Patent
US 10,102,973Graphene Electrode Based Ceramic Capacitor
Yi-jun Lin, Shaio-Yen Lee, Aruna Zhamu, Bor Z. Jang
US
Copyright © 2026 Matter42. All rights reserved.
Patent
Atlas literature
Patent
US 10,102,973Patent drawings and their descriptions. Click a drawing to enlarge it.
FIG.1 (A) A flow chart illustrating various prior art processes of producing exfoliated graphite products (flexible graphite foils and expanded graphite flakes), …
FIG. 2. In one prior art process, the exfoliated graphite (or mass of graphite worms) is re- 25 compressed by using a calendaring or roll-pressing technique to …
FIG.3 (A) Schematic of a graphene composite composed of discrete graphene sheets dispersed in a matrix material; (B) Schematic of a graphene composite composed …
FIG. 4(A) are the magnitudes of temperature increase in the ceramic capacitors (CaTiO₃-based dielectric ceramic layer and Ag electrode or composite electrode …
FIG. 5(B) shows the temperature increases in the ceramic capacitors of the same compositions, except that the metal electrode is Cu-based. These data …
Claims define the patent's legal scope. Independent claims stand alone; dependent claims (nested) narrow them. Click a claim to expand its dependents.
2. Claims 12 isla re r ejected under 35 U.S.C.., 103 as being unpa t entable over Kim et al. (U S Publication 201 3/0038 998 0) in view of Ingelson e t al. (U S Patent 5, 177, 6 63). Remark No. 3: The Office has rejected claim 12 under 35 USC 103(a) as allegedly obvious over Kim et al. in view of Ingelson et al. We respectfully traverse this rejection. As stated above, Kim fails to anticipate the instant invention. There is nothing in Ingelson to remedy the deficiencies of Kim. We respectfully request withdrawal of this rejection.
Clal ms 18 and 20 Is/a re re j ected under 35 U. S.C. 103. as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (U S Publication 2013/0038 998 0) in view of Burn (U S Publication 201 0/00 0801 9). Remark No. 4: The Office has rejected claims 18 and 20 under 35 USC 103(a) as allegedly obvious over Kim et al. in view of Burn. We respectfully traverse this rejection. As stated above, Kim fails to anticipate the instant invention. There is nothing in Burn to remedy the deficiencies of Kim. We respectfully request withdrawal of this rejection. Other than the fees for an RCE and two-month extension of time, Applicant's representative does not believe any additional fee is due in connection with the filing of this response. However, the Commissioner is hereby authorized to charge any and all fees incurred as a result of entering this response to Deposit Account No. 600626. In view of the foregoing, Applicant respectfully submits that this paper is fully responsive to the Office Action and the application is in condition for allowance and solicits such action. 8
Layer stacks claimed or described, ordered top of device to substrate.
ceramic capacitor with graphene electrode
Materials described outside the worked examples.
pristine graphene
graphene oxide
Measurements and analyses referenced in the patent, with their drawing references.
FIG.1 (A) A flow chart illustrating various prior art processes of producing exfoliated graphite products (flexible graphite foils and expanded graphite flakes), …
Performance values and ranges asserted in the specification or claims.
| Property | Value | Material |
|---|---|---|
Duration | 30–120 s | — |
Duration |
Related documents with shared materials, methods, properties, or citations.
Patent
Atlas literature
Patent
US 10,102,973Patent drawings and their descriptions. Click a drawing to enlarge it.
FIG.1 (A) A flow chart illustrating various prior art processes of producing exfoliated graphite products (flexible graphite foils and expanded graphite flakes), …
FIG. 2. In one prior art process, the exfoliated graphite (or mass of graphite worms) is re- 25 compressed by using a calendaring or roll-pressing technique to …
FIG.3 (A) Schematic of a graphene composite composed of discrete graphene sheets dispersed in a matrix material; (B) Schematic of a graphene composite composed …
FIG. 4(A) are the magnitudes of temperature increase in the ceramic capacitors (CaTiO₃-based dielectric ceramic layer and Ag electrode or composite electrode …
FIG. 5(B) shows the temperature increases in the ceramic capacitors of the same compositions, except that the metal electrode is Cu-based. These data …
Claims define the patent's legal scope. Independent claims stand alone; dependent claims (nested) narrow them. Click a claim to expand its dependents.
2. Claims 12 isla re r ejected under 35 U.S.C.., 103 as being unpa t entable over Kim et al. (U S Publication 201 3/0038 998 0) in view of Ingelson e t al. (U S Patent 5, 177, 6 63). Remark No. 3: The Office has rejected claim 12 under 35 USC 103(a) as allegedly obvious over Kim et al. in view of Ingelson et al. We respectfully traverse this rejection. As stated above, Kim fails to anticipate the instant invention. There is nothing in Ingelson to remedy the deficiencies of Kim. We respectfully request withdrawal of this rejection.
Clal ms 18 and 20 Is/a re re j ected under 35 U. S.C. 103. as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (U S Publication 2013/0038 998 0) in view of Burn (U S Publication 201 0/00 0801 9). Remark No. 4: The Office has rejected claims 18 and 20 under 35 USC 103(a) as allegedly obvious over Kim et al. in view of Burn. We respectfully traverse this rejection. As stated above, Kim fails to anticipate the instant invention. There is nothing in Burn to remedy the deficiencies of Kim. We respectfully request withdrawal of this rejection. Other than the fees for an RCE and two-month extension of time, Applicant's representative does not believe any additional fee is due in connection with the filing of this response. However, the Commissioner is hereby authorized to charge any and all fees incurred as a result of entering this response to Deposit Account No. 600626. In view of the foregoing, Applicant respectfully submits that this paper is fully responsive to the Office Action and the application is in condition for allowance and solicits such action. 8
Layer stacks claimed or described, ordered top of device to substrate.
ceramic capacitor with graphene electrode
Materials described outside the worked examples.
pristine graphene
graphene oxide
Measurements and analyses referenced in the patent, with their drawing references.
FIG.1 (A) A flow chart illustrating various prior art processes of producing exfoliated graphite products (flexible graphite foils and expanded graphite flakes), …
Performance values and ranges asserted in the specification or claims.
| Property | Value | Material |
|---|---|---|
Duration | 30–120 s | — |
Duration |
Related documents with shared materials, methods, properties, or citations.
Patent
Atlas literature
Patent
US 10,102,973Patent drawings and their descriptions. Click a drawing to enlarge it.
FIG.1 (A) A flow chart illustrating various prior art processes of producing exfoliated graphite products (flexible graphite foils and expanded graphite flakes), …
FIG. 2. In one prior art process, the exfoliated graphite (or mass of graphite worms) is re- 25 compressed by using a calendaring or roll-pressing technique to …
FIG.3 (A) Schematic of a graphene composite composed of discrete graphene sheets dispersed in a matrix material; (B) Schematic of a graphene composite composed …
FIG. 4(A) are the magnitudes of temperature increase in the ceramic capacitors (CaTiO₃-based dielectric ceramic layer and Ag electrode or composite electrode …
FIG. 5(B) shows the temperature increases in the ceramic capacitors of the same compositions, except that the metal electrode is Cu-based. These data …
Claims define the patent's legal scope. Independent claims stand alone; dependent claims (nested) narrow them. Click a claim to expand its dependents.
2. Claims 12 isla re r ejected under 35 U.S.C.., 103 as being unpa t entable over Kim et al. (U S Publication 201 3/0038 998 0) in view of Ingelson e t al. (U S Patent 5, 177, 6 63). Remark No. 3: The Office has rejected claim 12 under 35 USC 103(a) as allegedly obvious over Kim et al. in view of Ingelson et al. We respectfully traverse this rejection. As stated above, Kim fails to anticipate the instant invention. There is nothing in Ingelson to remedy the deficiencies of Kim. We respectfully request withdrawal of this rejection.
Clal ms 18 and 20 Is/a re re j ected under 35 U. S.C. 103. as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (U S Publication 2013/0038 998 0) in view of Burn (U S Publication 201 0/00 0801 9). Remark No. 4: The Office has rejected claims 18 and 20 under 35 USC 103(a) as allegedly obvious over Kim et al. in view of Burn. We respectfully traverse this rejection. As stated above, Kim fails to anticipate the instant invention. There is nothing in Burn to remedy the deficiencies of Kim. We respectfully request withdrawal of this rejection. Other than the fees for an RCE and two-month extension of time, Applicant's representative does not believe any additional fee is due in connection with the filing of this response. However, the Commissioner is hereby authorized to charge any and all fees incurred as a result of entering this response to Deposit Account No. 600626. In view of the foregoing, Applicant respectfully submits that this paper is fully responsive to the Office Action and the application is in condition for allowance and solicits such action. 8
Layer stacks claimed or described, ordered top of device to substrate.
ceramic capacitor with graphene electrode
Materials described outside the worked examples.
pristine graphene
graphene oxide
Measurements and analyses referenced in the patent, with their drawing references.
FIG.1 (A) A flow chart illustrating various prior art processes of producing exfoliated graphite products (flexible graphite foils and expanded graphite flakes), …
Performance values and ranges asserted in the specification or claims.
| Property | Value | Material |
|---|---|---|
Duration | 30–120 s | — |
Duration |
Related documents with shared materials, methods, properties, or citations.
Patent
Atlas literature
Patent
US 10,102,973Patent drawings and their descriptions. Click a drawing to enlarge it.
FIG.1 (A) A flow chart illustrating various prior art processes of producing exfoliated graphite products (flexible graphite foils and expanded graphite flakes), …
FIG. 2. In one prior art process, the exfoliated graphite (or mass of graphite worms) is re- 25 compressed by using a calendaring or roll-pressing technique to …
FIG.3 (A) Schematic of a graphene composite composed of discrete graphene sheets dispersed in a matrix material; (B) Schematic of a graphene composite composed …
FIG. 4(A) are the magnitudes of temperature increase in the ceramic capacitors (CaTiO₃-based dielectric ceramic layer and Ag electrode or composite electrode …
FIG. 5(B) shows the temperature increases in the ceramic capacitors of the same compositions, except that the metal electrode is Cu-based. These data …
Claims define the patent's legal scope. Independent claims stand alone; dependent claims (nested) narrow them. Click a claim to expand its dependents.
2. Claims 12 isla re r ejected under 35 U.S.C.., 103 as being unpa t entable over Kim et al. (U S Publication 201 3/0038 998 0) in view of Ingelson e t al. (U S Patent 5, 177, 6 63). Remark No. 3: The Office has rejected claim 12 under 35 USC 103(a) as allegedly obvious over Kim et al. in view of Ingelson et al. We respectfully traverse this rejection. As stated above, Kim fails to anticipate the instant invention. There is nothing in Ingelson to remedy the deficiencies of Kim. We respectfully request withdrawal of this rejection.
Clal ms 18 and 20 Is/a re re j ected under 35 U. S.C. 103. as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (U S Publication 2013/0038 998 0) in view of Burn (U S Publication 201 0/00 0801 9). Remark No. 4: The Office has rejected claims 18 and 20 under 35 USC 103(a) as allegedly obvious over Kim et al. in view of Burn. We respectfully traverse this rejection. As stated above, Kim fails to anticipate the instant invention. There is nothing in Burn to remedy the deficiencies of Kim. We respectfully request withdrawal of this rejection. Other than the fees for an RCE and two-month extension of time, Applicant's representative does not believe any additional fee is due in connection with the filing of this response. However, the Commissioner is hereby authorized to charge any and all fees incurred as a result of entering this response to Deposit Account No. 600626. In view of the foregoing, Applicant respectfully submits that this paper is fully responsive to the Office Action and the application is in condition for allowance and solicits such action. 8
Layer stacks claimed or described, ordered top of device to substrate.
ceramic capacitor with graphene electrode
Materials described outside the worked examples.
pristine graphene
graphene oxide
Measurements and analyses referenced in the patent, with their drawing references.
FIG.1 (A) A flow chart illustrating various prior art processes of producing exfoliated graphite products (flexible graphite foils and expanded graphite flakes), …
Performance values and ranges asserted in the specification or claims.
| Property | Value | Material |
|---|---|---|
Duration | 30–120 s | — |
Duration |
Related documents with shared materials, methods, properties, or citations.
reduced graphene oxide
graphene fluoride
graphene chloride
graphene bromide
graphene iodide
hydrogenated graphene
nitrogenated graphene
doped graphene
chemically functionalized graphene
dielectric ceramic
barium titanate
BaTiO₃
titanium dioxide
TiO₂
| 15–120 s |
| — |
Duration | 900–7200 s | — |
Duration | 0.5–96 hours | — |
Duration | 48–72 hours | — |
Thickness | 0.6–1.1 nm | — |
Duration | 5–16 hours | — |
Duration | 48–96 hours | — |
Duration | 10–100 minutes | — |
Duration | 1–5 hours | — |
Duration | 12–48 hours | — |
Duration | 1–10 hours | — |
Duration | 0.5–5 hours | — |
Thickness | ≤ 20 nm | — |
Thickness | ≤ 10 nm | — |
Thickness | ≤ 1 nm | — |
Thickness | ≤ 2 nm | — |
Thickness | ≥ 1 nm | — |
Thickness | 3.4–34 nm | — |
Thickness | 10–200 nm | — |
Thickness | ≥ 10 nm | — |
reduced graphene oxide
graphene fluoride
graphene chloride
graphene bromide
graphene iodide
hydrogenated graphene
nitrogenated graphene
doped graphene
chemically functionalized graphene
dielectric ceramic
barium titanate
BaTiO₃
titanium dioxide
TiO₂
| 15–120 s |
| — |
Duration | 900–7200 s | — |
Duration | 0.5–96 hours | — |
Duration | 48–72 hours | — |
Thickness | 0.6–1.1 nm | — |
Duration | 5–16 hours | — |
Duration | 48–96 hours | — |
Duration | 10–100 minutes | — |
Duration | 1–5 hours | — |
Duration | 12–48 hours | — |
Duration | 1–10 hours | — |
Duration | 0.5–5 hours | — |
Thickness | ≤ 20 nm | — |
Thickness | ≤ 10 nm | — |
Thickness | ≤ 1 nm | — |
Thickness | ≤ 2 nm | — |
Thickness | ≥ 1 nm | — |
Thickness | 3.4–34 nm | — |
Thickness | 10–200 nm | — |
Thickness | ≥ 10 nm | — |
reduced graphene oxide
graphene fluoride
graphene chloride
graphene bromide
graphene iodide
hydrogenated graphene
nitrogenated graphene
doped graphene
chemically functionalized graphene
dielectric ceramic
barium titanate
BaTiO₃
titanium dioxide
TiO₂
| 15–120 s |
| — |
Duration | 900–7200 s | — |
Duration | 0.5–96 hours | — |
Duration | 48–72 hours | — |
Thickness | 0.6–1.1 nm | — |
Duration | 5–16 hours | — |
Duration | 48–96 hours | — |
Duration | 10–100 minutes | — |
Duration | 1–5 hours | — |
Duration | 12–48 hours | — |
Duration | 1–10 hours | — |
Duration | 0.5–5 hours | — |
Thickness | ≤ 20 nm | — |
Thickness | ≤ 10 nm | — |
Thickness | ≤ 1 nm | — |
Thickness | ≤ 2 nm | — |
Thickness | ≥ 1 nm | — |
Thickness | 3.4–34 nm | — |
Thickness | 10–200 nm | — |
Thickness | ≥ 10 nm | — |
reduced graphene oxide
graphene fluoride
graphene chloride
graphene bromide
graphene iodide
hydrogenated graphene
nitrogenated graphene
doped graphene
chemically functionalized graphene
dielectric ceramic
barium titanate
BaTiO₃
titanium dioxide
TiO₂
| 15–120 s |
| — |
Duration | 900–7200 s | — |
Duration | 0.5–96 hours | — |
Duration | 48–72 hours | — |
Thickness | 0.6–1.1 nm | — |
Duration | 5–16 hours | — |
Duration | 48–96 hours | — |
Duration | 10–100 minutes | — |
Duration | 1–5 hours | — |
Duration | 12–48 hours | — |
Duration | 1–10 hours | — |
Duration | 0.5–5 hours | — |
Thickness | ≤ 20 nm | — |
Thickness | ≤ 10 nm | — |
Thickness | ≤ 1 nm | — |
Thickness | ≤ 2 nm | — |
Thickness | ≥ 1 nm | — |
Thickness | 3.4–34 nm | — |
Thickness | 10–200 nm | — |
Thickness | ≥ 10 nm | — |