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 .
Examiner’s Comments
Applicants’ response filed on 12/23/2025 has been fully considered. Claim 2 is canceled, claim 5 is new and claims 1 and 3-5 are pending.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-5 are 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.
Regarding claim 1, there is no support for the limitation “at least some of the sulfur is in direct contact with the carbon nanotube”. Applicant’s Specification provides support for the sulfur, carbon nanotube and P2S5 forming a composite. However, this does not teach the limitation “at least some of the sulfur is in direct contact with the carbon nanotube”.
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al (US 2014/0342209 A1) in view of Nagata et al (US 2016/0254529 A1).
Regarding claim 1, He discloses a cathode (paragraph [0040]) for an all-solid-state lithium-sulfur battery (lithium-ion sulfur battery; paragraph [0001]), the cathode comprising:
a cathode mixture containing sulfur and a carbon nanotube (sulfur supported by filaments comprising carbon nanotubes; paragraph [0040]), wherein
the sulfur and the carbon nanotube form a composite (sulfur supported by filaments comprising carbon nanotubes; paragraph [0040]),
the carbon nanotube has a fiber length of 2 µm or more and 10 µm or less (length to diameter ratio no less than 10; paragraph [0149]),
the carbon nanotube is a single-walled carbon nanotube (paragraph [0153]) having a fiber diameter smaller than 100 nm (paragraph [0149]) and
at least some of the sulfur is in direct contact with the carbon nanotube (sulfur supported by filaments comprising carbon nanotubes; paragraph [0040]).
The length of the carbon nanotubes based on the length to diameter ratio of not less than 10 and the diameter of less than 100 nm would suggest a length of 1 µm or more (100 nm x 10). The diameter of the carbon nanotubes and the fiber length of the carbon nanotubes overlaps the claimed range for the fiber diameter and the fiber length of the carbon nanotube.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference in order to support an electrode active material while having high conductivity to enable facile transport of electrons with minimal resistance (paragraph [0150] of He). It has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Please see MPEP 2144.05, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
He does not disclose the cathode comprising the cathode mixture comprising P2S5 and the P2S5 forming a composite with sulfur and carbon nanotube.
However, Nagata discloses a cathode mixture comprising P2S5 and the P2S5 forming a composite with sulfur and carbon nanotube (component A being sulfur and component B being P2S5; paragraph [0029]), component C of an ion-conductive material (paragraph [0029]) and component D of a conductive material (paragraph [0029]); and wherein the ion-conductive material comprises a composite of Li2S5 and P2S5 (paragraphs [0034] and [0040]).
Sulfur and P2S5 together function as cathode active materials for the cathode mixture of Nagata. Substituting the sulfur in the composite of He with the combination of sulfur and P2S5 of Nagata would result in a composite of sulfur, P2S5 and carbon nanotubes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cathode of He to substitute the sulfur of He for the combination of the cathode active materials of sulfur and P2S5 of Nagata because the combination of components A and B as cathode active materials provides an all solid state lithium-sulfur battery with low resistance when sulfur, electron and lithium ions react with each other leading to excellent charge/discharge characteristics (paragraph [0032] of Nagata).
He does not disclose the cathode comprising the cathode mixture comprising a Li2S-P2S5 based solid electrolyte.
However, Nagata discloses a cathode mixture comprising component A of sulfur (paragraph [0029]), component B of P2S5 (paragraph [0029]), component C of an ion-conductive material (paragraph [0029]) and component D of a conductive material (paragraph [0029]); and wherein the ion-conductive material comprises a Li2S-P2S5 based solid electrolyte (a composite of Li2S and P2S5; paragraphs [0034] and [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cathode of He to include the ion-conductive material of Li2S-P2S5 of Nagata in the composite of He because having ion-conductive material of Li2S-P2S5 increases ion conductivity and reduces resistance when sulfur-electrons and lithium ions react with each other at the reaction interface of the cathode mixture layer thereby improving the charge/discharge capacity (paragraph [0035] of Nagata).
He does not disclose the cathode comprising the cathode mixture containing at least 12 wt% and at most 20 wt% of the carbon nanotube.
However, Nagata discloses a cathode mixture comprising component D of a conductive material (paragraph [0029]), wherein component D comprises carbon nanotubes (paragraph [0043]) and wherein the amount of component D in the positive electrode mixture is 5% to 25% by weight (paragraph [0052]).
The amount of component D in the cathode mixture overlaps the claimed range for the amount of carbon nanotube in the cathode mixture.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference in order to have the desired amount of electrons moving to the cathode resulting in higher charge/discharge capacity (paragraph [0052] of Nagata). It has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Please see MPEP 2144.05, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cathode of He to include the proportion of component D of carbon nanotubes of Nagata for the carbon nanotubes of He because having the required proportion of component D, such as carbon nanotubes, provides the desired amount of electrons moving to the cathode resulting in higher charge/discharge capacity (paragraph [0052] of Nagata).
Regarding claim 3, He and Nagata discloses the cathode of claim 1 as noted above and He discloses the cathode comprising the carbon nanotube has a fiber length of 2 µm or more and 5 µm or less (length to diameter ratio no less than 10; paragraph [0149]),
The length of the carbon nanotubes based on the length to diameter ratio of not less than 10 and the diameter of less than 100 nm would suggest a length of 1 µm or more (100 nm x 10). The fiber length of the carbon nanotubes overlaps the claimed range for the fiber length of the carbon nanotube.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference in order to support an electrode active material while having high conductivity to enable facile transport of electrons with minimal resistance (paragraph [0150] of He). It has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Please see MPEP 2144.05, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
He does not disclose the cathode comprising the cathode mixture containing at least 14 wt% and at most 18.2 wt% of the carbon nanotube.
However, Nagata discloses a cathode mixture comprising component D of a conductive material (paragraph [0029]), wherein component D comprises carbon nanotubes (paragraph [0043]) and wherein the amount of component D in the positive electrode mixture is 5% to 25% by weight (paragraph [0052]).
The amount of component D in the cathode mixture overlaps the claimed range for the amount of carbon nanotube in the cathode mixture.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference in order to have the desired amount of electrons moving to the cathode resulting in higher charge/discharge capacity (paragraph [0052] of Nagata). It has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Please see MPEP 2144.05, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cathode of He to include the proportion of component D of carbon nanotubes of Nagata for the carbon nanotubes of He because having the required proportion of component D, such as carbon nanotubes, provides the desired amount of electrons moving to the cathode resulting in higher charge/discharge capacity (paragraph [0052] of Nagata).
Regarding claim 4, He and Nagata disclose the cathode of claim 1 as noted above.
He does not disclose the cathode comprising the cathode mixture comprising from 1 wt% to 50 wt% of P2S5.
However, Nagata discloses a cathode mixture comprising the amount of component B of P2S5 being 1 to 35% by weight of the amount of component A and the total weight of component A and component B being 40% to 65% by weight of the cathode mixture (paragraphs [0033] and [0052]).
The amount of component B based on the cathode mixture is 0.4% (0.01 x 40%) to 22.75% (0.35 x 65%). This range overlaps the claimed range for the amount of P2S5 in the cathode mixture.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference in order to have sufficient improvement in the reactivity of sulfur by phosphorus leading to a large discharge capacity and preventing a decrease in discharge capacity (paragraph [0033] of Nagata). It has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Please see MPEP 2144.05, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cathode of He to substitute the sulfur of He for the combination of the cathode active materials of sulfur and P2S5 of Nagata because the combination of components A and B as cathode active materials provides an all solid state lithium-sulfur battery with low resistance when sulfur, electron and lithium ions react with each other leading to excellent charge/discharge characteristics (paragraph [0032] of Nagata).
He does not disclose the cathode comprising the cathode mixture comprising from 1 wt% to 50 wt% of Li2S5-P2S5 based solid electrolyte.
However, Nagata discloses a cathode mixture comprising 10% to 50% by weight of component C (paragraph [0052]) and wherein component C is an ion-conductive material comprising a Li2S5-P2S5 based solid electrolyte (composite of Li2S and P2S5; paragraphs [0034] and [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the sulfur-containing composite of Zhou to include the ion-conductive material of Li2S-P2S5 of Nagata in the sulfur-containing composite of Zhou because having ion-conductive material of Li2S-P2S5 increases ion conductivity and reduces resistance when sulfur-electrons and lithium ions react with each other at the reaction interface of the cathode mixture layer thereby improving the charge/discharge capacity (paragraph [0035] of Nagata).
Regarding claim 5, He and Nagata disclose the cathode of claim 1 as noted above.
The structure of the S-CNT-P2S5 composite of He and Nagata is the same as the structure of the S-CNT-P2S5 composite produced by preparing a S-CNT composite by mixing sulfur and the carbon nanotube to obtain a mixture and heat treating the mixture to obtain a S-CNT composite and mechanically milling the S-CNT composite with the P2S5 to obtain the S-CNT-P2S5 composite.
The S-CNT-P2S5 composite produced by preparing a S-CNT composite by mixing sulfur and the carbon nanotube to obtain a mixture and heat treating the mixture to obtain a S-CNT composite and mechanically milling the S-CNT composite with the P2S5 to obtain the S-CNT-P2S5 composite are product-by-process limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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.
Applicants argue that Zhou and Nagata do not disclose or suggest amended independent claim 1.
This argument is moot as Zhou and Nagata do not disclose or suggest amended independent claim 1. Therefore, the previous rejections have been withdrawn. However, new grounds of rejection have been noted above.
Conclusion
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 SATHAVARAM I REDDY whose telephone number is (571)270-7061. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM-6:00 PM EST.
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.
/SATHAVARAM I REDDY/Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights