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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 August 28th, 2025, has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendments received in the Remarks on August, 28th, 2025:
Claims 1-2, and 4-15 are currently pending in the current application. Claim 1 has been amended and claim 3 has been cancelled.
Claim 1 has been amended to specify the positive electrode active material includes sulfur, and that the positive electrode slurry has the average particle diameter (D50) of 25 to 40 μm.
Status of Objections and Rejections Pending from the Office Action of June 30th 2025
The previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 regarding claims 1-2 and 4-15 have been overcome in view of the amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed August 28th, 2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under Change et al in view of Cho et al and Kim et al have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Cho et al, KR 20200036253 A (already on the record, English translation provided for citation).
Cho et al discloses a method for producing a sulfur-carbon complex, in order to develop a high-capacity (high-loading) electrode [Cho, 0031], preferably used as a positive electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery [Cho, 0106].
Applicant argues that Cho, discloses the particle size for a composite, but makes no mention of a positive electrode slurry, or any relationship between the two.
However, Cho teaches the particle size for the composite material, corresponding to the positive electrode active material, is controlled to a range between 30 to 70 μm [Cho, 0031], and further teaches the particle size for the slurries, example 4-2, the D50 is 40.63 μm [Cho, 0198], which is very close to the claimed, and according to MPEP 2144.05 I, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Table 1 of Cho shows the particle size distribution of the sulfur-carbon complex and the Table 2 of Cho shows the particle size distribution of the slurries, therefore, indicating a relationship between the particle size of the complex and the particle size of the slurry.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 1-2, 4-5, and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Cho et al, KR 20200036253 A (already on the record, English translation provided for citation).
Regarding Claim 1, Cho teaches a method for manufacturing a sulfur-carbon complex [Cho, 0033], that is preferably used as a positive electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery [Cho, 0106], wherein the slurry is prepared by mixing a binder, and a conductive agent with the sulfur-carbon complex [Cho, 0074], and a solvent is used to prepare the slurry [Cho, 0118]. The particle size, based on D50, of the sulfur-carbon complex is controlled to a range of 30 to 70 μm [Cho, 0082], and according to table 2 of Cho, which shows the particle size distribution of the slurries prepared, specifically example 4-2, shows a particle size, D50, of 40.63 μm [Cho, 0198], which is very close to 40 μm, therefore, based on the particles sizes for the sulfur-carbon complexes give in table 1 and the particle size for the slurry give in table 2, the ratio of the average particle diameter of the positive electrode active material to an average particle diameter of the positive electrode slurry is between 0.92, 37.25/40.63, and 1.4, 56.4/40.63, which is less than 1.5, which falls within the range required by the claim. Cho is silent to teach on the phase angle of the positive electrode slurry at 1 Hz being 50 ° or more.
While Choi does not explicitly teach the phase angle at 1Hz of the positive electrode slurry to be 50 ° or more, Choi teaches a method for manufacturing a sulfur-carbon complex [Cho, 0033], that is preferably used as a positive electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery [Cho, 0106], wherein the secondary battery of this presentation may be a lithium-sulfur battery, and the instant specification depicts a positive electrode slurry for a lithium-sulfur battery containing a sulfur-carbon composite as the positive electrode active material [instant specification, page 11, 0004]. Cho teaches
a slurry that comprises a binder, and a conductive agent with the sulfur-carbon complex [Cho, 0074], and a solvent [Cho, 0118], with a ratio of an average particle diameter of the positive electrode active material to an average particle diameter of the positive electrode slurry that is 1.5 or less, specifically between 0.92 and 1.4 according to the particle D50 sizes given in tables 1 and 2. The instant specification depicts a slurry comprising a positive electrode active material, a binder, an a solvent, with the ratio of the average particle diameter of the positive electrode active material to the average particle diameter of the positive electrode slurry is 1.5 or less [instant specification, page 8, 0003], Finally, Cho teaches a positive electrode slurry with a particle distribution size of 40.63, compared to the average particle diameter of the positive electrode slurry is between 20 to 40 μm of the instant specification [instant specification, page 9, 0004], and according to the instant specification, the positive electrode slurry may have a phase angle of 50° or more at 1 Hz.
According to MPEP 2112.01, Part II, "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Therefore, the positive electrode slurry of Cho should have the phase angle at 1 Hz to be 50° or more.
According to MPEP 2144.05 I, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Moreover, according to 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, 541
F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding Claim 2, Cho teaches the positive electrode slurry of claim 1, wherein the particle size distribution of the slurries prepared, specifically example 4-2, shows a particle size, D50, of 40.63 μm [Cho, 0198], which is very close to 40 μm.
According to MPEP 2144.05 I, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding Claim 4, Cho teaches the positive electrode slurry of claim 1, wherein the ratio of an average particle diameter of the positive electrode active material to an average particle diameter of the positive electrode slurry is between 0.1 to 1.5, specifically between 0.92, 37.25/40.63, and 1.4, 56.4/40.63 according to the particle D50 sizes given in tables 1 and 2.
Moreover, according to 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, 541
F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding Claim 5, Cho teaches the positive electrode slurry of claim 1, however, Cho is silent to teach on the phase angle of the positive electrode slurry at 1 Hz being 50 to 70°.
While Choi does not explicitly teach the phase angle at 1Hz of the positive electrode slurry to be 50 to 70°, Choi teaches a method for manufacturing a sulfur-carbon complex [Cho, 0033], that is preferably used as a positive electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery [Cho, 0106], wherein the secondary battery of this presentation may be a lithium-sulfur battery, and the instant specification depicts a positive electrode slurry for a lithium-sulfur battery containing a sulfur-carbon composite as the positive electrode active material [instant specification, page 11, 0004]. Cho teaches
a slurry that comprises a binder, and a conductive agent with the sulfur-carbon complex [Cho, 0074], and a solvent [Cho, 0118], with a ratio of an average particle diameter of the positive electrode active material to an average particle diameter of the positive electrode slurry that is 1.5 or less, specifically between 0.92 and 1.4 according to the particle D50 sizes given in tables 1 and 2. The instant specification depicts a slurry comprises a positive electrode active material, a binder, an a solvent, with the ratio of the average particle diameter of the positive electrode active material to the average particle diameter of the positive electrode slurry is 1.5 or less [instant specification, page 8, 0003], Finally, Cho teaches a positive electrode slurry with a particle distribution size of 40.63, compared to the average particle diameter of the positive electrode slurry is between 20 to 40 μm of the instant specification [instant specification, page 9, 0004], and according to the instant specification, the positive electrode slurry may have a phase angle of 50 to 70° at 1 Hz.
According to MPEP 2112.01, Part II, "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Therefore, the positive electrode slurry of Cho should have the phase angle at 1 Hz to be 50 or 70°.
Regarding Claim 7, Cho teaches the positive electrode slurry of claim 1, wherein the positive electrode active material according to this presentation comprises a sulfur-carbon composite [Cho, 0106].
Regarding Claim 8, Cho teaches the positive electrode slurry of claim 7, wherein the method for producing the sulfur-carbon complex comprises mixing porous carbon and sulfur [Cho, 0013], and sulfur may be located not only inside the pores of the porous carbon material, but also on the surface [Cho, 0049].
Regarding Claim 9, Cho teaches the positive electrode slurry of claim 8, wherein the porous carbon material may be at least one selected from “graphite; graphene; carbon black such as Denka black, acetylene black, Ketjen black, channel black, furnace black, lamp black, and summer black; carbon nanotubes (CNTs) such as single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNTs) and multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs); carbon fibers such as graphite nanofibers (GNFs), carbon nanofibers (CNFs), and activated carbon fibers (ACFs); and activated carbon, but is not limited thereto” [Cho, 0039].
Regarding Claim 10, Cho teaches the positive electrode slurry of claim 8, wherein the sulfur used in the complex me be at least one selected from the group consisting of inorganic sulfur (S8), Li2Sn (n≥1), organic sulfur compound and a carbon-sulfur polymer, (C2Sx)n, x=2.5 to 50, n≥2, [Cho, 0048].
Regarding Claim 11, Cho teaches the positive electrode taught in this presentation can be applied to a current collector and form a positive electrode [Cho, 0122], wherein the positive electrode active material layer is prepared by mixing the sulfur-carbon complex with the conductive material and binder, creating the slurry, and is formed on a positive electrode current collector [Cho, 0108].
Regarding Claim 12, Cho teaches the positive electrode of claim 11, wherein the present invention is a lithium secondary battery including the positive electrode of claim 11, a negative electrode, a separator, and an electrolyte [Cho, 0126]. The secondary battery may be a lithium-sulfur battery [Cho, 0128].
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Cho et al, KR 20200036253 A (already on the record, English translation provided for citation) as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Chang et al, KR 20190062955 A, (already on the record, English translation provided for citation)
Regarding Claim 6, Cho teaches the positive electrode slurry of claim 1, but is silent to teach the positive electrode slurry having a viscosity of 30 to 80 Pa·s measured under conditions of 23 °C and a shear rate of 0.25 s-1.
Chang et al teaches a method for manufacturing a slurry for a cathode, which can increase the production of a slurry for a lithium-sulfur batter, wherein, the electrode slurry shear rate characteristics are shown in Figure 1 of Chang. The shear viscosity (Pa·s) is around 1 to 104 under a shear rate of 1/s (1 s-1), therefore, by converting to a shear rate 0.25 s-1 , corresponding to the requirement of the claim, the viscosity would fall within the claimed range of 30 Pa·s to 80 Pa·s.
Chang and Cho are considered analogous arts in the area of positive electrode slurries for lithium-sulfur batteries.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify Cho to include the viscosity and shear rate characteristics taught by Chang because such modification would result in a battery that can exhibit properties equivalent to or higher than those of a slurry for tens of grams, and therefore, increase the maximum production capacity [Chang, 0015].
Moreover, according to 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, 541
F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Cho et al, KR 20200036253 A (already on the record, English translation provided for citation) as applied to claim 12 above, in further view of Son et al, US 20160190561 A1 (already on the record).
Regarding Claims 13-15, Cho teaches the battery of claim 12, but is silent to teach on the module in claim 13 or the device in claims 14 and 15.
Son teaches a battery module, including a lithium-sulfur battery as a unit cell [Son, 0062], wherein the battery module is used as a power source for an electric vehicle, hybrid electric vehicle, plug-in hybrid electric vehicle, or a power storage apparatus [Son, 0063].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the battery of Cho to include the battery module and the device taught by Son a battery module, comprising a lithium-sulfur battery, may be used as a power source for electric devices [Son, 0062 & 0063], because it is well-known to use batteries in modules and devices. Furthermore, a simple substitution of one know element for another to obtain predictable results supports prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2143, I, B).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LILIAN ALICE ODOM whose telephone number is (703)756-1959. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM - 5PM 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, NIKI BAKHTIARI can be reached at (571) 272-3433. 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.
/LILIAN ALICE ODOM/Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights