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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5 and 9-13 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.
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) 1-5 and 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (KR-20190057923-A) (see US-20200259169-A1 for translation), and in further view of Peng (Yueying Peng, Bing Li, Yunhui Wang, Xinyi He, Jianxing Huang, and Jinbao Zhao ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 2017 9 (5), 4397-4403 DOI: 10.1021/acsami.6b06890).
Regarding claim 1, Cho discloses a positive electrode for a lithium-sulfur battery (see e.g., Cho; [0027], [0032], regarding sulfur positive electrode and method of manufacturing sulfur composite for the positive electrode), the positive electrode comprising a current collector and a positive electrode active material layer disposed on at least one side of the current collector (see e.g., Cho; [0069]),
wherein the positive electrode active material layer comprises a positive electrode active material (see e.g., Cho; [0030], [0035] regarding sulfur-carbon composite), wherein the positive electrode active material consists of a sulfur-carbon composite (see e.g., Cho; [0030], [0035]),
wherein the sulfur-carbon composite comprises a porous carbon material that provides a framework in which sulfur is fixed (see e.g., Cho; [0035], regarding porous carbon material providing a skeleton to which sulfur can be uniformly and stably fixed),
wherein the sulfur-carbon composite comprises the porous carbon material and the sulfur in at least a portion of inner and outer surfaces of the porous carbon material (see e.g., Cho; [0035], regarding porous carbon material in which sulfur is fixed; the porous carbon has pores as described in [0036], [0051] in which sulfur is impregnated within the carbon pores; [0056] further describing the sulfur at least partly inside and on the surface of the porous carbon material which corresponds with inner and outer surfaces).
Cho does not explicitly disclose wherein the positive electrode active material layer comprises an additive, and the additive comprises a transition metal-ferrocyanide compound, wherein the transition metal-ferrocyanide compound is contained in the positive electrode active material layer in an amount of 1 to 20% by weight based on 100% by weight of the total of the positive electrode active material layer.
However, Peng discloses Prussian blue which is applied in the context of lithium-sulfur batteries wherein a sulfur-Prussian blue composite, AB, and PVDF are fabricated for a cell (see e.g., Peng; page 2 “Cell Fabrication and Electrochemical Measurement”). The Prussian blue material disclosed by Peng corresponds to the claimed additive comprising a transition metal-ferrocyanide compound. Peng further discloses the sulfur-Prussian blue composite are formed in weight ratios of 95:5, 92:8, and 90:10 (see e.g., Peng; page 2 “sample synthesis”), wherein the active material layer comprises of 70% of the sulfur-Prussian blue composite (see e.g., Peng; page 2 “Cell Fabrication and Electrochemical Measurement”). Therefore, Peng discloses that the amount of Prussian blue corresponding to the claimed transition metal-ferrocyanide compound is contained in the positive electrode active material layer in weight percents of 3.5%, 5.6%, and 7%, which overlaps with the claimed range of 1 to 20% by weight based on 100% by weight of the total positive electrode active material layer. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added Prussian blue in 3.5, 5.6, or 7 wt% to the positive electrode active material layer of Cho in order to adsorb polysulfides which improves electrochemical reaction kinetics, betters cycle-life and rate performance (see e.g., Peng; page 2).
Regarding claim 2, modified Cho teaches the positive electrode according to claim 1. As above regarding claim 1, modified Cho with Peng teaches wherein the transition metal-ferrocyanide compound is Prussian blue, which is iron (III) ferrocyanide, which corresponds with the claimed transition metal-ferrocyanide compound comprising at least one selected from the group consisting of iron (III) ferrocyanide, cobalt (II) ferrocyanide, nickel (II) ferrocyanide, copper (II) ferrocyanide, and zinc (II) ferrocyanide.
Regarding claim 3, modified Cho teaches the positive electrode according to claim 1. As above regarding claim 1, modified Cho with Peng teaches wherein the transition metal-ferrocyanide compound is Prussian blue, which is iron (III) ferrocyanide as claimed.
Regarding claim 4, modified Cho teaches the positive electrode according to claim 1. Cho does not explicitly disclose that the metal-ferrocyanide compound has a water content of 10% by weight or less. However, Peng states that the preparation process of the Prussian blue particles involve multiple rounds of vacuum oven drying at 60 degrees Celsius for 12 hours (see e.g., Peng; “Experimental Section”). The drying process is described as part of a typical procedure to prepare Prussian blue because the as-synthesized PB nanoparticles were first washed with deionized water and alcohol. Subsequent drying steps resulted in a Prussian blue composite active material that is coated onto aluminum foil with a doctor blade, and another drying step such that the coin cell can be assembled (see e.g., Peng; “Experimental Section”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dried the Prussian blue material disclosed by Peng to a water content of 10% by weight or less in order to improve chemical adsorption for polysulfides, improve electrochemical reaction kinetics, and improve cycle -life and rate performance of lithium-sulfur batteries (see e.g., Peng; page 2).
The Courts have held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)". See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 5, modified Cho teaches the positive electrode according to claim 1. Cho does not explicitly disclose wherein the transition metal-ferrocyanide compound has a lattice structure, and is vacuum-dried to remove moisture in the lattice structure. However, in the same modification as above regarding claim 1 with Peng, Peng also teaches that the Prussian blue compound, which has a lattice structure as a property of the material, is vacuum dried (see e.g., Peng; Experimental Section "Sample Synthesis" and "Cell Fabrication and Electrochemical Measurement"). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have had the Prussian-blue vacuum dried as disclosed by Peng in order to improve chemical adsorption for polysulfides, improve electrochemical reaction kinetics, and improve cycle -life and rate performance of lithium-sulfur batteries (see e.g., Peng; page 2).
Regarding claim 9, modified Cho teaches the positive electrode according to claim 1. Cho further discloses wherein the porous carbon material comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of graphite, graphene, carbon black, carbon nanotubes, carbon fibers, graphite and activated carbon (see e.g., Cho; [0060]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Cho teaches the positive electrode according to claim 1. Cho further discloses wherein the sulfur comprise at least one selected from the group consisting of inorganic sulfur, Li2Sn where n≥1, disulfide compounds, organosulfur compounds, and carbon-sulfur polymers (C2Sx)n where x=2.5 to 50, and n≥2 (see e.g., Cho; [0061]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Cho teaches the positive electrode according to claim 1. Cho further discloses wherein the sulfur to carbon weight ratio is preferably 8:2 to 7:3 (see e.g., Cho; [0062]), which is 70-80 wt% of sulfur, which falls within the claimed range wherein the sulfur is contained in an amount of 65 to 90% by weight based on 100% by weight of the total of the sulfur-carbon composite.
Regarding claim 12, modified Cho teaches the positive electrode according to claim 1. Cho further discloses wherein a loading amount of sulfur in the composite may be 1 mg/cm2 to 20 mg/cm2 (see e.g., Cho; [0066]), which overlaps with the claimed loading amount of sulfur of 6 to 8 mg/cm2.
MPEP 2144.05 I states that '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, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'."
Regarding claim 13, modified Cho teaches a lithium-sulfur battery comprising the positive electrode according to claim 1; a negative electrode; and an electrolyte (see e.g., Cho; [0108]-[0109], regarding test example wherein the positive electrode, lithium foil as negative electrode, and electrolyte are prepared for a coin cell battery, see also [0083]).
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 KEVIN SONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7337. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/KEVIN SONG/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728