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 Amendment
The amendments filed 06/09/2026 have been entered. They do not overcome the 103 rejection as previously set forth below.
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.
Claims 1-14, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by ‘Evidence of covalent synergy in silicon–sulfur–graphene yielding highly efficient and long-life lithium-ion batteries’ hereinafter referred to as ‘Hassan’ as evidenced by ‘EC (EthyleneCarbonate)’, hereinafter referred to as ‘Atman Chemical’ in view of (US-20170283524-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Wang’ in view of (US-6399245-B1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Wu’
Regarding Claim 12,
Hassan teaches an electrochemical energy storage device comprising (Hassan, “ The excellent performance combined with the simplistic, scalable and non-hazardous approach render the process as a very promising candidate for Li-ion battery technology.”, Abstract): an anode comprising: a plurality of active material particles (Hassan, “This involves wrapping SiNP”, Introduction), wherein each of the plurality of active material particles has a particle size of between about 1 nm and about 100 um (Hassan, “SiNP with a size range of 50–70 nm”, Methods); sulfur (Hassan , “Herein we introduce a new electrode design concept that capitalizes on the strong covalent interactions occurring between Si, sulfur”, Introduction); and at least one polymer (Hassan, “shielding this composite arrangement with cyclized polyacrylonitrile (PAN).”, see Introduction), wherein the plurality of active material particles is enclosed by the at least one polymer(Hassan, “shielding this composite arrangement with cyclized polyacrylonitrile (PAN).”, see Introduction) ; a cathode (Hassan, “and a Li metal counter electrode.”, Methods) ; and an electrolyte including a) an aprotic organic solvent system and b) a metal salt (Hassan, “The electrolyte used was 1 M LiPF6 in 30 wt% ethylene carbonate, 60 wt% dimethyl carbonate, and 10 wt% fluorinated ethylene carbonate”, see Methods) (The examiner notes that ethylene carbonate is an aprotic organic solvent, as evidenced by Ataman chemicals (“EC (Ethyelene Carbonate) is an organic, high aprotic solvent with a broad range of applications”))
Hassan does not teach elemental sulfur.
Wang teaches elemental sulfur (Wang, “the additive is at least one of metal or metal sulfide; varying an environment of the PAN and the elemental sulfur to simultaneously precipitate the PAN and the elemental sulfur,”, see [0005]). Wang teaches that sulfur allows for the Pan to be sulfurized which improves the conductivity of the mixture (Wang, “Specifically, the PAN powder and elemental sulfur are mixed to form a mixture, which is then heated and completely reacted at 300° C., to form sulfurized polyacrylonitrile. The sulfurized polyacrylonitrile can be used as a cathode material of a lithium ion battery.”, see [0003]) (The examiner additionally notes that the instant application is similarly heated, see [0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mixture with elemental sulfur in order to allow for the sulfurization of the PAN which would improve conductivity.
Wherein the elemental sulfur is from 0.1 to 7.5 wt% of the anode
Wu teaches the elemental sulfur is from 0.1 to 7.5 wt% of the anode (Wu, “electrochemical cell 10 contains elemental sulfur, which is preferably added to the anode mixture. The elemental sulfur comprises from about 0.015% to about 0.30% by weight of the zinc”, see Col 2 ln. 41)(Wu, “ In the preferred embodiment, an anode mixture is prepared that contains 67% by weight of the combination of zinc and elemental sulfur” see Col 2 ln. 48)(The examiner notes that 0.3% of 67% is 0.2%, which is within the claimed range) (The examiner notes that the example range is narrower, but it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try the concentration as outlined).
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 0.01% to about 0.2% by weight broadly overlaps the claimed range of 0.1 to 7.5 wt%. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Wu teaches that trace amounts of sulfur in the anode can improve anode performance (Wu, “The present invention improves the discharge Service performance, especially at a high drain rate, of an electro chemical cell by the inclusion of elemental sulfur in the anode of the cell.”, Col 1 ln 33)
Modified Hassan and Wu are analogous as they are both of the same field of sulfur in cells.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the content of sulfur to be in the range as taught in Wu in order to improve the anode performance.
Regarding Claim 13,
Modified Hassan teaches the electrochemical energy storage device of claim 12, wherein the plurality of active material particles are silicon particles (Hassan, “Electrodes were fabricated using commercially available (Nanostructured & Amorphous Materials, Inc., Houston, USA) SiNP with a size range of 50–70 nm”, Methods).
Regarding Claim 14,
Modified Hassan teaches the electrochemical energy storage device of claim 12, wherein elemental sulfur encapsulates one or more of the active material particles to form sulfur-encapsulated active material particles, and the at least one polymer encapsulates the sulfur-encapsulated active material particles (Hassan, “This involves wrapping SiNP with S-doped graphene (SG), and then shielding this composite arrangement with cyclized polyacrylonitrile (PAN).”, Introduction)
Regarding Claim 16,
Modified Hassan teaches the electrochemical energy storage device of claim 12, wherein the at least one polymer comprises polyacrylonitrile (Hassan, “This involves wrapping SiNP with S-doped graphene (SG), and then shielding this composite arrangement with cyclized polyacrylonitrile (PAN).”, Introduction).
Regarding Claim 20,
Modified Hassan teaches the electrochemical energy storage device of claim 12, wherein the metal salt includes a lithium salt (Hassan, “The electrolyte used was 1 M LiPF6 in 30 wt% ethylene carbonate, 60 wt% dimethyl carbonate, and 10 wt% fluorinated ethylene carbonate”, see Methods).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by ‘Evidence of covalent synergy in silicon–sulfur–graphene yielding highly efficient and long-life lithium-ion batteries’ hereinafter referred to as ‘Hassan’, in view of (US-20170283524-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Wang’, in view of (US-6399245-B1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Wu’ ,in view of (US-20170084914-A1), hereinafter referred to as ‘Haag’
Regarding Claim 15,
Modified Hassan teaches the electrochemical energy storage device of claim 14, wherein the elemental sulfur encapsulating one or more active material particles (Hassan, “This involves wrapping SiNP with S-doped graphene (SG), and then shielding this composite arrangement with cyclized polyacrylonitrile (PAN).”, Introduction).
Modified Hassan does not teach wherein active material particles further includes one or more of hard-carbon, graphite, tin, and germanium particles such that the active material particles and one or more of hard-carbon, graphite, tin, and germanium particles.
Haag teaches wherein active material particles further includes one or more of hard-carbon, graphite, tin, and germanium particles such that the active material particles and one or more of hard-carbon, graphite, tin, and germanium particles (Haag, “a Li—S battery having a silicon and/or germanium anode”, see [0042]).
Haag teaches that germanium can accommodate a superior amount of lithium ions, and that germanium accepts lithium ions at a faster rate than other material (Hassan, “Further, germanium is inherently able to accept lithium ions at a faster rate than other proposed anode materials this has been empirically verified with test data”, see [0050])
Hassan and Haag are analogous as they both come from the same field of battery materials for anodes in lithium-ion batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the active material silicon as taught in Hassan with the germanium as taught in Haag in order to improve the rate of lithium transfer in the battery anode.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by ‘Evidence of covalent synergy in silicon–sulfur–graphene yielding highly efficient and long-life lithium-ion batteries’ hereinafter referred to as ‘Hassan’, in view of (US-20170283524-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Wang’ in view of (US-6399245-B1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Wu’, in view of ‘Surface modification of over-lithiated layered oxide by low-temperature chemical vapor deposition for high energy lithium-ion batteries’ hereinafter referred to as ‘Son’.
Regarding Claim 17,
Modified Hassan does not teach the electrochemical energy storage device of claim 12, wherein the cathode comprises a lithium metal oxide, spinel, olivine, carbon-coated olivine, vanadium oxide, lithium peroxide, sulfur, polysulfide, a lithium carbon monofluoride or mixture thereof.
Son teaches wherein the cathode comprises a lithium metal oxide, spinel, olivine, carbon-coated olivine, vanadium oxide, lithium peroxide, sulfur, polysulfide, a lithium carbon monofluoride or mixture thereof (Son, “The OLO powder of Li1.18Ni0.17Co0.1Mn0.56O2”, Experimental).
Son teaches that this cathode material shows improved performance, rate capability, high initial capacity (Son, “the surface modified OLO shows improved performance due to its enhanced rate capability, high initial capacity, and long cycle life.”, see Abstract)
Hassan and Son are analogous as they both relate to the same field of lithium-ion batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cathode as taught in Hassan, with the cathode material as taught in Son in order to improve the rate capabilities of the cell overall.
Regarding Claim 18,
Modified Hassan teaches the electrochemical energy storage device of claim 12, wherein the cathode is a transition metal oxide material and comprises an over-lithiated oxide material (Son, “In comparison to traditional lithium-ion battery cathode materials, over-lithiated layered oxides cathodes (OLOs) contain extra lithium ions.”, see Abstract).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by ‘Evidence of covalent synergy in silicon–sulfur–graphene yielding highly efficient and long-life lithium-ion batteries’ hereinafter referred to as ‘Hassan’, in view of (US-20170283524-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Wang’, in view of (US-6399245-B1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Wu’, in view of ‘Separator technologies for lithium-ion batteries’, hereinafter referred to as ‘Huang’
Regarding Claim 19,
Hassan does not teach the electrochemical energy storage device of claim 12, further comprising: a porous separator separating the anode and the cathode from each other.
Huang teaches a porous separator separating the anode and the cathode from each other (Huang, “Commercial separators are made of porous polyolefin membranes.”, Introduction).
Huang also teaches that porous separators have small thickness, great chemical resistance, and good mechanical properties (Huang, “They have small thickness, excellent chemical resistance, and good mechanical properties”, Conclusion)
Hassan and Huang are analogous as they are of the same field of lithium-ion batteries.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cell as taught in Hassan with the separator as taught in Huang in order to improve the chemical resistance, mechanical properties, and minimize the thickness of the separator.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pg. 6, the applicant argues:
“As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would, in fact, not be motivated to add elemental sulfur to the anode of Hassan because it would not appear to improve conductivity any further than what is already accomplished by the presence of sulfur-doped graphene, and it would make the anode more expensive and complex to produce without any associated benefit. For at least this reason, there is no motivation for the modification to Hassan proposed in the Office Action, and as such, a proper prima facie case of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 has not been established against claim 12. The rejection of claims 12-14, 16, and 20 as being obvious over the combination of Hassan and Wang should therefore be withdrawn.”
However, this is not convincing. The examiner notes that one of the benefits of the sulfur as taught in Wang is the increase in capacity (Wang, “The sulfurized polyacrylonitrile used as the cathode material of the lithium-ion battery has a high specific capacity.”, see [0003]). Therefore, even if the sulfur doped graphene increased conductivity, one of ordinary skill in the art would still have been motivated to add the elemental sulfur in order to increase capacity. The applicant asserts there would have been no associated benefits of adding elemental sulfur in addition to a sulfur doped graphene. However, the examiner does not find evidence that this combination is taught against in the cited references. Therefore, the detrimental effects of the combination are speculative.
The requirement for a prima facie case of obviousness is that rationale has some advantages (see MPEP 2144 (II)). Wang teaches an advantage in terms of capacity. Therefore, there is a proper prima facie case of obviousness.
In terms of amended claim 1, the examiner has added to the record ‘Wu’, which teaches the claimed range of elemental sulfur. All dependent claims remain rejected.
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 SEAMUS PATRICK MCNULTY whose telephone number is (703)756-1909. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:00am to 5pm.
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 on (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.
/S.P.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights