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 § 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) 1-3, 6, 8-13, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Minzong et al. (CN105810445A).
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 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); and
a second type electrolyte (1 – Figure 4, Second Embodiment ¶1) positioned between the first electrode (5 – Figure 4) and the second electrode (4’ – Figure 4) ; wherein
the second type electrolyte is a solid-state electrolyte (First Embodiment ¶2);
wherein both the first electrode (4’ – Figure 4) and the second electrode (5 – Figure 4) contact the second type electrolyte (1 – Figure 4);
wherein a dimension of the second type electrolyte (1 – Figure 4) is greater than a dimension of the first electrode (5 - Figure 4).
In re claim 2, Minzong discloses the capacitor structure of claim 1, as explained above. Minzong further discloses further comprising a first conductive collector (3 – Figure 4, Second Embodiment ¶1), wherein the first electrode (5 – Figure 4) is positioned on the first conductive collector (3 – Figure 4) and electrically connected to the first conductive collector (First Embodiment ¶16).
In re claim 3, Minzong discloses the capacitor structure of claim 2, as explained above. Minzong further discloses further comprising a second conductive collector (2 – Figure 4, Second Embodiment ¶1), wherein the second electrode (4’ – Figure 4) is positioned on the second conductive collector (2 – Figure 4) and electrically connected to the second conductive collector (First Embodiment ¶10-11).
In re claim 6, Minzong discloses the capacitor structure of claim 1, 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 8, Minzong discloses the capacitor structure of claim 1, as explained above. Minzong further discloses wherein the first conductive collector comprises metal foil (First Embodiment ¶10).
In re claim 9, Minzong discloses the capacitor structure of claim 1, as explained above. Minzong further discloses wherein the second type electrolyte comprises an ion-conducting polymer or a combination of an ion-conductive polymer and an ionic compound (First Embodiment ¶3).
In re claim 10, Minzong discloses the capacitor structure of claim 9, as explained above. Minzong further discloses wherein the ion-conducting polymer comprises polyether ether ketone, sulfonated polyether ether ketone, polyphenylene vinylene, poly(ether ketone ketone), polyethylene oxide, Nafion, polyvinyl alcohol, polytetrafluoroethylene, polypyrrole, polyvinylidene fluoride, polyethylenedioxythiophene, polyaniline, or a combination thereof (First Embodiment ¶3).
In re claim 11, Minzong discloses the capacitor structure of claim 9, as explained above. Minzong further discloses wherein the ionic compound comprises lithium salts, sodium salts, potassium salts, magnesium salts, ammonium salts, imidazolium-based salts, and/or pyridinium-based salts (First Embodiment ¶3; Note that claim 9 requires either an ion-conducting polymer or a combination of an ionic-conducting polymer and an ionic compound. Minzong discloses an ionic-conducting polymer, and therefore, the limitations of the claim are met.).
In re claim 12, Minzong discloses the capacitor structure of claim 1, as explained above. Minzong further discloses comprising a case (S – Figure 4, Figure 1, Figure 2First Embodiment ¶2) 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), and the second type electrolyte (1 – Figure 4).
In re claim 13, Minzong discloses a method for fabricating a capacitor structure, comprising:
forming a first electrode (5 – Figure 4) on the first conductive collector (3 – Figure 4);
forming a second electrode (4’ – Figure 4) on the second conductive collector (2 – Figure 4); and
encapsulating the first electrode (5 – Figure 4), the first conductive collector (3 – Figure 4), the second electrode (4’ – Figure 4), and the second conductive collector (2 – Figure 4) in a case (S Figure 4) along with a separator (6 – Figure 4, First Embodiment ¶1) separating the first electrode and the second electrode (Figure 4), and a first type electrolyte (1 – Figure 4) filling the case (Figure 4);
wherein the first electrode comprises carbon nanotubes (First Embodiment ¶16; Note that the same material for element 5 is used in the second embodiment.);
wherein the second electrode comprises graphene and vanadium oxide (42’ – Figure 1, Figure 5, Second Embodiment ¶2).
In re claim 16, Minzong discloses the method of fabricating the capacitor structure of claim 13, 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).
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) 4 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minzong et al. (CN105810445A) in view of Hyuk et al. (KR20170093418A).
In re claim 4, Minzong discloses the capacitor structure of claim 2, as explained above. Minzong does not disclose wherein the carbon nanotubes of the first electrode is doped with nitrogen.
Hyuk discloses wherein the 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).
In re claim 14, Minzong discloses the method of fabricating the capacitor structure of claim 13, as explained above. Minzong does not disclose wherein the carbon nanotubes of the first electrode is doped with nitrogen.
Hyuk discloses wherein the 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) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minzong et al. (CN105810445A) in view of Chang et al. (US Publication 2020/0273626).
In re claim 5, Minzong discloses the capacitor structure of claim 1, as explained above. Minzong does not disclose wherein the graphene of the second electrode is doped with nitrogen.
Chang discloses wherein the graphene of the second 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).
In re claim 15, Minzong discloses the method of fabricating the capacitor structure of claim 13, as explained above. Minzong does not disclose wherein the graphene of the second electrode is doped with nitrogen.
Chang discloses wherein the graphene of the second 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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minzong et al. (CN105810445A) in view of Read et al. (US Publication 2020/0227779).
In re claim 7, Minzong discloses the capacitor structure of claim 6, 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 wherein a thickness of the top layer is between about 1 nm and about 100 nm (¶130).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to adjust the thickness of the vanadium oxide to achieve a device having a balance between desired capacitance and miniaturization characteristics per use specifications, 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) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minzong et al. (CN105810445A) in view of Murakami et al. (US Publication 2020/0067055).
In re claim 17, Minzong discloses the method for fabricating the capacitor structure of claim 13, 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 one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made 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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hudak et al. (US Publication 2018/0075982) [¶66] relevant to claim 9 and claim 11
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 2847
Prosecution Insights