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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 25, 2026 has been entered.
Summary
The Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments received February, 25, 2026 have been entered into the file. Currently, claim 1 is amended; claim 2 is cancelled; and claims 8-15 are withdrawn; resulting in claims 1 and 3-7 pending for examination.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. 112
The previous rejection of claim 2 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 are overcome by the Applicant’s cancellation of the claim in the response filed February 25, 2026.
Response-Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103
In light of the declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(a) filed February 25, 2026, the previous rejections of claims 1 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Caroline, et al. Nickel sulfide-nickel sulfoselenide nanosheets as potential electrode material for high performance supercapacitor with extended shelf life. Journal of Energy Storage, Vol. 68 (Sept. 15, 2023), pp. 1-10 are overcome. The disclosure does not apply as prior art as it falls under the AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A) exception.
Additionally, in light of the Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 to incorporate limitations of claim 2, the previous rejections of 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 have been overcome. However, upon further consideration, the references are applicable under 35 U.S.C. 103 and used in combination with 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 in the rejections above. Any arguments with respect to the reference that are still deemed valid will be addressed herein.
The Applicant argues that claim 1 is patentable by the recitation of the pore radius of the sulfoselenide ranging from 50 to 120 Angstrom. As stated above, the previous rejection over Sukhmani has been modified above to address this limitation.
Conclusion
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. 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.
/SARAH J JACOBSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1785
/MARK RUTHKOSKY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights