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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2 “compositing comprising” should read “composition comprising”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2 “compositing comprising” should read “composition comprising”. 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.
Claims 1, 3 and 6 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.
Regarding claim 1, in line 3 “a first polymer” & claim 3 line 3 “a second polymer” & claim 6 line 5 “a first polymer” & line 7 “a second polymer”, it is unclear whether the first polymer and the second polymer are the same or different.
Additionally, dependent claims 2, 4-5, and 7-8 are rejected as a result of their dependence on indefinite claims 1, 3 and 6 respectively as they include all the limitations of claim 1, 3 and 6 respectively and as they do not resolve the issues identified in the rejections set forth above.
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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20210119554 A1, “Kim”) in view of Hirotaka et al. (JP 2021057301 A, “Hirotaka”). The machine translation is used herein for citation purposes.
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a tribo-positive electrode composition for a triboelectric nanogenerator (see abstract “triboelectric generator” & “positive electrode”; see [0003] “triboelectric nanogenerators (TENGs)”). Kim discloses graphene & polymer (see [0058]). Kim does not explicitly disclose comprising reduced graphene oxide-tetraethylenepentamine (rGO-TEPA).
Hirotaka teaches in FIG. 1 & [0024] “the composite 14 of TEPA and graphene oxide adheres to the surface of the positive electrode active material particles 11” & “graphene oxide are reduced”. Hirotaka teaches in [0017] “tetraethylenepentamine are even more preferable”. Hirotaka teaches “composite particles and method for producing the same described herein can enhance the conductivity of electrodes” & “electrostatic attraction” in [0012].
Kim and Hirotaka are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely layered electrodes & electrode composition & “electrostatic attraction” (see [0012]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate TEPA and graphene oxide as suggested by Hirotaka (see [0024]) into the positive electrode composition of Kim because doing so is preferable, as suggested by Hirotaka (see [0017]) & further doing so improves the conductivity of the electrodes, as suggested by Hirotaka (see [0012]).
Regarding claim 2, Kim discloses the tribo-positive electrode composition of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the content of the reduced graphene oxide-tetraethylenepentamine is 1 part by weight to 10 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the first polymer.
Hirotaka teaches composition in [0039] “example 3” & “5% by mass of tetraethylenepentamine” & “TEPA” & “1% by mass GO”. Hirotaka teaches in [0054] “examples 3 and 4 showed significantly improved conductivity” & “making it preferable”.
Hirotaka teaches a range of 5% by mass of tetraethylenepentamine & 1% by mass GO, which overlaps with the claimed range of 1 part by weight to 10 parts by weight. MPEP 2144.05 I states that 'In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate “5% by mass of tetraethylenepentamine” & “1% by mass GO”, as suggested by Hirotaka (see [0039]) into the tribo-positive electrode composition of Kim because doing so is preferable as suggested by Hirotaka (see [0054]) & further doing so improves the conductivity as suggested by Hirotaka (see [0054]).
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20210119554 A1, “Kim”) in view of Turkevich et al. (US 6162535 A, “Turkevich”).
Regarding claim 3, Kim discloses a tribo-negative electrode composition for a triboelectric nanogenerator (see abstract “triboelectric generator” & “negative electrode”; see [0003] “triboelectric nanogenerators (TENGs)”), the compositing comprising molybdenum sulfide (MoS2) (see [0073] “molybdenum disulfide (MoS2)”, and a second polymer (see [0070] “a polymer material”). Kim does not explicitly disclose a perovskite material.
Turkevich teaches a perovskite material (see P10 col 3 par 4 “perovskite”) & describes “inorganic ferroelectric materials are desired because of their generally superior thermal stabilities” (see P12 col 7 par 1).
Kim and Turkevich are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely triboelectric charging (see P9 col 2 par 3).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate perovskite, as suggested by Turkevich (see P10 col 3 par 4) into the tribo-negative electrode composition of Kim because doing so improves thermal stability as suggested by Turkevich (see P12 col 7 par 1).
Regarding claim 4, Kim discloses the tribo-negative electrode composition of claim 3, but does not explicitly disclose the content of the perovskite material is 5 parts by weight to 10 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the second polymer.
Turkevich teaches composition of perovskite material (see P10 col 3 par 4 “ferroelectric material may be a perovskite” & “ferroelectric material may be present at a level of from about 0.01 to about 50 percent by weight”).
Turkevich teaches a range of 0.01 to about 50 percent by weight, which overlaps with the claimed range of 5 parts by weight to 10 parts by weight. MPEP 2144.05 I states that 'In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'.
Regarding claim 5, Kim discloses the tribo-negative electrode composition of claim 3, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the perovskite material is barium strontium titanate.
Turkevich teaches barium strontium titanate (see P12 col 7 par 3 “perovskites” & “BaSrTiO3”). Turkevich teaches “inorganic ferroelectric materials are desired because of their generally superior thermal stabilities.” (see P12 col 7 par 1).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate barium strontium titanate as suggested by Turkevich (see P12 col 7 par 3) into the tribo-negative electrode composition of Kim because doing so improves thermal stability as suggested by Turkevich (see P12 col 7 par 1).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20210119554 A1, “Kim”) in view of Hirotaka et al. (JP 2021057301 A, “Hirotaka”) and Turkevich et al. (US 6162535 A, “Turkevich”). The machine translation is used herein for citation purposes.
Regarding claim 6, Kim discloses a triboelectric nanogenerator comprising a tribo-positive electrode layer, and a tribo-negative electrode layer (see abstract “triboelectric generator” & “positive electrode” & “negative electrode”; see [0003] “triboelectric nanogenerators (TENGs)”), & describes “graphene” & “polymer” (see [0058]). Kim discloses molybdenum sulfide (MoS2) (see [0073]) & polymer (see [0070]).
Kim does not explicitly disclose reduced graphene oxide-tetraethylenepentamine (rGO-TEPA) nor a perovskite material.
Hirotaka teaches in FIG. 1 & [0024] “the composite 14 of TEPA and graphene oxide adheres to the surface of the positive electrode active material particles 11” & “graphene oxide are reduced”. Hirotaka teaches in [0017] “tetraethylenepentamine are even more preferable”. Hirotaka teaches “composite particles and method for producing the same described herein can enhance the conductivity of electrodes” & “electrostatic attraction” in [0012]).
Kim and Hirotaka are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely layered electrodes & electrode composition & “electrostatic attraction” (see [0012]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate TEPA and graphene oxide as suggested by Hirotaka (see [0024]) into the positive electrode composition of Kim because doing so is preferable, as suggested by Hirotaka (see [0017]) & further doing so improves the conductivity of the electrodes, as suggested by Hirotaka (see [0012]).
Turkevich teaches a perovskite material (see P10 col 3 par 4 “perovskite”) & describes “inorganic ferroelectric materials are desired because of their generally superior thermal stabilities” (see P12 col 7 par 1).
Kim and Turkevich are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely triboelectric charging (see P9 col 2 par 3).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate perovskite, as suggested by Turkevich (see P10 col 3 par 4) into the tribo-negative electrode composition of Kim because doing so improves thermal stability as suggested by Turkevich (see P12 col 7 par 1).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20210119554 A1, “Kim”) in view of Hirotaka et al. (JP 2021057301 A, “Hirotaka”) and Turkevich et al. (US 6162535 A, “Turkevich”) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Huang et al. (“Enhanced Power Output of a Triboelectric Nanogenerator…”). The machine translation is used herein for citation purposes.
Regarding claim 7, Kim discloses the triboelectric nanogenerator of claim 6. Kim does not explicitly disclose electrospinning method.
Huang teaches electrospinning (see P2 par 2 “Electrospinning is a versatile, simple method to process polymer solutions or melts into ultrathin fibers” & This cost-effective method” & “In consequence, electrospinning has proved to be a suitable method to fabricate triboelectric materials”).
Kim and Huang are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely triboelectric materials (see P2 par 2).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate electrospinning method, as suggested by Huang into the triboelectric nanogenerator of Kim because doing so would be utilizing “a suitable method to fabricate triboelectric materials”, as suggested by Huang (see P2 par 2) and further doing so would be utilizing a cost-effective method as suggested by Huang (see P2 par 2).
Regarding the method limitations recited in claim 7, “wherein the tribo-positive electrode layer is prepared by an electrospinning method using a first mixture in which the reduced graphene oxide-tetraethylenepentamine, and the first polymer are mixed”, the Office notes that even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). As the court stated in Thorpe, 777 F.2d at 697, 227 USPQ at 966 (The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. In re Pilkington, 411 F. 2d 1345, 1348, 162 USPQ 145, 147 (CCPA 1969). If the product in a product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process). See MPEP § 2113.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20210119554 A1, “Kim”) in view of Hirotaka et al. (JP 2021057301 A, “Hirotaka”), Turkevich et al. (US 6162535 A, “Turkevich”), as applied to claim 6 above, and in further view of Kumar et al. (WO 2019073317 A1, “Kumar”). The machine translation is used herein for citation purposes.
Regarding claim 8, Kim discloses the triboelectric nanogenerator of claim 6. Kim does not explicitly disclose a casting method.
Kumar teaches “drop casting” (see [0053] “deposited on electrode 204” & “drop casting” & “The deposition process can be repeated to form a film having a desired thickness.”).
Kim and Kumar are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely triboelectric materials (see Kumar title).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate casting as suggested by Kumar (see [0053]) into the triboelectric nanogenerator of Kim because doing so allows for the film thickness to be controlled, as suggested by Kumar (see [0053]).
Regarding the method limitations recited in claim 8, “wherein the tribo-negative electrode layer is prepared by a casting method using a second mixture in which any one among the fluorine-functionalized graphite, the perovskite material, and the molybdenum sulfide (MoS2), and the second polymer are mixed”, the Office notes that even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). As the court stated in Thorpe, 777 F.2d at 697, 227 USPQ at 966 (The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. In re Pilkington, 411 F. 2d 1345, 1348, 162 USPQ 145, 147 (CCPA 1969). If the product in a product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process). See MPEP § 2113.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH APPLEGATE whose telephone number is (571)270-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/S.A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/JAMES M ERWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 07/10/2026
Prosecution Insights