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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claim 13 is 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.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the electrolyte" in 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 13, line 1, replace “9” with –12--.
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_image1.png
248
544
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19, Yoo 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 feature size of the one or more shapes [0027].
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) 1-4, 7-9, 12-18, 21, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beidaghi et al. (US 2021/0115284).
PNG
media_image2.png
456
446
media_image2.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.
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].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the interdigitated electrode art to form the width and height of the interdigitated electrodes 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, since such a modification would form a micro-supercapacitor having desired capacitance and energy storage performance.
Regarding claim 2, Beidaghi et al. disclose the two-dimensional nanomaterial comprises additive-free Ti3C2 MXene nanosheets [0102]-[0103].
Regarding claim 3, Beidaghi et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the minimum feature size of the one or more shapes in the plane perpendicular to the vertical direction is between 2 and 50 micrometers.
It is well-known in the interdigitated electrode art to form an interdigitated electrode having a width of 2 to 50 µm.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the interdigitated electrode art to form the interdigitated electrode of Beidaghi et al. having a width of 2 to 50 µm, since such a modification would form a micro-supercapacitor having desired capacitance.
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_image3.png
266
482
media_image3.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_image4.png
369
615
media_image4.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_image3.png
266
482
media_image3.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. 19C) 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].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the interdigitated electrode art to form the width and height of the interdigitated electrodes 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, since such a modification would form a micro-supercapacitor having desired capacitance and energy storage performance.
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].
Claim(s) 5, 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beidaghi et al. (US 2021/0115284) 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 et al. (US 2021/0115284) 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.
Claim(s) 22, and 24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beidaghi et al. (US 2021/0115284) in view of Shinar et al. (US 2015/0197063).
Regarding claim 22, Beidaghi et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the non-contact 3D printing is aerosol jet 3D printing.
Shinar et al. disclose a non-contact 3D printing process, wherein the non-contact printing process is aerosol jet 3D printing process [0260], [0269].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the non-contact 3D printing process to form the electrode of Beidaghi et al. using an aerosol jet 3D printing process, in order to form an electrode having excellent microscale precision.
Regarding claim 24, Beidaghi et al. disclose the claimed invention except for dispensing the printing ink comprises: 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.
Shinar et al. disclose a non-contact 3D printing process, wherein the non-contact printing process is aerosol jet 3D printing process [0260], [0269], wherein the ink comprises atomizing the printing ink to create droplets forming an aerosol [0269], and jetting the aerosol out of a nozzle (jet – [02690]) to deposit a layer.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the non-contact 3D printing process to form the electrode of Beidaghi et al. using the jet 3D printing process, wherein the process comprises: 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, in order to form an electrode having excellent microscale precision.
Regarding claim 25, Shinar et al. teach that the process uses an inert carrier gas [0269] to transport the aerosol to a printhead where the aerosol is focused by a sheath gas [0269] for jetting from the nozzle [029].
Regarding claim 26, the modified Beidaghi et al. disclose each of the droplets carries MXene nanosheets [0102]-[0103].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2007/0126079
US 2012/0127630
US 2012/0170171
KR 10-2019-0013359
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 2848
ERIC THOMAS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2848