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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masahiro (JP2009076514A) in view of Xu et al. (CN105161313A).
In re claim 1, Masahiro discloses a composite comprising a defect-induced carbon body (¶14). Masahiro does not disclose a metal oxide coupled to the carbon body.
Xu discloses a metal oxide coupled to a carbon body in which the final product is a metal oxide-CNT composite (Summary of the Invention ¶1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the nanoelectrode material of Xu to improve the specific capacitance and cycle charge and discharge stability in a supercapacitor (Xu: Summary of the Invention ¶1).
In re claim 2, Masahiro in view of Xu discloses the composite of claim 1, as explained above. Masahiro does not disclose characterized in that the metal oxide is a nickel-cobalt oxide.
Xu discloses that the metal oxide is a nickel-cobalt oxide (Summary of the Invention ¶1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the nanoelectrode material of Xu to improve the specific capacitance and cycle charge and discharge stability in a supercapacitor (Xu: Summary of the Invention ¶1).
In re claim 3, Masahiro in view of Xu discloses the composite of claim 1, as explained above. Masahiro does not disclose that the metal oxide is NiCo204.
Xu discloses that the metal oxide is NiCo204 (Summary of the Invention ¶1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the nanoelectrode material of Xu to improve the specific capacitance and cycle charge and discharge stability in a supercapacitor (Xu: Summary of the Invention ¶1).
In re claim 7, Masahiro an energy storage device (¶1) comprising, as an electrode (¶1), a composite including a defect-induced carbon body (¶14).
Masahiro does not disclose a metal oxide coupled to the carbon body.
Xu discloses a metal oxide coupled to a carbon body in which the final product is a metal oxide-CNT composite (Summary of the Invention ¶1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the nanoelectrode material of Xu to improve the specific capacitance and cycle charge and discharge stability in a supercapacitor (Xu: Summary of the Invention ¶1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is 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 prior art does not teach nor suggest (in combination with other claim limitations) the contact angle of a precursor solvent of the metal oxide with respect to the surface of the carbon body is about 25 degrees to about 35 degrees due to the induced defect.
Claim 5 is 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 prior art does not teach nor suggest (in combination with other claim limitations) the carbon body has a dimple or spherical protrusion formed on the surface thereof.
Claim 6 is 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 prior art does not teach nor suggest (in combination with other claim limitations) the metal oxide is coupled in the form of a protrusion formed by aggregation of a plurality of particle phases on the surface of the carbon body.
Claims 8-11 are allowed. The prior art does not teach nor suggest (in combination with other claim limitations) inducing defects in a carbon body through a Joule- heating process.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Moilanen et al. (US Publication 2013/0130049) [¶128]
Yang et al. (US Publication 2010/0181200) [¶54]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARUN RAMASWAMY whose telephone number is (571)270-1962. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 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.
/ARUN RAMASWAMY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2848