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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
A) Independent claim 1 is amended herein to recite certain subject matter of canceled claim 3. Amended independent claim 1 recites: "(ii) a height in the vertical direction that is at least 10 times greater than the minimum feature size of the one or more shapes, wherein the minimum feature size of the one or more shapes in a plane perpendicular to the vertical direction is between 2 and 50 micrometers." Nowhere do the references cited in the December 29, 2025 Office Action disclose or fairly teach every limitation of amended independent claim 1.
Applicant has traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice. However, MPEP 2144.03 C states: “If applicant adequately traverses the examiner’s assertion of official notice, the examiner must provide documentary evidence in the next Office action if the rejection is to be maintained. See 37 CFR 1.104(c)(2). See also Zurko, 258 F.3d at 1386, 59 USPQ2d at 1697 ("[T]he Board [or examiner] must point to some concrete evidence in the record in support of these findings" to satisfy the substantial evidence test). If the examiner is relying on personal knowledge to support the finding of what is known in the art, the examiner must provide an affidavit or declaration setting forth specific factual statements and explanation to support the finding. See 37 CFR 1.104(d)(2).”
If the examiner adds a reference in the next Office action after applicant’s rebuttal, and the newly added reference is added only as directly corresponding evidence to support the prior common knowledge finding, and it does not result in a new issue or constitute a new ground of rejection, the Office action may be made final. If no amendments are made to the claims, the examiner must not rely on any other teachings in the reference if the rejection is made final. If the newly cited reference is added for reasons other than to support the prior common knowledge statement or a new ground of rejection is introduced by the examiner that is not necessitated by applicant’s amendment of the claims, the rejection may not be made final. See MPEP § 706.07(a).
Lewis et al. (US 2016/0126558) describe a 3D extrusion printing technique that produces interdigitated electrode structures with a height-to-width aspect ratio of at least 30 and feature widths ranging from 20 to 50 µm [0025], [0026].
B) Beidaghi (US 2021/0115284) discloses 3D printing through conventional extruder nozzle-based means. See Beidaghi at [0100]. Conventional extrusion technologies in the micro- supercapacitor field are limited to feature sizes of around 80 µm by quality and resolution capability restrictions. Nowhere does Beidaghi disclose or suggest a feature size smaller than 80 µm, much less within the specific range of "2 to 50 µm." See e.g., Beidaghi Figures 3A-3E, 4A- 4H, 5A-5F, 6A-6F, 7A-7D, 8A-8F. Further, nowhere does Beidaghi disclose pairing a feature size range of "2 to 50 µm" with a specific vertical height of at least 10 times the feature size. OA at 6. Indeed, such resultant high aspect ratios paired with small feature sizes are not expected and not obvious in the micro-supercapacitor field as they conventionally result in structural integrity and electrical performance issues of the capacitor.
While Beidaghi et al. do not disclose interdigitated electrodes having a width in the specific range of 2 to 50 µm, they teach in [0115] that “The length and width of the interdigital electrodes, as well as the gap distance between electrodes, can be engineered by changing the size of the features in the designed device and adjusting the nozzle size and printing conditions”.
Lewis et al. teach a 3D extrusion technique [0100] that produces interdigitated electrode structures with a height-to-width aspect ratio of at least 30 and feature widths ranging from 20 to 50 µm [0025], [0026].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the 3D interdigitated electrode art to form the 3D interdigitated electrode of Beidaghi et al. so that a height in the vertical direction that is at least 10 times greater than the minimum feature size of the one or more shapes, and the minimum feature size (width) of the one or more shapes in a plane perpendicular to the vertical direction is between 2 and 50 micrometers, since such a modification would form a supercapacitor having increased energy density and capacitance.
C) Further, Lewis is silent as to printing 2D nanomaterials such as MXene. And Lewis does not provide solutions to known engineering obstacles from printing such materials. See Application at [0056]-[0057], [0076], [0079].
Beidaghi et al. disclose MXene nanoparticles used in the formation of interdigitated electrodes, wherein the nanoparticles have a dimension below 250 nm (as low as 1 nm - [0021]-[0022] @ 261).
Lewis teaches conductive nanoparticles [0037] that are used in the formation of interdigitated electrodes, wherein the nanoparticles have a dimension smaller than 300 nm.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the interdigitated electrode art to form the electrodes of Beidaghi et al. using MXene particles (with a dimension of 1 nm- 250nm) so that a height in the vertical direction is at least 10 times greater than the minimum feature size of the one or more shapes, and the minimum feature size (width) of the one or more shapes in a plane perpendicular to the vertical direction is between 2 and 50 micrometers, by modifying the printing process through the adjustment of the nozzle size and printing conditions, as taught by Lewis.
The current application in [0056]-[0057], [0076], [0079] is silent with regard to particle sizes used in the prior art deposition techniques.
Arguments presented by applicant cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence. See, e.g., In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Applicant is remined that rebuttal evidence and arguments can be presented by way of an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132, e.g., Soni, 54 F.3d at 750, 34 USPQ2d at 1687; In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1474, 223 USPQ 785, 789-90 (Fed. Cir. 1984)
D) Independent claim 19 is amended herein to recite "wherein the self-supporting layers define overhang features without support structures." Nowhere does Lewis disclose or fairly teach this limitation alone or in combination with the other limitations of amended claim 19. The Applicant respectfully requests that each of the amendments herein be entered and that each of the § 102 rejections be withdrawn.
It is submitted that Figs. 1c and 1d illustrate that the self-supporting layers define overhang features without support structures (see annotated figure 1c below).
PNG
media_image1.png
362
518
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s arguments, see P2-P3, filed 3/26/2026, with respect to claims 22 and 24-26 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 22 and 24-26 has been withdrawn.
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.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lewis et al. (US 2016/0126558).
PNG
media_image2.png
248
544
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19, Lewis et al. disclose a micro-energy storage device (title) comprising: a three-dimensional electrode (102, 106,fig. 1a-1d) having (i) a plurality of self-supporting layers of nanoparticle material (fig. 1a-1d, [0034]) stacked in a vertical direction (fig. 1a-1d), the plurality of self-supporting layers defining one or more shapes in a plane that is at an arbitrary angle to the vertical direction, and
(ii) a height in the vertical direction that is at least 10 times greater than a minimum feature size of the one or more shapes, wherein the minimum feature size of the one or more shapes in a plane perpendicular to the vertical direction is between 20 to 50 µm [0025], [0026], and the self-supporting layers define overhang features without support structures (see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
362
518
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The recitation “A micro-supercapacitor” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
Regarding claim 20, Lewis et al. disclose the nanoparticle material comprises silver, gold, or platinum [0035].
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) 1-2, 4, 7-9, 12-18, 21, 23, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beidaghi (US 2021/0115284) in view of Lewis et al. (US 2016/026558).
PNG
media_image3.png
456
446
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Beidaghi et al. disclose in fig. 3A-3E, 4A-4B, a micro-supercapacitor (MSC – [0112]) comprising: a three-dimensional electrode having
(i) a plurality of self-supporting layers of two-dimensional nanomaterial [0052—[0053] stacked in a vertical direction (see fig. 3b), the plurality of self-supporting layers defining one or more shapes in a plane that is at an arbitrary angle (90 ̊ ) to the vertical direction.
Beidaghi et al. do not have a specific example where a height in the vertical direction that is at least 10 times greater than the minimum feature size of the one or more shapes and the minimum feature size of the one or more shapes in a plane perpendicular to the vertical direction is between 2 and 50 micrometers.
Beidaghi et al. disclose the height of the interdigitated electrodes is stable up to several millimeters ([0113]- Fig. 4B) and the width of the interdigitated electrodes is not limited and can be adjusted [0115].
Lewis et al. disclose interdigitated electrodes wherein a height in the vertical direction that is at least 10 times greater than the minimum feature size of the one or more shapes and the minimum feature size of the one or more shapes in a plane perpendicular to the vertical direction is between 2 and 50 micrometers [0025], [0026]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the 3D interdigitated electrode art to form the 3D interdigitated electrode of Beidaghi et al. so that a height in the vertical direction is at least 10 times greater than the minimum feature size of the one or more shapes, and the minimum feature size (width) of the one or more shapes in a plane perpendicular to the vertical direction is between 2 and 50 micrometers, since such a modification would form a supercapacitor having increased energy density and capacitance.
Regarding claim 2, Beidaghi et al. disclose the two-dimensional nanomaterial comprises additive-free Ti3C2 MXene nanosheets [0102]-[0103].
Regarding claim 4, Beidaghi et al. disclose a plurality of the three-dimensional electrodes spaced apart from each other by a distance (see Fig. 3A-3E, 4A-4B).
Regarding claim 7, Beidaghi et al. disclose the plurality of three-dimensional electrodes comprises wavy walls in an interdigitated configuration (see annotated fig. 8b below & fig. 3b).
PNG
media_image4.png
266
482
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Beidaghi et al. disclose the plurality of three-dimensional electrodes comprise straight walls in an interdigitated configuration (see Fig. 3A-3E, 4A-4B).
Regarding claim 9, Beidaghi et al. disclose a base layer perpendicular (substrate – see Fig. 3b - collectors) to the vertical direction that electrically connects the plurality of three-dimensional electrodes (see Fig. 3b).
Regarding claim 12, Beidaghi et al. disclose an electrolyte [0112] formed over the three-dimensional electrode.
Regarding claim 13, Beidaghi et al. disclose the electrolyte is a gel electrolyte [0112], an aqueous electrolyte, an organic electrolyte, or an ionic liquid electrolyte.
Regarding claim 14, Beidaghi et al. disclose the three-dimensional electrode includes active electrode material and does not include current collector material [0112].
Regarding claim 15, Beidaghi et al. disclose the three-dimensional electrode comprises current collector material and active electrode material stacked in an alternating manner in the vertical direction [0112].
Regarding claim 16, Beidaghi et al. disclose the two-dimensional nanomaterial comprises MXene [0113].
Regarding claim 17, Beidaghi et al. disclose the self-supporting layers define overhang features without support structures (see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image5.png
369
615
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, Beidaghi et al. disclose the one or more shapes include a wavy shape (see annotated fig. 8b below).
PNG
media_image4.png
266
482
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 21, Beidaghi et al. disclose a method of forming a micro-supercapacitor (title) comprising:
using non-contact 3D printing ([0111], Fig. 4A – nozzle does not come into contact with the substrate) to generate a micro-supercapacitor including a three-dimensional electrode having (Fig. 3, 4);
(i) a plurality of self-supporting layers of two-dimensional nanomaterial [0052—[0053] stacked in a vertical direction (see fig. 3b), the plurality of self-supporting layers defining one or more shapes in a plane that is at an arbitrary angle (90 ̊ ) to the vertical direction.
Beidaghi et al. do not have a specific example where a height in the vertical direction that is at least 10 times greater than the minimum feature size of the one or more shapes.
Beidaghi et al. disclose the height of the interdigitated electrodes is stable up to several millimeters ([0113]- Fig. 4B) and the width of the interdigitated electrodes is not limited and can be adjusted [0115].
Lewis et al. disclose interdigitated electrodes wherein a height in the vertical direction that is at least 10 times greater than the minimum feature size of the one or more shapes and the minimum feature size of the one or more shapes in a plane perpendicular to the vertical direction is between 2 and 50 micrometers [0025], [0026]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the 3D interdigitated electrode art to form the 3D interdigitated electrode of Beidaghi et al. so that a height in the vertical direction is at least 10 times greater than the minimum feature size of the one or more shapes, and the minimum feature size (width) of the one or more shapes in a plane perpendicular to the vertical direction is between 2 and 50 micrometers, since such a modification would form a supercapacitor having increased energy density and capacitance.
Regarding claim 23, Beidaghi et al. disclose using the non-contact 3D printing to generate the micro-supercapacitor comprises: forming a printing ink [0103]-[0104] including nanoparticles suspended in a solvent ([0103], water); dispensing the printing ink to deposit a layer of the two-dimensional nanomaterial [0111]; and using heat or another form of energy to remove the solvent from the deposited layer [0114].
Regarding claim 27, the modified Beidaghi et al. disclose the one or more shapes comprise an aspect ratio of 30:1 (a height-to-width aspect ratio of at least 30:1 [0025], [0026]).
Claim(s) 5, 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beidaghi (US 2021/0115284) and Lewis et al. (US 2016/026558) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (US 6,785,118).
Regarding claim 5, Beidaghi et al. disclose the claimed invention except for a plurality of the three-dimensional electrodes arbitrarily interwoven between each other but electrically isolated from each other.
Liu et al. disclose in fig. 6B, a plurality of three-dimensional electrodes (601, 602) for a capacitor device, wherein the three-dimensional electrodes are arbitrarily interwoven between each other and electrically isolated from each other (fig, 6B).
It would have been obvious to a person in the three-dimensional electrode art before the effective filing date of the invention to form the device of Beidaghi et al. so that a plurality of the three-dimensional electrodes are arbitrarily interwoven between each other and electrically isolated from each other, since such a modification would produce a supercapacitor having desired capacitance and reduced ESL.
Regarding claim 10, the modified Beidaghi et al. disclose the plurality of three-dimensional electrodes comprise arbitrary shapes with overhang structures (607-608) Liu et al. – Fig. 6B).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Beidaghi et al. disclose the plurality of three-dimensional electrodes comprise arbitrary shapes with electrical isolation (space and/or insulation – Liu et al. - 604) between electrodes via three-dimensional overhang structures or printing of an insulating structure.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beidaghi (US 2021/0115284), Lewis et al. (US 2016/026558), and Liu et al. (US 6,785,118) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Yoo et al. (US 2019/0333716).
Regarding claim 6, Beidaghi et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the distance is between 2 and 250 micrometers.
Yoo et al. disclose a plurality of interdigitated supercapacitor electrodes (fig. 1, Table 1), wherein the distance between the plurality of interdigitated supercapacitor electrodes is between 2 and 250 micrometers (Table 1 – 230 µm).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the interdigitated electrode art to form the microsupercapacitor of Beidaghi et al. so that the distance between the plurality of interdigitated supercapacitor electrodes is 2 to 250 micrometers, since such a modification would form a supercapacitor having desired capacitance.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22, 24-26 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: In combination with the other claim limitations, the prior art does not teach or suggest a method of forming a micro-supercapacitor:
A) wherein the non-contact 3D printing is aerosol jet 3D printing (claim 22); and
atomizing the printing ink to create droplets forming an aerosol; and jetting the aerosol out of a nozzle to deposit the layer of the two-dimensional nanomaterial in three-dimensional space without support structures (claim 24).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 2847
ERIC THOMAS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights