DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The examiner notes that it is unclear how the invention would be able to “prevent the paste leaking at any pressure”, it is believed that at a high enough pressure all containers would fail and to state that this container could contain any level of pressure up to infinity is incorrect, an upper limit on the pressure capabilities is therefore required.
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 1-8 are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Claims 1, 7, and 8 have multiple periods forming multiple sentences.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite in that it fails to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language. This claim is an omnibus type claim. As this claim fails to add any structural limitations to the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitations "the pressure", “the paste electrodes”, “the flexible and deformable rings”, “both paste electrodes”, “the electrical energy unit”, and “the rubber rings”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhamu et al (US 2017/0103856).
Regarding claim 1, Zhamu discloses an electrical energy storage device based on paste electrodes under pressure (Fig. 1-4) comprising: Paste electrodes based on a mixture of an electrolyte ([0090]) with dispersed conductive additives (optional conductive additive [0090]) and carbon micro/nanoparticles (graphene sheets [0090]) which acts as both: highly efficient electrical conductivity network and as a supercapacitor electroactive material (they are capable of acting this way), Nanosized redox active elements ([0099]) are added into the carbon micro/nanoparticles in order to get hybrid (capacitive + redox) materials with hybrid electrochemical performance, a sealed cell stacking that keep paste electrodes under a homogenous pressure and preserves the humid rheology of the paste electrodes (they are not in a vacuum and therefore would have at least some pressure [0096]).
Regarding claim 2, Zhamu further discloses that the electrodes are completed based on pastes based on a mixture of dispersed carbon micro/nano particles into an electrolyte, which under pressure provides, a highly efficient electrical conductivity network though all the paste (the structure as claimed above is taught by the prior art, there being no further structural changes in this claim makes it so that the prior art teaches these limitations as they are simply results of the structure above).
Regarding claim 3, Zhamu further discloses that dispersed carbon micro/nanoparticles into an electrolyte that conforms a highly efficient electrical conductivity network under pressure are selected from the group consisting of: graphite, activated carbon, graphene ([0090]), several layers of graphene, reduced graphene oxide, graphene oxide, single wall carbon nanotubes, multiwall carbon nanotubes, fullerenes, ketjen black, carbon black super p or mixtures thereof.
Regarding claim 4, Zhamu further discloses that the nanosized redox active elements added to the dispersed carbon micro/nanoparticles into an electrolyte that conforms a highly efficient electrical conductivity network under pressure are selected from the group consisting of: electroactive ions, electroactive molecules, metal-organic clusters, battery material nanoparticles (redox pairs [0099])or mixtures thereof.
Regarding claim 5, Zhamu further discloses that the electrolyte for a paste based on dispersed carbon micro/nanoparticles into the electrolyte that conforms a highly efficient electrical conductivity network under pressure is selected from the group consisting of an organic electrolyte ([0138]), comprising a mixture of miscible organic solvents, or water-based electrolytes where the salt is the main component in mass.
Regarding claim 6, Zhamu further discloses that the electrolyte for a paste based on dispersed carbon micro/nanoparticles into the electrolyte that conforms a highly efficient electrical conductivity network under pressure is a mixture of miscible organic solvents comprising at least one solvent with a high dielectric constant (≥ 50) (water [0139]) and at least one solvent with low viscosity (≤ 0.5 mPa*s) (acetonitrile [0140]).
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.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhamu et al (US 2017/0103856) in view of ZHANG et al (US 2017/0288244).
Regarding claim 7, Zhamu fails to teach the claim limitations.
ZHANG teaches at least one electrical energy storage unit (Fig. 1-7) which comprises: - two paste electrodes (Fig. 4, 141/142), one being an anode (6.3a) (Fi. 4, 142) and the other being a cathode (6.3b) (Fig. 4, 141), - a first current collector (6.1 a) (Fig. 4, 145), followed by a first rubber ring (6.2a) (Fig. 5, 146 on left), a separator (6.4) (Fig. 4, 143), a second rubber ring (6.2b) (Fig. 5, 146 on right), and a second current collector (6.1b) (Fig. 4, 144), wherein the anode (6.3a) is confined inside the inner volume defined by the first rubber ring (6.2a) (Fig. 5), and the cathode (6.3b) is confined in the inner volume defined by the second rubber ring (6.2b) (Fig. 5), thus the thickness of both, the anode and the cathode, is less than or equal to the thickness of the rubber rings (Fig. 5), and wherein both rubber rings (6.2a and 6.2b) are flexible and deformable ([0025]), are chemically resistant to degradation by the electroactive paste (Rubber [0025]), and that the size of the rings can be determined by need ([0025]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of ZHANG to the invention of Zhamu, in order to construct the body of the capacitor based on known designs.
However, ZHANG fails to teach that the rings have a thickness of 250 µm to 2500 µm, and have a width of 1 mm to 10 mm.
It is noted that the claimed dimensions appear to be an obvious matter of engineering design choice and thus, while being a difference, does not serve in any way to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the applied prior art. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Kuhle, 526 F2d. 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 8, Zhamu fails to teach the claim limitations.
ZHANG teaches that at least one electrical energy storage unit is stacked in a single body, wherein: - the pressure applied by the external body to the paste electrodes is up to 10000 kPa (ambient pressure would be below this), - the pressure applied to the paste electrodes is kept steady by the flexible and deformable rubber rings (6.2a and 6.2b) (Fig. 5, 146, the rings are capable of this). - the rubber rings (6.2a and 6.2b) confine both paste electrodes in their inner volumes (Fig. 4-5), sealing the electrical energy unit to prevent the paste leaking at any pressure (Fig. 4-5).
t would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of ZHANG to the invention of Zhamu, in order to construct the body of the capacitor based on known designs.
Additional Relevant Prior Art:
Seymour (US 2009/0185327) teaches relevant art in Fig. 1-6.
PECKERAR et al (US 2010/0028766) teaches relevant art in Fig. 1-17.
Chiang et al (US 2010/0047671) teaches relevant art in Fig. 1-10.
Kokotov et al (US 2015/0049416) teaches relevant art in Fig. 1-5.
Surendranath et al (US 2016/0226072) teaches relevant art in Fig. 1-11.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL P MCFADDEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5649. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur 8am-9pm PST.
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.
/MICHAEL P MCFADDEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights