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 .
Summary
The Applicant’s arguments received August 19, 2026 have been entered into the file. Currently, claim 2 is cancelled; and claims 8-15 are withdrawn; resulting in claims 1 and 3-7 pending for examination.
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.
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 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sukhmani, et al. Self-promoted Nickel-chalcogenide Nanostructures: A Novel Electrochemical Supercapacitor Device-design Strategy. Materials Research Bulletin, Vol. 156 (Dec. 2022), pp. 1-9, in view of Zaulkiflee, et al. Recent advances on the utilization of nanosheets as electrode material for supercapacitor application. Journal of Energy Storage, Vol. 55, Part D (Nov. 30, 2022), pp. 1-17, and further in view of Xie, et al. Synthesis of cobalt-doped nickel sulfide nanomaterials with rich edge sites as high-performance supercapacitor electrode materials. Inorganic Chemistry Frontiers, Issue 5 (2018) pp. 1218-1225.
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Sukhmani teaches an electrochemical supercapacitor with NiS, NiSe, and NiSSe nanostructured electrode materials on NiF (Pg. 2, Col. 2, Ln. 9-11). Sukhmani teaches that the NiSSe nanostructured electrode over a NiF host results in a nanobud morphology (¶ Pg. 4, Col. 2, Ln. 18-28). Sukhmani doesn’t expressly teach that the sulfoselenide NiSSe has a 2D Van der Waals layered structure of nanosheets with d-spacing in the range of 3-7 Angstrom, or that the NiSSe gives XRD peaks at the positions recited in claim 7.
Zaulkiflee teaches that nanomaterials are good candidates for electrode materials for supercapacitors for enhanced ion adsorption and faster surface redox reactions (Pg. 5, Col. 2, Ln. 6-7). Zaulkiflee teaches that 2D nanomaterials are the best nanostructure because of their high mechanical integrity, due to their overlapping area when they are stacked layer-by-layer, and good electrochemical performance (Pg. 6, Col. 1, Ln. 1-4). Specifically, Zaulkiflee teaches that 2D nanosheets have gained a lot of attention for their use as supercapacitor electrodes, due to their ultra-high specific surface area and superior conductivity (Pg. 6, Col. 1, Ln. 33-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the electrode material of Sukhmani to include NiSSe having a layered nanosheet structure based on the teachings of Zaulkiflee. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to include a layered nanosheet structure based on the teachings of Zaulkiflee that the nanostructure has high mechanical integrity, good electrochemical performance and ultra-high specific surface area.
Transition metal dichalcogenides have an interlayer distance of approximately 3-3.5 Angstrom. In including NiSSe having a layered nanosheet structure, the material would have a d-spacing of approximately 3-3.5 Angstrom, within the claimed range of 3-7 Angstrom. Further, in including NiSSe having a layered nanosheet structure, the NiSSe would inherently include XRD peaks at the claimed positions, as the XRD positions primarily depend on the structure of the material and the d-spacing.
The combination of references does not expressly teach that the pore radius of the sulfoselenide varies from 50-120 Angstrom.
Xie teaches the use of cobalt-doped nickel sulfide nanomaterials for the use of supercapacitor electrode materials (Pg. 1218, Col. 2, Ln. 20-29). Xie teaches that a pore size distribution of 5-12 nm (50-120 Angstrom) is necessary to accommodate the diffusion of electrolyte ion during the charging/discharging process (Pg. 1221, Col. 1, Ln. 1-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the pore size of the NiSSe to be within 5-12 nm (50-120 Angstrom) based on the teachings of Xie. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that both teachings involve using transition metal chalcogenides in electrodes of supercapacitors, and would be motivated to include NiSSe with a pore size of 5-12 nm (50-120 Angstrom) in order to accommodate the diffusion of electrolyte ion during the charging/discharging process.
Regarding claims 3-6, Sukhmani in view of Zaulkiflee and Xie teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Claims 3-6 do not further limit the NiSSe compound applied by the prior art, therefore, the claim limitations are met.
Response to Arguments
Response-Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant's arguments filed August 19, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that Sukhmani, et al. (Self-promoted Nickel-chalcogenide Nanostructures: A Novel Electrochemical Supercapacitor Device-design Strategy. Materials Research Bulletin, Vol. 156 (Dec. 2022), pp. 1-9) does not teach the 2D Van der Waals layered structure with a d-spacing of 3-7 Angstrom; that the interlayer spacing is not a characteristic of the transition metal dichalcogenide; that the XRD peak position would not be inherent to the material; that Xie, et al. (Synthesis of cobalt-doped nickel sulfide nanomaterials with rich edge sites as high-performance supercapacitor electrode materials. Inorganic Chemistry Frontiers, Issue 5 (2018) pp. 1218-1225) does not teach 2D layered sulfoselenide structure; that Zaulkiflee, et al. (Recent advances on the utilization of nanosheets as electrode material for supercapacitor application. Journal of Energy Storage, Vol. 55, Part D (Nov. 30, 2022), pp. 1-17) does not explicitly mention or suggest a reasonable expectation of success for converting Sukhmani’s nanobuds into layered nanosheets and that Zaulkiflee teaches a general review on 2D nanosheets; and that the pore size distribution of Xie is not transferrable to Sukhmani.
With respect to the argument, see page 7 of the remarks, that Zaulkiflee does not explicitly mention or suggest a reasonable expectation of success for converting Sukhmani’s nanobuds into layered nanosheets and that Zaulkiflee teaches a general review on 2D nanosheets, this argument is not persuasive. Zaulkiflee teaches that 2D nanomaterials are the best nanostructure because of their high mechanical integrity, due to their overlapping area when they are stacked layer-by-layer, and good electrochemical performance (Pg. 6, Col. 1, Ln. 1-4), and specifically that 2D nanosheets have gained a lot of attention for their use as supercapacitor electrodes, due to their ultra-high specific surface area and superior conductivity (Pg. 6, Col. 1, Ln. 33-35). Zaulkiflee further teaches two synthesis methods for producing nanosheets: top-down and bottom-up. One involves separating 3D bulk materials into 2D materials and the other includes creating 2D materials on a molecular level (Pg. 6, Col. 2, Ln. 2-8). Additionally, Zaulkiflee teaches the use of several materials including metal sulfides. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of modifying the electrode material of Sukhmani to include NiSSe having a layered nanosheet structure based on the teachings of Zaulkiflee.
With respect to the arguments, see pages 5-6 and 9 of the remarks, that Sukhmani does not teach the 2D Van der Waals layered structure with a d-spacing of 3-7 Angstrom, that the interlayer spacing is not a characteristic of the transition metal dichalcogenide, and that the XRD peak position would not be inherent to the material, this argument is not persuasive. While it is acknowledged that Sukhmani does not expressly teach the 2D Van der Waals layered structure with a d-spacing of 3-7 Angstrom and claimed XRD peak position, the properties would be inherent to the NiSSe nanosheet structure of Sukhmani in view of Zaulkiflee. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). A nanosheet structure of NiSSe, as taught by Sukhmani in view of Zaulkiflee would inherently have a d-spacing within the claimed range of 3-7 Angstrom. This is a property of transition metal dichalogenides, which includes NiSSe. Further, as XRD positions primarily depend on the structure of the material and the d-spacing, the nanosheet structure of NiSSe as taught by Sukhmani in view of Zaulkiflee would include XRD peaks at the claimed positions.
With respect to the argument, see pages 6-7 of the remarks, that Xie does not teach 2D layered sulfoselenide structure, this argument is not persuasive. Xie is relied upon as a teaching reference to modify the pore radius in the NiSSe. As Xie teaches a cobalt-doped nickel sulfide nanomaterial for the use of supercapacitor electrode materials, the teachings are relevant to the material of Sukhmani. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
With respect to the argument, see pages 7-8 of the remarks, that the pore size distribution of Xie is not transferrable to Sukhmani, this argument is not persuasive. The Applicant argues that because the material of Xie includes cobalt, the pore radius is not transferrable to the NiSSe of Sukhmani in view of Zaulkiflee, citing an increase in cobalt content resulting in the break-up of hollow spheres as evidence of pore radius. The Applicant further argues that the incorporation of cobalt into the NiSSe of Sukhmani is unaddressed. However, while it is acknowledged that Xie teaches the relationship between cobalt content and nanoparticle size, the reference does not directly link pore radius to the content of cobalt or teach that pore size is reliant on the presence of cobalt in the nanomaterial. It is noted that the teachings of Xie are relied upon to modify the pore radius in the NiSSe, as Xie teaches that a pore size distribution of 5-12 nm (50-120 Angstrom) is necessary to accommodate the diffusion of electrolyte ion during the charging/discharging process (Pg. 1221, Col. 1, Ln. 1-7). This teaching is relevant to the NiSSe of Sukhmani as the material is used in a supercapacitor. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a pore volume which is advantageous to the diffusion of electrolyte is applicable to the NiSSe of Sukhmani and would be motivated to target the pore volume for NiSSe used in a supercapacitor.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhang, et al. (CN 114496581 A) teaches a selenium-doped nickel-cobalt sulfide with a cross-linked nanosheet structure belonging to the field of supercapacitor energy storage technology (¶ [0001], Ln. 1-3).
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 SARAH J JACOBSON whose telephone number is (703)756-1647. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291.
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.
/SARAH J JACOBSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1785
/MARK RUTHKOSKY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights