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 .
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.
Claims 1, 2, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goelzhaeuser et al. (US Pat. App. Pub. No. 2019/0228910) in view of Hassan et al. (US 11,749,466).
With respect to claim 1, Goelzhaeuser discloses a supercapacitor, comprising a substrate (see FIG. 4A, element 410), a graphene monolayer arranged on the substrate (see FIG. 4A, element 430, which is a monolayer of carbon nanomembranes – which includes graphene; see paragraph [0013]), and at least two electrodes (see FIG. 4A, elements 420 and 440; see paragraph [0013]), wherein the graphene monolayer is arranged between the substrate and the at least two electrodes (see FIG. 4A).
Hassan, on the other hand, teaches that a perovskite oxide or transition metal oxide substrate can be used to form a graphene-based supercapacitor. See col. 4, lines 61-67. Such an arrangement results in a transparent substrate that allows the supercapacitor to self-charge. See col. 4, 61-67 and col. 1, lines 54-58.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Goelzhaeuser, as taught by Hassan, in order to produce a transparent substrate that allows a supercapacitor to self-charge.
With respect to claim 2, the combined teachings of Goelzhaeuser and Hassan teach that the perovskite oxide substrate is a yttrium aluminum perovskite (YAP) or yttrium aluminum garnet (YAG) substrate. See Hassan, col. 4, lines 61-67.
With respect to claim 8, the combined teachings of Goelzhaeuser and Hassan teach that the at least two electrodes comprise graphene. See paragraph [0013].
With respect to claim 9, Goelzhaeuser teaches a method for fabricating a supercapacitor (see abstract), comprising: arranging a graphene monolayer on a substrate (see FIG. 4A, element 430, which is a monolayer of carbon nanomembranes – which includes graphene; see paragraph [0013]), and providing at least two electrodes (see FIG. 4A, elements 420 and 440; see paragraph [0013]), wherein the graphene monolayer is arranged between the substrate and the at least two electrodes (see FIG. 4A).
Hassan, on the other hand, teaches that a perovskite oxide or transition metal oxide substrate can be used to form a graphene-based supercapacitor. See col. 4, lines 61-67. Such an arrangement results in a transparent substrate that allows the supercapacitor to self-charge. See col. 4, 61-67 and col. 1, lines 54-58.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Goelzhaeuser, as taught by Hassan, in order to produce a transparent substrate that allows a supercapacitor to self-charge.
Claims 5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goelzhaeuser et al. (US Pat. App. Pub. No. 2019/0228910) in view of Hassan et al. (US 11,749,466), and further, in view of Pohlman, III (US Pat. App. Pub. No. 2018/0254318).
With respect to claim 5, the combined teachings of Goelzhaeuser and Hassan fail to teach that a hexagonal boron nitride (hBN) thin film arranged between the graphene monolayer and the at least two electrodes.
Pohlman, on the other hand, teaches the use of a hBN dielectric layer, in order to make it easier to deposit defect free graphene layers. See paragraph [0016].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to further modify the combined teachings of Goelzhaeuser and Hassan, as taught by Pohlman, in order to make it easier to deposit defect free graphene layers.
With respect to claim 11, the combined teachings of Goelzhaeuser and Hassan fail to teach arranging a hBN thin film between the graphene monolayer and the at least two electrodes.
Pohlman, on the other hand, teaches the use of a hBN dielectric layer, in order to make it easier to deposit defect free graphene layers. See paragraph [0016].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to further modify the combined teachings of Goelzhaeuser and Hassan, as taught by Pohlman, in order to make it easier to deposit defect free graphene layers.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goelzhaeuser et al. (US Pat. App. Pub. No. 2019/0228910) in view of Hassan et al. (US 11,749,466), and further, in view of Welch (US Pat. App. Pub. No. 2015/0077899).
With respect to claim 6, the combined teachings of Goelzhaeuser and Hassan fail to teach that the at least two electrodes comprise a conductive epoxy.
Welch, on the other hand, teaches that the at least two electrodes comprise a conductive epoxy. See electrode layers 24 and paragraphs [0023]-[0024]. Such an arrangement results in high conductivity layers. See paragraph [0024].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to further modify the combined teachings of Goelzhaeuser and Hassan, as taught by Welch, in order to produce high conductivity layers.
With respect to claim 7, the combined teachings of Goelzhaeuser, Hassan, and Welch teach that the conductive epoxy comprises silver and graphene particles. See Welch, paragraph [0024].
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goelzhaeuser et al. (US Pat. App. Pub. No. 2019/0228910) in view of Hassan et al. (US 11,749,466), and further, in view of WO2013/126915.
With respect to claim 10, the combined teachings of Goelzhaeuser and Hassan fails to teach that the graphene monolayer is transferred onto the substrate via a wet transfer process.
WO ‘915, on the other hand, teaches that the graphene monolayer is transferred onto the substrate via a wet transfer process. See paragraph [00205]. Such an arrangement is a known operation for transferring films to a substrate/current collector. See paragraphs [00203] and [00205].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to further modify the combined teachings of Goelzhaeuser and Hassan, as taught by WO ‘915, in order to transfer a film to a substrate/current collector.
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goelzhaeuser et al. (US Pat. App. Pub. No. 2019/0228910) in view of Hassan et al. (US 11,749,466), and further, in view of Yu et al. (US Pat. App. Pub. No. 2020/0295370).
With respect to claim 12, the combined teachings of Goelzhaeuser and Hassan fail to teach a method of charging a supercapacitor, comprising exposing the supercapacitor of claim 1 to a heat source.
Yu, on the other hand, teaches a method of charging a supercapacitor, comprising exposing the supercapacitor to a heat source. See at least paragraph [0037]. Such an arrangement uses waste heat sources to store energy for future use. See paragraph [0037].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to further modify the combined teachings of Goelzhaeuser and Hassan, as taught by Yu, in order to use waste heat sources as energy for future use.
With respect to claim 13 With respect to claim 14, the combined teachings of Goelzhaeuser, Hassan, and Yu teach that the heat source conducts heat via conduction. See paragraph [0037], noting that heat transfer by direct contact with a heat source is conduction.
With respect to claim 14, the combined teachings of Goelzhaeuser, Hassan, and Yu teach that the heat source conducts heat via convection. See Yu, paragraph [0059].
With respect to claim 14, the combined teachings of Goelzhaeuser, Hassan, and Yu teach that the heat source conducts heat via radiation. See Yu, paragraph [0059].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 4 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with respect to claims 3 and 4, the prior art fails to teach the specifics of the substrate in each of claims 3 and 4, when taken in conjunction with the limitations of the base claim and any respective intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DION R FERGUSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7566. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 5:30 a.m. - 4:00 p.m..
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.
/DION R. FERGUSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2848