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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the communication filed on 11/22/25. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not found persuasive. Claims 1, 3-10, 12-20 and 22 are pending. This Action is FINAL.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/22/25 has been entered.
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7-10, 13, 14, 18-20 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Archer et al., US 2019/0067730 A1.
Archer teaches a sodium-sulfur battery having a microporous host-sulfur composite cathode (abstract). The microporous host may be a porous carbon made by carbonization of metal-organic framework (e.g., ZIF, MIL). The porous-carbon is made by carbonization of metal-organic framework [0049]. The carbonization of the ZIF-8 polyhedrons was carried out in N2 flow. The ZIF-8 sample was first heated up to 150 degrees (heating rate: 1°C/minute) and kept for 2 hours, and then further heated up to 1000°C (heating rate: 2°C/minute) and maintained for 8 hours [0052]. The sulfur is confined in one or more of the pores of the porous carbon. In various examples, the sulfur is present at 30% to 80% by weight based on the weight of the carbon-sulfur composite. Sulfur can be incorporated into a cathode (e.g., a porous host such as, for example, a microporous and/or mesoporous host) by various methods. In an example, the sulfur is vapor infused into the porous carbon allowing it to be interred inside pores of the host material (e.g., in the pores of a regular or heterogeneous porous carbon host material). In another example, sulfur is solution infused in the cathode material (e.g., sulfur is dissolved in solvent and porous host material is dispersed into the solution. In another example, a blend of host material and sulfur is subjected to microwave heating or thermal treatment [0054-0055]. Most of the sulfur is trapped inside the micropores of the carbon host [0083].
The cathodes were prepared with MCPS1 or MCPS2, carbon black, and polymer binder in a weight ratio of 8:1:1. A carbon-coated aluminum foil was used as the current collector. Sodium foil was used as the counter and reference electrode. A glass fiber filter paper was used as separator. 80 μL 1M sodium perchlorate (NaClO4) in a mixture ethylene carbonate (EC) and diethyl carbonate (DEC) or in tetraethylene glycol dimethyl ether (TEGDME) or in a mixture of EC and propylene carbonate (PC) with different amount of SiO2-IL-ClO4 were used as electrolyte for the cells [0096].
Thus, the claims are anticipated.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-10, 12-20 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al., Sulfur in hierarchically pore-structured carbon pillars as cathode material for lithium-sulfur batteries, Electrochimica Acta 97 (2013) 238-243 in view of Archer et al., US 2019/0067730 A1.
Wang teaches hierarchically pore-structured carbon (HPC) pillars with a high surface area and large pore volume are obtained by pyrolyzing Al-based porous coordination polymers ( metal-organic frameworks (MOFs): page 238) and used as a matrix of the sulfur for lithium-sulfur batteries. The structure and electrochemical performance of the sulfur-impregnated HPC are characterized. The improved performance of the composite is ascribed to the unique porous structure of the HPC matrix and its strong interaction with sulfur (abstract).
An Al-PCP powder is calcined at 800°C for 12 hours in argon and the alumina was removed. A mixture of the HPC and commercial sulfur powder at a mass ratio of 1:5 was ground and then heated. Finally the mixture was heated to remove the sulfur outside the PHC pores resulting in HPC/S composites containing 39-58 wt% sulfur (top of column 1 on page 239). A working electrode was prepared by pressing a mixture of HPC/S composite (85 wt%), carbon nanotubes (10 wt%) and PTFE (5 wt%) into an aluminum mesh. Coin cells were assembled with Li foil as a counter electrode, an electrolyte and a separator. The electrolyte concentration is 1 M (bottom of column 1 on page 239). The sulfur in the mesopores of HPC is amorphous and nanocrystalline. The S8 molecules peak becomes weak and a strong peak at 483 cm-1 is created after S is sublimed and sufficiently loaded in the HPC pillars. The sulfur experiences a phase transition from orthorhombic to monoclinic sulfur (page 240). See at least Figure 3A that depicts the XRD patterns of the HPC/S of Wang.
Wang does not explicitly teach the carbonizing temperature is at least 900°C to less than 1000°C. Wang teaches the carbonizing temperature is 800°C. However, one of skill in the art would have known that a metal-organic framework could have been carbonized at temperatures up to 1000°C, as taught by Archer. Archer teaches a microporous host-sulfur composite cathode (abstract). The microporous host may be a porous carbon made by carbonization of metal-organic framework (e.g., ZIF, MIL). The porous-carbon is made by carbonization of metal-organic framework [0049]. The carbonization of the ZIF-8 polyhedrons was carried out in N2 flow. The ZIF-8 sample was heated up to 1000°C [0052].
Wang does not explicitly teach the aluminum foil current collector is a carbon coated aluminum foil and a slurry was coated onto the aluminum foil current collector. However, Archer teaches these method steps are known in the art. One of skill would have been motivated to use a carbon coated aluminum foil for the aluminum foil current collector of Wang, as taught by Archer. Archer teaches it was known in the art to coat a slurry comprising the microporous host-sulfur composite, conductive carbon and binder onto a carbon coated aluminum foil current collector [0096].
Examiner notes “overnight” encompasses stirring throughout the night or at some point during the night. One of skill would have known the slurry could have been stirred at some point during the night. Archer teaches the cathodes were prepared with MCPS1 or MCPS2, carbon black, and polymer binder in a weight ratio of 8:1:1. A carbon-coated aluminum foil was used as the current collector. Sodium foil was used as the counter and reference electrode. A glass fiber filter paper was used as separator. 80 μL 1M sodium perchlorate (NaClO4) in a mixture ethylene carbonate (EC) and diethyl carbonate (DEC) or in tetraethylene glycol dimethyl ether (TEGDME) or in a mixture of EC and propylene carbonate (PC) with different amount of SiO2-IL-ClO4 were used as electrolyte for the cells [0096].
Examiner notes claim 4 does not positively recite the metal-organic framework of the carbon material is the zeolite-type metal-organic framework. Examiner further notes Figure 1 of the present specification wherein the XRD pattern of the carbon/sulfur composite is shown by (e).
*
Claim(s) 1, 3-10, 12-20 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al., Sulfur embedded in metal organic framework-derived hierarchically porous carbon nanoplates for high performance lithium-sulfur battery, J. Mater. Chem. A, 2003, 1, 4490-4496 in view of Archer et al., US 2019/0067730 A1.
Xu teaches encapsulation of sulfur into hierarchically porous carbon nanoplates (HPCN) derived from one-step pyrolysis of metal-organic frameworks (MOF-5) (abstract). The MOF-5 was transferred to a tube furnace and was heat-treated at 900°C under nitrogen to pyrolyze (carbonize) the organic species. To prepare the HPCN/sulfur composite, a mixture of HPCN and elemental sulfur with a mass ratio of 2:3 were ground and heated (column 1, page 4491). The cathode was prepared by a slurry coating procedure. The slurry consisted of 70 wt% active material (HPCN/sulfur), 20 wt% acetylene black and 10 wt% PVDF dissolved in NMP and was uniformly spread onto an aluminum foil current collector. The cathode was dried at 70°C overnight (column 2, page 4491).
The morphology of HPCN/S retains the nanoplate structure without any agglomeration of bulk sulfur on the surface of HPCN. This indicates the complete incorporation of sulfur into the porous nanoplate matrix (column 1, page 4492). As shown in the XRD patterns (Fig. 4), after sulfur is completely embedded into the nanopores of HPCN, the diffraction peaks of bulk crystalline sulfur disappear entirely, demonstrating that sulfur has been converted into amorphous HPCN and exists in a highly dispersed state (columns 2, page 4492).
Xu does not explicitly teach the aluminum foil current collector is a carbon coated aluminum foil. However, one of skill would have been motivated to use a carbon coated aluminum foil for the aluminum foil current collector of Wang, as taught by Archer. Archer teaches it was known in the art to coat a slurry comprising the microporous host-sulfur composite, conductive carbon and binder onto a carbon coated aluminum foil current collector [0096].
Examiner notes claim 4 does not positively recite the metal-organic framework of the carbon material is the zeolite-type metal-organic framework. Examiner further notes Figure 1 of the present specification wherein the XRD pattern of the carbon/sulfur composite is shown by (e).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/22/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant states “the removing step has been amended to define that excess sulfur which is not infused into the pores is removed”. Examiner disagrees and notes the claims do not require all excess sulfur be removed as “excess” is not specifically limited (or defined) by the claim. The term “excess” sulfur has been given the broadest reasonable interpretation. The claims do not state “removing all sulfur not infused into the pores”. Furthermore, method limitations have not been given patentable weight for the product claims of the present application.
ARCHER
Applicant argues Archer does not disclose the removing step (c) as required by the method of claim 1. Examiner disagrees. Archer teaches the sulfur is confined in one or more of the pores of the porous carbon [0054]. Thus, there is no “excess” sulfur as any “excess” sulfur would have been removed to result in the sulfur being “confined” in the pores of the porous carbon of Archer.
Furthermore, at least claim 1 recites “removing excess sulfur not infused into the pores”, which has been given the broadest reasonable interpretation. The claim does not require all excess sulfur be removed. The claim does not necessarily require the sulfur present on the surface of the porous carbon be removed as “excess” sulfur is not clearly defined and has been given the broadest reasonable interpretation. The terms “excess sulfur” and “sulfur” are not synonymous. See [0083] of Archer that discloses weight loss due to the evaporation of sulfur and that most of the sulfur is trapped inside the micropores. See also [0085]. Archer teaches various methods for infusing sulfur into the porous host material [0054-0055]. In these methods, excess sulfur that is not infused into the pores of the porous host would have been removed with the medium that was used to infuse sulfur into the porous host material.
Applicant argues there is no specific step in Archer intended to ensure complete surface sulfur removal. However, this argument is not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. “Removing excess sulfur” is much broader than “complete surface sulfur removal”. Applicant argues only some of the sulfur of Archer is removed, but not all of the sulfur outside and inside the MCP evaporated. Again, this argument is not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention as the claims do not require all the sulfur outside the pores of the porous carbon be removed.
Furthermore, method limitations have not been given patentable weight for the product claims of the present application.
WANG in view of ARCHER
Applicant argues the Examiner used impermissible hindsight. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Applicant does not identify any “knowledge gleaned only form the applicant’s disclosure” that is relied upon by the Examiner. Archer clearly teaches a microporous host-sulfur composite cathode (abstract). The microporous host may be a porous carbon made by carbonization of metal-organic framework (e.g., ZIF, MIL). The porous-carbon is made by carbonization of metal-organic framework [0049]. The carbonization of the ZIF-8 polyhedrons was carried out in N2 flow. The ZIF-8 sample was heated up to 1000°C [0052]. Applicant argues Archer teaches a carbonizing temperature of “up to 1000°C” without explaining what happens at the carbonizing temperature. Clearly, carbonization happens at the “carbonizing temperature”. It is unclear what Applicant is attempting to argue and the presently claimed invention clearly describes the temperature range as a “carbonizing” temperature range.
Wang teaches the carbonizing temperature is 800°C. However, one of skill in the art would have known that a metal-organic framework could have been carbonized at temperatures up to 1000°C, as taught by Archer. Both Wang and Acher teach carbonizing metal organic frameworks.
Examiner notes evidence of unexpected results must distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art of record. The prior art does not appear to teach a washing step and at least claim 1 does not exclude a washing step. The prior art does not appear to teach metal impurities in the metal organic framework and at least claim 1 does not exclude metal impurities in the metal organic framework. Furthermore, Archer teaches the metal organic framework is carbonized at temperatures up to 1000°C. Wang teaches the “removing step” of the claimed invention.
Furthermore, method limitations have not been given patentable weight for the product claims of the present application.
XU in view of ARCHER
Applicant argues Xu does not teach the “removing step” of the claimed invention and that sulfur remains in a liquid state on the surface of the composite that will resolidify upon cooling. It is unclear how Applicant reaches this conclusion regarding the teachings of Xu. Xu clearly discloses the morphology of HPCN/S retains the nanoplate structure without any agglomeration of bulk sulfur on the surface of HPCN. This indicates the complete incorporation of sulfur into the porous nanoplate matrix (column 1, page 4492). Thus, there is no “excess” sulfur as any “excess” sulfur would have been removed to result in the sulfur being “completely” incorporated into the pores of the porous matrix of Xu.
Furthermore, at least claim 1 recites “removing excess sulfur not infused into the pores”, which has been given the broadest reasonable interpretation. The claim does not require all excess sulfur be removed. The claim does not require the sulfur present on the surface of the porous carbon be removed. It is improper for Applicant to equate sulfur on the surface of the porous carbon with “excess sulfur”. In the method used to infuse the sulfur, the sulfur that is not infused into the pores of the porous host would have been removed with the medium that was used to infuse sulfur into the porous host material.
The examples represented in Figure 4c of the present specification are clearly not representative of Xu. Xu clearly discloses the morphology of HPCN/S retains the nanoplate structure without any agglomeration of bulk sulfur on the surface of HPCN. This indicates the complete incorporation of sulfur into the porous nanoplate matrix. Applicant improperly compares the specific capacity values of the present specification with the reversible capacity values of Xu. In batteries, specific capacity refers to the amount of charge a material can store per unit mass, typically measured in mAh/g. Reversible capacity, on the other hand, is the portion of that stored charge that can be repeatedly and reliably extracted and returned to the battery during charge and discharge cycles. Essentially, it's the usable capacity that contributes to the battery's longevity and performance. Furthermore, Xu teaches an initial discharge capacity of HPCN-S is 1177 mAh g-1 (page 4494). Examiner notes these arguments are commensurate in scope with only claims 18-20 and 22 as the remaining claims are not directed toward a battery.
Furthermore, method limitations have not been given patentable weight for the product claims of the present application.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TRACY DOVE whose telephone number is (571)272-1285. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-3:00.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached on 571-272-1330. 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.
/TRACY M DOVE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725