nanotube that is made into a carbonized small ball (page 3, lines 15-16 and embodiment 3, see phenolic resin carbon ball).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to shape the carbon material to be a spherical carbon material, as taught by Cao for use with a carbon-based core coated with a MOF, as taught by the electrode-containing composition of Alkordi and Kang because Cao explains that this structure is effective for use with an electrode-based material.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alkordi and Kang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ji (CN 111682214).
The references do not teach that the particle has a specific surface area of 10m2/g or more.
Ji describes a method-doped graphene catalyst placed on an electrode (title). Ji explains that the carbon catalyst has a specific surface area of about 81-91 m2/g (page 5, para. 4).
Since Alkordi and Kang describe depositing a metal-doped carbon on an electrode, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ one with a surface area of about 81-91 mg/2, as taught by Ji because use of this composition would lead to predictable and expected results.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alkordi and Kang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sadiq (WO 2020/113281).
Alkordi teaches that the core has a size of 10nm-500 microns and Kang describes a MOF coating with a thickness of 10-1,000 µm (see rejection to Claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the total size of the particle overlaps the claimed range.
The references do not teach that the particles with an average size range of 150-600 µm are 80wt% or more.
Sadiq describes an MOF-binder composition (para. 23, abstract, 24). The reference explains that the amount of binder selected is based on the molecular weight and particle size of the MOF as well as the application of the MOF (para. 25).
Therefore, since Sadiq explains that some of the factors contributing the weight of the particle and the size includes the size of the MOF (thickness) and the application of the MOF, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the weight of the particles and the size are results effective variables.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a cause effective variable such as [spray droplet size] through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alkordi and Kang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xu (CN 112811537).
The references describe use of binders, but does not describe the specific composition listed in Claim 8.
Xu describes an iron-modified carbon nanotube electrode (title). Xu explains that the electrode material may be combined with a polymer (Claim 2), which can include polyvinyl alcohol (Claim 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a known binder, such as polyvinyl alcohol, as taught by Xu for use with the product of Alkordi and Kang because this is one binder that is effective for use in an electrode when combined with a carbon an MOF-based composition.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alkordi and Kang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yu (CN 112679966).
The references do not disclose the coating ratio according to Claim 9.
Yu describes a composition containing a carbon and MOF (title). The product is intended to be combined with an electrode (abstract). Yu explains that the composite material of carbon and MOF has a weight ratio of 1: 0.1 to 0.3.
Preferably, the weight ratio of the composite material containing graphite and MOF and acetylene black is 1: (0.1 to 0.3) (page 4, lines 14-15). This meets the claimed range of 10-90% of the formula of Claim 9.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ an amount of MOF to carbon, as disclosed by Yu for use with the composition of Alkordi and Kang because this range is effective for use with an electrode composition.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHENG HAN DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5823. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Fung Coris can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/SHENG H DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 August 19, 2026
Prosecution Insights