DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 Amendment
Applicants’ amendment, filed 01/26/2026, has been entered. Claim 1 is amended. Claim 21 is cancelled. Claim 28 is new. Claims 1, 3-6,10, 22 and 27-28 are now pending in this application.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/26/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites, “the second layer comprising a carbon confined lithium alkyl sulfide”. Applicant contends that paragraph 84 describes that a carbon coated lithiated sulfur is prepared by lithiating carbon-confined sulfur with a lithium-containing compound such as n-butyl lithium necessarily results in formation of carbon-confined lithium alkyl sulfide; i.e. carbon-confined sulfur + R-Li [Wingdings font/0xE0] Li-S-R (lithium alkyl sulfide). However, the specification does not demonstrate that the disclosed reaction produces lithium alkyl sulfide, as opposed to lithium sulfide or polysulfides, and therefore does not reasonably convey possession of the claimed species. How would one of ordinary skill in the art reasonably conclude lithium alkyl sulfide is necessarily present from carbon-confined sulfur + R-Li?
The possible products of n-butyl lithium + sulfur include: Li2S, polysulfides (Li2Sx), radical/fragmented species, mixtures, and possibly R-S-Li under specific conditions. Particularly, at elevated temperatures, such as the reaction in the instant application (see [0084] of instant specification, n-butyl lithium at 100C), n-butyl lithium undergoes thermal decomposition (see https://www.chemicalbook.com/article/n-butyllithium-a-comprehensive-review-of-properties-praparation-and-reactions.htm#:~:text=THF%20is%20deprotonated%20by%20n,%C2%B0C)%20are%20also%20used.) making the formation of lithium alkyl sulfide unlikely. Consequently, there is no guarantee the dominant or even present product is a lithium alkyl sulfide. As admitted by applicant, see “Remarks” filed 01/26/2026, “carbon confined lithium alkyl sulfide” does not have verbatim support in the specification. The potential of formation is not sufficient for written description.
Claim Interpretation
The term “lithium alkyl sulfide” is interpreted in view of the applicant’s position (see “Remarks”, 01/26/2026) that the reaction of butyl lithium and an alkyl lithium with carbon confined sulfur results in the formation of a carbon-confined lithium alkyl sulfide, specifically a carbon-confined lithium butyl sulfide. While the chemical legitimacy of such a claim is brought into question above, until the written description requirement is resolved (see 112(a) rejection above), applicant’s admission will be relied upon for the merits of this rejection.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 3-6, 10, 22, and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amine (US20170207500A1, cited in the previous Office action(s)) in view of Vieluf (KR20200017356A, refer to enclosed translations within the 05/24/2024 office action), Lanning (CN114788039A, refer to enclosed translations within the 01/24/2025 office action).
Regarding claim 1,
Amine teaches a battery comprising a coated cathode [0022] comprising:
a current collector [0034];
a first layer adjacent to the current collector ([0024], “primary cathodic material”, wherein all cathode elements are adjacent [0034]) and the first layer comprising a cathode active material ([0024], “primary cathodic material”);
and a second layer deposited on the first layer ([0022], “alkaline source material… may be on the cathode by…deposition”), the second layer comprising carbon material [0047] “alkali source material in the porous carbon”; [0022], “alkaline source material… may be dispersed in or on the cathode by…coating”; [0012], Li2S, wherein Li2S is carbon confined);
an anode [0037];
a separator disposed between the anode and the cathode [0037];
and an electrolyte comprising a solvent and a salt [0036],
wherein the cathode active material comprises LiFePO4 [0026],
and wherein the carbon material is a pre-lithiation material for the cathode active material ([0049], “an alkali source material…supplies the lithium source for the battery, non-lithiated materials may be used as the preferred cathode active material in the secondary battery…which have higher specific capacities”),
and the carbon material is present in the cathode from about 1 wt% to 40 wt% based on the weight of the cathode active material ([0017], “1 wt % to about 40 wt %...in the as-prepared cathode”)
Amine fails to teach, in the embodiment mapped above, wherein the first layer comprises a binder, as well as fails to teach lamination specifically and wherein the carbon material is carbon confined lithium alkyl sulfide. In another embodiment, Amine teaches the binder mixed with the first layer [0022]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to include a binder in the first layer to bind the cathode active material, as suggested by Amine [0022]. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143.A.).
Laminated cathodes with alkaline source-materials are a known configuration in the art, as taught by Vieluf (Vieluf, [0191], “the foil comprises a laminate”; [0019], “The cathode comprises a foil “). Additionally, Vieluf (Vieluf, [0146]) and Amine (see above) both teach an alkaline cathode material. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date to employ a laminated cathode in the battery of Amine because it would adhere the anode and/or current collector and because laminated cathodes with alkaline cathode materials are a known configuration in the art. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. (see MPEP § 2143, A.). Amine in view of Vieluf fails to teach wherein the carbon material is carbon confined lithium alkyl sulfide.
Lanning teaches a carbon confined ([0389], “carbon based particles… where S is confined…activated carbon” [0494], ““sulfur-impregnated graphene”) lithium alkyl sulfide (Lanning [0494], ““n-butyllithium”, wherein; wherein n-butyllithium is an alkyl lithium reagent, and wherein the combination of carbon-confined sulfur and an alkyl lithium reagent is interpreted to result in the formation of lithium alkyl sulfide, see claim interpretation section above). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to substitute the carbon confined lithium alkyl sulfide of Lanning with the carbon material of Amine, as Lanning teaches carbon confinement to address issues of polysulfide dissolution [0259], such that Lanning provides an advantageous method of forming the Li2S [0494] of Amine. The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. (see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Regarding claim 3,
Amine in view of Vieluf and Lanning teaches the battery of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the anode comprises a Si (Amine [0005]).
Regarding claim 4,
Amine in view of Vieluf and Lanning teaches the battery of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the solvent is ethylene carbonate (EC) (Amine [0036]).
Regarding claim 5,
Amine in view of Vieluf and Lanning teaches the battery of claim 4 (see rejection of claim 4 above), wherein the solvent is EC-PC-DMC (Amine [0036]).
Regarding claim 6,
Amine in view of Vieluf and Lanning teaches the battery of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the salt is a lithium salt (Amine [0036]).
Regarding claim 10,
Amine in view of Vieluf and Lanning teaches the battery of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), carbon confined lithium alkyl sulfide is present on the laminate cathode from about 1 wt % to about 40 wt % ([0017], “1 wt % to about 40 wt %...in the as-prepared cathode”, which is within the claimed range of 0.1 wt% to 99 wt%).
Regarding claim 22,
Amine in view of Vieluf and Lanning teaches the battery of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the second layer is deposited on the first layer by spray coating (Amine [0022], alkaline source material spray coated on cathode active material).
Regarding claim 27,
Amine in view of Vieluf and Lanning teaches the battery of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the alkaline source material is present in the laminated cathode from about 1 wt% to 10 wt% based on the weight of the cathode active material ([0017], “1 wt % to about 10 wt %...in the as-prepared cathode”).
Regarding claim 28,
Amine in view of Vieluf and Lanning teaches the battery of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the carbon-confined lithium alkyl sulfide is a carbon- confined lithium butyl sulfide (Lanning, [0494], wherein the combination of n-butyllithium and carbon confined sulfur is interpreted to result in a carbon- confined lithium butyl sulfide, as outlined in the claim interpretation above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the cited references fail to teach or suggest “carbon confined lithium alkyl sulfide”, and further asserts that the examiner’s reliance on lithium-sulfur species is improper because such species are chemically distinct from lithium alkyl species. This argument is not persuasive.
As an initial matter, Applicant’s position relies on the same type of inference that Applicant criticizes. Specifically, Applicant asserts that the specification supports “carbon confined lithum alkyl sulfide” based on disclosure of carbon confined sulfur and a alkyl lithium reagent (e.g., n-butyl lithium).
From which Applicant infers that a lithium alkyl sulfide is formed and remains carbon confined (see “Remarks”, 01/26/2026). Therefore, Lanning, who teaches a carbon-confined sulfur and alkyl lithium reagent (see rejection of claim 1 above) must also form carbon confined lithium alkyl sulfide assuming applicant’s admission is true.
Accordingly, the Examiner’s reliance on Lanning reflects a comparable and reasonable inference to that described by Applicant. Therefore, until the written description requirement is resolved, the examiner interprets lithium alkyl sulfide in accordance with Applicant for the merits of this rejection.
Applicant argues that there is no teaching or suggestion in Lanning that the Li2S may be applied to a cathode. And, to that, Amine fails to describe that the alkaline source material contains the reaction product of an alkyl lithium reagent (such as butyl lithium) with a carbon confined sulfur, and that that Vieluf and Lanning fail to fill the voids (Remarks, pg. 6). However, this is not persuasive, as Vieluf is relied upon for teaching lamination and Lanning provides a suitable method for producing an alkaline source material. A core teaching of Amine is the benefit of using an alkaline source material as a pre-lithiation material/lithium source ([0049], “an alkali source material…supplies the lithium source for the battery, non-lithiated materials may be used as the preferred cathode active material in the secondary battery…which have higher specific capacities”) to achieve higher specific capacities, and specifically provides Li2S as an example of such an alkaline source material ([0012], “Li2S”). Lanning, analogous in the art of LiS batteries, teaches an alkaline source material Li2S is a reaction product of an alkyl lithium reagent (Lanning [0494], “n-butyllithium”, wherein n-butyl lithium is a type of alkyl lithium, consistent with [0084] of applicant’s specification) with carbon confined sulfur (Lanning [0494], “sulfur-impregnated graphene”, wherein; [0389], “carbon based particles… where S is confined…activated carbon”, such that Lanning teaches carbon-confined sulfur as an alternative reagent) as an acceptable embodiment of producing an alkaline source material with an advantageous microstructure [0389]. Lanning teaches the formation of Li2S associated with an idealized cathode configuration [0494]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized in Lanning a known technique (of producing an alkaline source material) that is applicable to the base device which utilizes an alkaline source material for higher specific capacities (see above; [0012]). Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.).
Applicant argues that there is no teaching that the Li2S so prepared in the reference may be applied to a cathode active material as presently defined by using it as a pre-lithiation reagent (Remarks, pg. 8 and 9). However, this is not persuasive, as Amine teaches that Li2S may be used as a pre-lithiation reagent, such that any method of producing Li2S advantageously is directly relevant to improving the teachings of Amine.
Applicant argues that Lu similarly fails to fill the voids of Lanning and Vieluf mentioned above (Remarks, pg. 9). However, this is not persuasive, as Lanning is directed to teaching those voids as mentioned (see above).
Applicant argues that all claims should be allowed based off an allowable independent claim (Remarks, pg. 9 and 10). However, this is not persuasive, as all rejections have been sustained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL C. S. WYROUGH whose telephone number is (571)272-4806. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-5:30.
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, Tiffany Legette can be reached at 571-270-7078. 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.
/PAUL CHRISTIAN ST WYROUGH/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights