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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed May 12, 2026, with respect to claims 16-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 8 of Remarks, Applicant argues that the prior art of Minzong (CN105810445A) fails to disclose the limitations of claims 16-20.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above assertion. As explained in the Instant Rejection, Minzong discloses each of the limitations of claims 16-20. The Applicant has not particularly pointed out any of the particular deficiencies of the prior art other than reciting the claim language in regards to disclosing the limitations of the Instant Application.
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) 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Minzong et al. (CN105810445A).
In re claim 16, Minzong discloses a capacitor structure (Technical Field ¶1, Figure 1), comprising:
a first electrode (5- Figure 4, Figure 5, Second Embodiment ¶1) comprising carbon nanotubes (First Embodiment ¶16; Note that the same material for element 5 is used in the second embodiment.);
a first conductive collector (3 – Figure 4, Figure 5) in contact with and electrically connected to the first electrode (5 – Figure 4, Figure 5);
a second electrode (4’ – Figure 4, Figure 5, Second Embodiment ¶1) comprising graphene (41’ – Figure 5, Second Embodiment ¶1-2) and vanadium oxide (42’ – Figure 1, Figure 5, Second Embodiment ¶2);
a second conductive collector (2 – Figure 4) in contact with and electrically connected to the second electrode (4’ – Figure 4, Figure 5);
a second type electrolyte (1 – Figure 4, Second Embodiment ¶1) positioned between the first electrode and the second electrode (Figure 4) (Second Embodiment ¶2).
Wherein the second type electrolyte is a solid-state electrolyte (First Embodiment ¶2);
Wherein both the first electrode (5 – Figure 4) and the second electrode (4’ – Figure 4) contact the second type electrolyte (1 – Figure 4).
In re claim 17, Minzong discloses the capacitor structure of claim 16, as explained above. Minzong further discloses wherein a length of the second type electrolyte (1 – Figure 17) is larger than a length of the first conductive collector (3 – Figure 4) and is larger than a length of the second conductive collector (2 – Figure 4). Note that the electrolyte fills the whole space of case ‘S’ in Figure 4.
In re claim 18, Minzong discloses the capacitor structure of claim 17, as explained above. Minzong further discloses wherein the length of the second type electrolyte (1 – Figure 4) is larger than a length of the first electrode (5 – Figure 4) and is larger than a length of the second electrode (4’ – Figure 4). Note that the electrolyte fills the whole space of case ‘S’ in Figure 4.
In re claim 19, Minzong discloses the capacitor structure of claim 18, as explained above. Minzong further discloses wherein the length of the first electrode (5 – Figure 4) is equal to or less than the length of the first conductive collector (3 – Figure 4) (Figure 4).
In re claim 20, Minzong discloses the capacitor structure of claim 18, as explained above. Minzong further discloses wherein the length of the second electrode (4’ – Figure 4) is equal to or less than the length of the second conductive collector (2 – Figure 4).
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minzong et al. (CN105810445A) in view of Liu et al. (US Publication 2019/0157659).
In re claim 1, Minzong discloses a capacitor structure (Technical Field ¶1, Figure 1), comprising:
a first electrode (5- Figure 4, Figure 5, Second Embodiment ¶1) comprising carbon nanotubes (First Embodiment ¶16; Note that the same material for element 5 is used in the second embodiment.);
a first conductive collector (3 – Figure 4, Second Embodiment ¶1) in contact with and electrically connected to the first electrode (5 – Figure 4);
a second electrode (4’ – Figure 4, Figure 5, Second Embodiment ¶1) comprising graphene (41’ – Figure 5, Second Embodiment ¶1-2) and vanadium oxide (42’ – Figure 1, Figure 5, Second Embodiment ¶2);
a second conductive collector (2 – Figure 4, Second Embodiment ¶1) in contact with and electrically connected to the second electrode (4’ – Figure 4);
a separator (6 – Figure 4, Second Embodiment ¶1) separating the first electrode (5 – Figure 4) and the second electrode (4’ – Figure 4, Figure 5); and
a first type electrolyte (1 – Figure 4, Second Embodiment ¶1) surrounding the first electrode, the second electrode, and the separator (Figure 4) (Second Embodiment ¶2).
Minzong does not disclose an electrolyte surrounding the first conductive collector and the second conductive collector.
Liu discloses an electrolyte (14 – Figure 1, ¶71) in a housing (16 – Figure 1, ¶71) surrounding the first conductive collector (18 – Figure 1, ¶71) and the second conductive collector (22 – Figure 1, ¶71).
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 housing configuration in which an electrolyte surrounds the collectors to increase the amount of electrolyte and, thus, improve the ESR characteristics and raise capacitance.
In re claim 2, Minzong in view of Liu discloses the capacitor structure of claim 1, as explained above. Minzong further wherein the first electrode (5 – Figure 4) is positioned between the first conductive collector (3 – Figure 4) and the separator (6 – Figure 4).
In re claim 3, Minzong in view of Liu discloses the capacitor structure of claim 1, as explained above. Minzong further discloses wherein the second electrode (4’ – Figure 4) is positioned between the second conductive collector (2 – Figure 4) and the separator (6 – Figure 4).
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minzong et al. (CN105810445A) in view of Liu et al. (US Publication 2019/0157659) and in further view of Kang et al. (US Publication 2009/0225495).
In re claim 4, Minzong in view of Liu discloses the capacitor structure of claim 3, as explained above. Minzong further discloses wherein a length of the first electrode (5 – Figure 4) is equal to or less than a dimension length of the first conductive collector (2 – Figure 4). Minzong does not disclose wherein the length of the first conductive collector is less than a length of the separator.
Kang discloses a length of a separator (30 – Figure 3, ¶45)is longer than that of the current collectors (2, 12 – Figure 3, ¶42, ¶44).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adjust the length of the separator to achieve a desired and improved tensile strength.
In re claim 5, Minzong in view of Liu discloses the capacitor structure of claim 3, as explained above. Minzong further discloses wherein a length of the second electrode (4’ – Figure 4) is equal to or less than a length of the second conductive collector (3 – Figure 4). Minzong does not disclose wherein the length of the second conductive collector is less than a length of the separator.
Kang discloses a length of a separator (30 – Figure 3, ¶45)is longer than that of the current collectors (2, 12 – Figure 3, ¶42, ¶44).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adjust the length of the separator to achieve a desired and improved tensile strength.
Claim(s) 6, 9, and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minzong et al. (CN105810445A) in view of Liu et al. (US Publication 2019/0157659) and in further view of Murakami et al. (US Publication 2020/0067055).
In re claim 6, Minzong in view of Liu discloses the capacitor structure of claim 3, as explained above. Minzong further discloses wherein a thickness of the first conductive collector (3 – Figure 4) is equal to a thickness of the second conductive collector (2 – Figure 4).
Minzuno does not disclose the thickness of the first conductive collector is larger than a thickness of the separator.
Murakami discloses that adjusting the thickness of the separator layer is a balance between conductivity and mechanical strength (Murakami: ¶88).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adjust the thickness of the separator to achieve a desired balance between conductivity and mechanical strength (Murakami: ¶88), since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
In re claim 9, Minzong in view of Liu and in further view of Murakami discloses the capacitor structure of claim 6, as explained above. Minzong further discloses wherein the second electrode (4’ – Figure 4, Figure 5) is a layered structure comprising a bottom layer (41’ – Figure 5) comprising the graphene (Second Embodiment ¶2) and a top layer (42’ – Figure 5) comprising the vanadium oxide (Second Embodiment ¶2) and positioned on the bottom layer (Figure 5).
In re claim 12, Minzong in view of Liu and in further view of Murakami discloses the capacitor structure of claim 6, as explained above. Minzong does not disclose wherein a porosity of the separator is between about 40% and about 87%.
Murakami discloses wherein a porosity of the separator is between about 40% and about 87% (¶96).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adjust the porosity of the separator to achieve a desired balance between conductivity and mechanical strength (Murakami: ¶96), since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
In re claim 13, Minzong in view of Liu and in further view of Murakami discloses the capacitor structure of claim 6, as explained above. Minzong further discloses wherein the first type electrolyte (1 – Figure 4) comprises aqueous electrolytes, organic electrolytes, or ionic liquids (First Embodiment ¶2).
In re claim 14, Minzong in view of Liu and in further view of Murakami discloses the capacitor structure of claim 6, as explained above discloses the capacitor structure of claim 6, as explained above. Minzong further discloses wherein the first conductive collector (3 – Figure 4) comprises metal foil (First Embodiment ¶10).
In re claim 15, Minzong in view of Liu and in further view of Murakami discloses the capacitor structure of claim 6, as explained above. Minzong further discloses a case (S – Figure 4, Second Embodiment ¶1) encapsulating the first electrode (5 – Figure 4), the first conductive collector (3 – Figure 4), the second electrode (4’ – Figure 4), the second conductive collector (2 – Figure 4), the separator (6 – Figure 4), and the first type electrolyte (1 – Figure 4).
Minzong does not disclose wherein a length of the first electrode, a length of the first conductive collector, a length of the second electrode, and a length of the second conductive collector are equal.
Liu discloses wherein a length of the first electrode (20 – Figure 1, ¶71) a length of the first conductive collector (18 – Figure 1, ¶71), a length of the second electrode (24 – Figure 1, ¶71), and a length of the second conductive collector (22 – Figure 1, ¶71) are equal (Figure 1; Note that the uncoated portion of the current collector is a tab.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adjust the coverage of the active material layer on the collector surface to achieve a device having desired capacitance, , since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minzong et al. (CN105810445A) in view of Liu et al. (US Publication 2019/0157659) and in further view of Murakami et al. (US Publication 2020/0067055) and in further view of Hyuk et al. (KR20170093418A).
In re claim 7, Minzong in view of Liu and in further view of Murakami discloses the capacitor structure of claim 6, as explained above. Minzong does not disclose wherein the carbon nanotubes of the first electrode is doped with nitrogen.
Hyuk discloses wherein carbon nanotubes of the first electrode is doped with nitrogen (Description of the Embodiments ¶14).
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 nitrogen-doped carbon nanotubes of Hyuk to achieve a device with increased capacitance (Hyuk: Description of the Embodiments ¶14).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minzong et al. (CN105810445A) in view of Liu et al. (US Publication 2019/0157659) and in further view of Murakami et al. (US Publication 2020/0067055) and in further view of Chang et al. (US Publication 2020/0273626).
In re claim 8, Minzong in view of Liu and in further view of Murakami discloses the capacitor structure of claim 6, as explained above. Minzong does not disclose wherein the graphene of the second electrode is doped with nitrogen.
Chang discloses the graphene of an electrode is doped with nitrogen (¶18, ¶30).
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 nitrogen-doped graphene to improve the conductivity of the electrode (Chang: ¶30).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minzong et al. (CN105810445A) in view of Liu et al. (US Publication 2019/0157659) and in further view of Murakami et al. (US Publication 2020/0067055) and in further view of Read et al. (US Publication 2020/0227779).
In re claim 10, Minzong in view of Liu and in further view of Murakami discloses the capacitor structure of claim 9, as explained above. Minzong does not disclose wherein a thickness of the top layer is between about 1 nm and about 100 nm.
Read discloses the thickness of the transitional metal oxide is between about 1 nm and about 100 nm (¶130).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adjust the thickness of the vanadium oxide to achieve a device having a balance between desired capacitance and miniaturization characteristics per user specification, , since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minzong et al. (CN105810445A) in view of Liu et al. (US Publication 2019/0157659) and in further view of Murakami et al. (US Publication 2020/0067055) and in further view of Hyun et al. (EP3447781A1).
In re claim 11, Minzong in view of Liu and in further view of Murakami discloses the capacitor structure of claim 6, as explained above. Minzong does not disclose wherein a thickness of the separator is between about 25 µm and about 75 µm.
Murakami discloses that adjusting the thickness of the separator layer is a balance between conductivity and mechanical strength (Murakami: ¶88).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adjust the thickness of the separator to achieve a desired balance between conductivity and mechanical strength (Murakami: ¶88), since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Minzong does not disclose wherein the thickness of each of the first conductive collector and the second conductive collector is between 10 µm and 75 µm.
Hyun discloses the thickness of the current collector is between 10 µm and 75 µm (¶14-15).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adjust the thickness of the current collector and active layer to achieve a device having lower resistance and improved capacity (¶48: Hyun).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Oghara (US Publication 2019/0305378) Figure 5
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
