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 .
Status of Claims
The Applicant’s amendment and arguments, filed 09/16/2025, has been entered. Claim 1 is amended; claims 3-5, and 7-9 stand as originally or previously presented; claims 2, 6, 10-11, 13-15, 18-19, 21-22, 25, 27-30, 33-34, 37-39, 41, and 43 are cancelled; and claims 12, 16-17, 20, 23-24, 26, 31, 32, 35-36, 40, and 42 are withdrawn. Support for the amendments is found in the original filing, and there is no new matter.
Upon considered said amendments and arguments, the previous 35 U.S.C.102(a)(1) rejection set forth in Office Action mailed 05/16/2025 has been withdrawn. Amended and new grounds of rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 103 citing to newly found art are set forth below as necessitated by the claim amendments.
Specification
The specification filed on 03/30/2022 was reviewed and is acceptable.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eom et al. (KR20190079428, hereinafter Eom).
Regarding Claim 1, Eom discloses the limitations regarding a lamellar transition metal sulfide composition (Eom, a plurality of micro-sized amorphous thin film layers are formed by mixing metal sulfide and a carbon material at an anode, [0001]) comprising layers of an amorphous transition metal sulfide (Eom, metal sulfur complex forms a plurality of micro-sized amorphous thin film layers, [0001]) and further comprising cations between layers of the amorphous transition metal sulfide wherein only the cations or only the cations and a solvent for solvation of the cations occupy an interlayer space (Eom, the amorphous thin film layer 100 can form a crystalline nanolayer 110 during charging/discharging is repeated, thereby increasing the surface area that can react with secondary battery ions, thereby increasing the capacity of the secondary battery, [0022], Figure 5; the Examiner notes that the amorphous thin film layer and crystalline nanolayer are both present in the electrode, and cations must be intercalated between the layers in order to increase the capacity of the secondary battery, as disclosed).
Regarding Claim 3, Eom discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Eom discloses the limitations regarding a lamellar transition metal sulfide composition (Eom, a plurality of micro-sized amorphous thin film layers are formed by mixing metal sulfide and a carbon material at an anode, [0001]), wherein the transition metal sulfide comprises one or more transition metal selected from the group consisting of, titanium (Ti), vanadium (V), manganese (Mn), iron (Fe), cobalt (Co), nickel (Ni), and copper (Cu) (Eom, the metal sulfide may be at least one selected from FeS, CuS, CoS, NiS, MnS, TiS, and VS, [0016]).
Regarding Claim 4, Eom discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Eom discloses the limitations regarding a lamellar transition metal sulfide composition (Eom, a plurality of micro-sized amorphous thin film layers are formed by mixing metal sulfide and a carbon material at an anode, [0001]), wherein the transition metal sulfide is an iron sulfide (Eom, the metal sulfide may be at least one selected from FeS, [0016]).
Regarding Claim 5, Eom discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Eom discloses the limitations regarding a lamellar transition metal sulfide composition (Eom, a plurality of micro-sized amorphous thin film layers are formed by mixing metal sulfide and a carbon material, [0001]), wherein the ratio of iron (Fe) to sulfur (S) in the iron sulfide is about 0.75 to 1 (Eom, the metal sulfide may be at least one selected from FeS, [0016]; the Examiner notes that the ratio of Fe to S in FeS is 1, falling within the claimed range of 0.75 to 1).
Regarding Claim 7, Eom discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Eom discloses the limitations regarding a lamellar transition metal sulfide composition (Eom, a plurality of micro-sized amorphous thin film layers are formed by mixing metal sulfide and a carbon material at an anode, [0001]), wherein the cations are alkali metal cations, alkaline earth metal cations, or organic cations (Eom, lithium-sulfur battery and lithium ions, [0060]).
Regarding Claim 8, Eom discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Eom discloses the limitations regarding a lamellar transition metal sulfide composition (Eom, a plurality of micro-sized amorphous thin film layers are formed by mixing metal sulfide and a carbon material at an anode, [0001]), wherein the cations comprise one or more cations selected from Li+ (Eom, lithium-sulfur battery and lithium ions, [0060]).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eom et al. (KR20190079428, hereinafter Eom), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 20190267625 A1, hereinafter Lee).
Regarding Claim 9, Eom discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Eom discloses the limitations regarding a lamellar transition metal sulfide composition (Eom, a plurality of micro-sized amorphous thin film layers are formed by mixing metal sulfide and a carbon material at an anode, [0001]). While Eom is silent regarding the cations are solvated by a polar aprotic solvent, Eom does disclose that the lithium-sulfur battery has a separator 590 and an electrolyte 700 (Eom, [0035], Figure 1).
Lee discloses a lithium-sulfur battery that comprises an electrolyte impregnated into the separator and is composed of a lithium salt and an electrolyte solution (Lee, [0065]). Lee discloses a polar aprotic solvent (Lee, the non-aqueous organic solvent should dissolve the lithium salt, such as LiPF6 well, and may be an aprotic organic solvent such as ethylene carbonate, [0073-0075]).
Lee teaches that the electrolyte allows for the transport of lithium ions between the positive and negative electrode (Lee, [0069]).
Eom and Lee are analogous to the current invention as they are all directed towards a battery.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the electrolyte of Lee in the lithium-sulfur battery of Eom, in order to allow for the transport of lithium ions between the positive and negative electrode.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, Pages 6-8, filed 09/16/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 3-5, and 7-9 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Eom et al. (KR20190079428, hereinafter Eom), as noted above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20160020493 A1 discloses an iron-sulphide based battery comprising amorphous FeS and (meta)stable Fe-S clusters [0046].
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 KEVIN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (703)756-1745. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:50 - 7:50 ET.
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, NICHOLAS A SMITH can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/K.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752