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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Element 21 in Fig. 2. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-9 and 11-12 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.
Claim 1 contains the limitation “(excluding 0 mass %)”. It is not clear if the term in parentheses is part of the claim, an optional limitation or an alternative range to “less than 20 mass”. See MPEP §2173.05(d).
Claim 4 contains the limitation “approximately spherical”. It is unclear what the difference between “spherical” which is broadly interpreted to refer to a structure that is “approximately a sphere” or “sphere-like” and a material that is “approximately spherical”. Effectively, the limitation “approximately” renders the term unclear because “spherical” already refers to a term which approximates the shape of a sphere.
Claims 2-9 and 11-12 are rejected as being dependent on claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-9 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2020/0220161) in view of Konishi et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2021/0305576).
Regarding claim 1, Tang et al. discloses a graphene-containing electrode material in the form of aggregates of graphene and fibrous carbon materials. (Abstract). The fibrous material may include carbon nanotubes. (par. [0072]). Tang et al. therefore discloses a graphene and carbon nanotube composite as claimed.
Tang et al. further discloses that the composite has a weight ratio of graphene to carbon nanotube in the range of 1-50. (par. [0075]). The carbon nanotubes would therefore be present in an amount of about 1.9% or more by weight (97.1 wt% graphene /1.9 wt% carbon nanotube = 51), overlapping with the presently claimed range. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
Tang et al. does not disclose the C/O ratio of the graphene-containing electrode material.
Konishi et al. teaches a graphene powder composition used in an electrode for a lithium-ion battery including an active material particles. (Abstract). Konishi et al. teaches that the oxygen to carbon ratio (O/C ratio) of the graphene powder should lie in the range of 0.08-0.30 (par. [0042]) which would be equivalent to a 3.3-12.5 C/O ratio, overlapping with the presently claimed range. Konishi et al. teaches that the O/C ratio is important for controlling the dispersibility and conductivity of the graphene powder. (par. [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the relative content of O/C ratio in Tang et al. based on the teachings of Konishi et al., resulting in C/O ratio which overlaps with the presently claimed range.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the ratio of C/O in Tang et al. in order to adjust the relative dispersibility and conductivity of the graphene composite therein based on the teachings in Konishi et al. of the result effective nature of the relative amounts of carbon and oxygen in graphene-based powders for use in an electrode composition.
Regarding claim 2, Tang et al. discloses that the fibrous (i.e. carbon nanotube) materials are located between the graphene sheets. (Abstract, par. [0071] and Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Konishi et al. teaches that the oxygen to carbon ratio (O/C ratio) of the graphene powder should lie in the range of 0.08-0.30 (par. [0042]) which would be equivalent to a 3.3-12.5 C/O ratio, overlapping with the presently claimed range.
Regarding claim 4, Tang et al. teaches that the graphene aggregate has a spherical shape. (par. [0066] and [0141]).
Regarding claim 5, Tang et al. further teaches making an electrode composition by mixing the graphene structures with a binder material which is a polymeric material. (par. [0079]-[0081] and [0121]). The electrode composition would therefore include a polymer layer formed on the surface of the graphene material when mixing the graphene material and the polymeric binder.
Regarding claims 6-7, Tang et al. further teaches making an electrode composition by mixing the graphene structures with a binder material and a conductive material. (par. [0079]).
Regarding claims 8-9 and 11-12, Tang et al. teaches that the electrode is used as a positive electrode in a double-layer capacitor. (par. [0099]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRE F FERRE whose telephone number is (571)270-5763. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8 am to 4 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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 5712721490. 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.
/ALEXANDRE F FERRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 06/12/2026
Prosecution Insights