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 .
Remarks
Claim 1 has been amended, claims 2-7 and 13-15 are as previously presented, claims 8-12 have been withdrawn. Claims 1-7 and 13-15 are currently examined.
Status of objections and rejections
The rejection below has been modified as necessitated by applicants amendments.
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) 1-4, 6-7, 13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 20190125935 A) and in view of Nianwu (High rate lithium sulfur batteries promoted by reduced graphene oxide coating).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses A positive electrode active material having a core/shell structure for a lithium secondary battery, comprising [abstract], a core containing sulfur-carbon composites [0023]: and a shell containing carbon nanotubes positioned on the surface of the core [0023, 0053-0054, 0109].
Kim is silent to the use of thermally expanded-reduced graphene oxide in a sulfur-carbon composites.
Nianwu discloses a sulfur-carbon composite contains thermally expanded-reduced graphene oxides and sulfur contained in at least a part of the surface and inside of the thermally expanded-reduced graphene oxide (pg. 1, col.2, line 16- pg.2, col.1, line 3, fig. 1. Nianwu discloses a thermally exfoliated (expanded) graphene nanosheet that has had sulfur incorporated into the sheets of expanded graphene. This composite is then coated with reduced graphene oxide sheets. The examiner is interpreting this composite to be a thermally expanded-reduced graphene oxide. Furthermore, graphene oxide can be expanded and reduced via chemical and/or thermal means, regardless of the method the end product is the same. As such thermally expanded-reduced graphene oxide is a product-by-process claim (see MPEP 2133).).
Finally, Nianwu discloses that the thermally expanded graphene displays a wrinkled (“crumpled”) laminar (“paper”) structure and covered with wrinkled paper-like reduced graphene oxide layers (pg. 2, col 1, line 34 – pg. 2, col 2, line 10, fig. 2, Nianwu).
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would be motivated to modify the core of the carbon component of the sulfur-carbon composite disclosed by Kim to include the thermally expanded-reduced graphene oxide disclosed by Nianwu as it has a large specific surface area, high pore volume, and excellent conductivity (pg. 1, col.2, line 20-23).
Regarding claim 2, Kim as modified above discloses the positive electrode active material having the core/shell structure for the lithium secondary battery, wherein the specific surface area of the thermally expanded-reduced graphene oxide is 500 to 1200m2/g (pg. 2, col. 1 line 26-28, Nianwu discloses a specific surface area of 598 m2/g which lies inside the claimed range disclosed by the applicant (see MPEP 2144.05).).
Regarding claim 3, Kim as modified above discloses the positive electrode active material having the core/shell structure for the lithium secondary battery. wherein the pore volume of the thermally expanded-reduced graphene oxide is 3 to 7 cm3/g (pg. 2, col. 1 line 26-28, Nianwu discloses a pore volume of 2.61 cm3/g which approaches the range disclosed by the applicant (see MPEP 2144.05).).
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 4, Kim as modified above discloses the positive electrode active material having the core/shell structure for the lithium secondary battery, wherein the carbon nanotube is contained in an amount of 0.5 to 2 parts by weight relative to 100 parts by weight of the sulfur-carbon composite [0044, Kim discloses a ratio of carbon material (carbon nanotubes) in the coating layer (shell) to the sulfur-carbon complex to be preferably 1-3 parts to 100 parts by weight. Which overlaps the claimed range (see MPEP 2144.05).].
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 6, Kim as modified above discloses the positive electrode active material having the core/shell structure for the lithium secondary battery, wherein the thermally expanded-reduced graphene oxide and sulfur are mixed in a weight ratio of 1:1 to 1:9 [0109, Kim discloses a sulfur/carbon weight ratio of 8:2, which lies inside the claimed range (see MPEP 2144.05).].
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 7, Kim as modified above discloses the positive electrode active material having the core/shell structure for the lithium secondary battery, wherein the positive electrode active material for the lithium secondary battery is a positive electrode active material for a lithium-sulfur battery [abstract].
Regarding claim 13, Kim as modified above discloses a lithium secondary battery comprising a positive electrode [0025, 0089]; a negative electrode [0025, 0089]; a separator interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode [0025, 0089]; and an electrolyte solution [0089], wherein the positive electrode contains the positive electrode active material of [0113].
Regarding claim 15, Kim as modified above discloses the lithium secondary battery, wherein the lithium secondary battery is a lithium-sulfur battery [abstract].
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhou (US 20150221935 A1).
Regarding claim 5, modified Kim is silent to the shell of the core/shell structure containing pores.
However, Zhou discloses the positive electrode active material having the core/shell structure for the lithium secondary battery, wherein the shell contains pores having a size of 2 to 200 nm [0022, Zhou discloses a core/shell structure for a lithium-sulfur battery wherein the shell has pores with a diameter ranging from 1-20 nm, which overlaps the claimed range (see MPEP 2144.05).].
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim (see MPEP 2144.05).
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would be motived to further modify the core/shell structure disclosed by Kim to have the pores in the shell as disclosed by Zhou as they still allow for sulfur to be confined while improving conductivity [0022].
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Kim as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Manthiram (US 20190115587 A1).
Regarding claim 14, modified Kim is silent to the loading amount of sulfur in the cathode.
However, Manthiram discloses the lithium secondary battery, wherein the loading amount of sulfur in the positive electrode is 2 to 15 mg/cm2 [0024, Manthiram discloses a lithium-sulfur battery with a core-shell structure in which the sulfur loading in the cathode is at least 3g/cm3 (ix and x), which lies inside the claimed range].
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim (see MPEP 2144.05).
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would be motivated to further modify the positive electrode material and positive electrode such that the sulfur loading is greater than 3 g/cm3 as this allow for high energy density for the lithium-sulfur battery [0018].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/11/24 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See below for more detail.
Applicant amended claim 1 to include the claim language “and wherein the thermally expanded-reduced graphene oxide has a crumbled paper structure”. Applicant then argues that neither Kim nor Nianwu disclose the thermally expanded reduced graphene oxide has a “crumpled paper structure”. However, Nianwu discloses that the thermally reduced graphene has a “wrinkled laminar structure” and the composite is covered with a “wrinkled paper-like” reduced graphene oxide layer, which reads on the claimed language.
Applicant additionally argues that: 1) “the claimed invention is further characterized as having a "crumpled paper structure" prepared by sequentially performing the thermal expansion process and the reduction process.” and 2) details as to the process for creating the invention . The asserted instant specification support is not a special definition of a claim term , see MPEP 2111.01.II and 2145.VI. Furthermore, applicant’s arguments are in regard to a process limitation, while the claim in question is a product claim. As, such “wrinkled” reads on the BRI of “crumpled” as discussed above.
In regards to the allowability of claim 1, applicant further argues that the specific surface area and pore volume of the of Nianwu’s nanosheet will not be “high” enough or a “desired” value will not be obtained. However, applicant’s arguments are not claimed in claim 1 and as such are moot.
No other arguments were presented.
The examiner does not find the applicants arguments to be persuasive and as such maintains their rejection.
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 QUINTIN DALE ELLIOTT whose telephone number is (703)756-5423. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-6pm (MST).
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached on 5712705256. 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.
/QUINTIN D. ELLIOTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1724 /MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724