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 .
Summary
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments submitted January 8, 2026 have been entered into the file. Currently, claims 2, 4-11, 15, and 19 are cancelled, claims 1, 12-14, and 17-18 are amended, and claims 20-21 are new, resulting in claims 1, 3, 12-14, 16-18, and 20-21 pending for examination.
Specification
The use of the terms Black Pearls®2000, Ketjenblack®, Super P® carbon black, and Teflon which are trade names or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application (instant specification [16], [20], [59], [64]). The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM, or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 recites the limitation "the conductive carbon matrix" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears applicant intends for “the conductive carbon matrix” to be the “conductive agent” of instant claim 13 and is interpreted as such, pending clarification from applicant.
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.
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, 3, 12-13, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park-2 in view of Gaojie, Choi, Emerce, and Kong.
Park-2 (US 2023/0163359 A1, previously prior art made of record and not relied upon in the Non-Final Office Action)
Gaojie (Gaojie Xu, et al. Formulation of Blending Lithium Salt Electrolytes for Lithium Batteries. Angewandte Chemie International Edition. 59, 3400-3415 (2020))
Choi (Choi, H. et al. A LiPF6 LiFSI Blended Salt Electrolyte System for Improved Electrochemical Performance of Anode Free Batteries. Journal of Electrochemical Science and Technology. 2022, 13, 1, 78-89. Published online August 13, 2021)
Emerce (Emerce, N. B. et al. Effect of Electrolyte-to-Sulfur Ratio in the Cell on the Li-S Battery Performance. Journal of the Electrochemical Society. 166, 8, A1490-A1500 (2019))
Kong (Kong, L. et al. Towards full demonstration of high areal loading sulfur cathode in lithium-sulfur batteries. Journal of Energy Chemistry. 39, 17-22 (2019))
Regarding claims 1, 3, 12, and 20, Park-2 teaches an electrochemical energy storage device (lithium-sulfur battery, Park-2 Example 1) comprising a sulfur cathode (sulfur-carbon composite positive electrode active material, Park-2 Example 1), a metal anode (lithium metal negative electrode, Park-2 Example 1), a separator (polyethylene separator, Park-2 Example 1), and an electrolyte comprising a conducting salt (Salt A) at a concentration of 1 M (lithium bis(trifluoromethansulfonyl)imide, LiTFSI, Park-2 Example 1, a dissolving solvent (Solvent C) (dimethoxyethane, DME, Park-2 Example 1), and a diluent solvent (Solvent D) (1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl 2,2,3,3-tetrafluoropropyl ether, TTE, Park-2 Example 1), wherein Solvent D and Solvent C are present at a volume ratio of 2.3 (7/3, Park-2 Example 1). Park-2 teaches the cathode having a loading amount of 4.0 mAh/cm2 (Park-2 [65]). Park further teaches that is it is possible and desirable to have a high loading amount of active material “even in a relatively small volume” (Park-2 [55]).
Park-2 does not teach the electrolyte containing an SEI engineering salt (Salt B).
Park-2 teaches the cathode comprising an aluminum foil current collector (Park-2 Example 1 [65]).
Gaojie teaches a blended lithium salt electrolyte for use in lithium batteries (Gaojie abstracts) and that adding LiPF6 to an electrolyte containing LiTFSI can inhibit aluminum foil corrosion (Gaojie Section 2.1.3).
Since both Park-2 and Gaojie teach batteries comprising an electrolyte containing LiTFSI and Gaojie teaches that adding LiPF6 can inhibit aluminum foil corrosion, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add LiPF6 to the electrolyte of Park-2 in order to prevent aluminum foil corrosion.
Choi teaches that the specific capacity and stability of batteries is impacted by the ionic conductivity of the electrolyte. Choi teaches an electrolyte containing lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (LiFSI) and 0.2 M LiPF6. Choi teaches that the concentration of LiPF6 added to the electrolyte impacts ionic conductivity and that lower concentrations result in higher ionic conductivity (Choi Fig. 5, pg. 82 right column last paragraph to top of page 83). Additionally, it is noted that the concentration taught by Choi (0.2 M) is substantially close to 0.1 M which falls within the claimed range.
Since Choi teaches a LiPF6 concentration that is substantially close to the claimed range when used with a sulfonyl imide-based lithium salt, as used by modified Park-2, and that the concentration of LiPF6 can impact ionic conductivity, where lower concentrations result in higher ionic conductivity, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to tune the concentration of LiPF6 in modified Park-2, including concentrations within the claimed range of 0.02 M to 0.1 M, in order to obtain an electrolyte with suitable ionic conductivity for a desired battery application.
Park-2 is silent regarding the areal active material loading (mg/cm2) and electrolyte to sulfur ratio (µL/mg) of Example 1.
Kong teaches lithium-sulfur batteries, as taught in Park-2, and that tuning parameters such as the size of the composite cathode and separator composition can improve performance of the battery and sulfur utilization (Kong pg. 18 left column). Kong further teaches that it is desirable to have high areal sulfur loading in order to obtain lithium-sulfur batteries with high energy density (Kong pg. 19 right column) and that a sulfur loading of 4.5 mg/cm2 is desirable (Kong abstract).
Since Park-2 teaches that it is desirable to have high loading of active material and Kong teaches that high areal loading of sulfur is desired and that components of the battery, such as the electrolyte and separator, can be chosen to obtain optimal performance according to the cathode material and areal loading being used, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fabricate the electrochemical energy storage device of Park-2 wherein the areal active material loading of the cathode is within the claimed ranges of about 2.5 mg/cm2 or greater (instant claim 1) and about 2.5 mg/cm2 to about 20.0 mg/cm2 (instant claim 2) in order to obtain an electrochemical energy storage device with suitable performance for a desired application.
Emerce teaches the electrolyte-to-sulfur ratio impacts the performance of lithium-sulfur batteries (Emerce Abstract) and that the ratio may be tuned to achieve improved specific energy and energy density (Emerce Conclusions). Emerce further teaches that there is a ratio value above which the improvements are no longer observed (Emerce Conclusions).
Since Park-2 and Emerce teach lithium-sulfur batteries and Emerce teaches that tuning the electrolyte-to-sulfur ratio can impact battery performance, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to tune the electrolyte-to-sulfur ratio of the electrochemical energy storage device of Park-2, including amounts within the claimed ranges of about 10.0 µL/mg or less (instant claim 1) and about 10.0 µL/mg to about 0.5 µL/mg (instant claim 3), in order to achieve an electrochemical energy storge device with suitable specific energy and energy density for a desired application.
Regarding claims 13 and 17, Park-2 in view of Gaojie, Choi, Emerce, and Kong teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Park-2 further teaches the sulfur cathode comprising a sulfur/carbon electrochemical active composite (sulfur-carbon composite, Park-2 Example 1), carbon black as a conductive agent (Denka black, Park-2 Example 1), and a binder that is a combination of carboxy methyl cellulose and styrene butadiene rubber (Park-2 Example 1).
Regarding claim 16, Park-2 in view of Gaojie, Choi, Emerce, and Kong teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Park-2 further teaches the binder being a combination of carboxymethyl cellulose and styrene butadiene rubber with a weight ratio of 0.43 (SBR:CMC = 7:3, CMC/SBR = 3/7 = 0.43, Park Example 1).
It has been held that 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 (I).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen a combination of CMC and SBR binders wherein the ratio of CMC to SBR is within the claimed range of about 0.5 to about 5, because ranges that are merely close have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
The examiner notes that the instant specification recites “approximately or about can mean up to plus or minus 10% of the particular term” (instant specification [38]).
Regarding claim 18, Park-2 in view of Gaojie, Choi, Emerce, and Kong teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Park-2 further teaches the metal anode comprising lithium (Park-2 Example 1, lithium metal).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park-2 in view of Gaojie, Choi, Emerce, and Kong, as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and in further view of Xu (Xu, G. et al. Selenium and Selenium-Sulfur Chemistry for Rechargeable Lithium Batteries: Interplay of Cathode Structures, Electrolytes, and Interfaces. ACS Energy Letters. 2, 605-614 (2017)).
Regarding claim 14, Park-2 in view of Gaojie, Choi, Emerce, and Kong teaches all features of claims 1 and 13, as described above. Park-2 teaches the use of a sulfur-carbon composite in the cathode (Park-2 Example 1). However, Park-2 does not teach the active material being a selenium-sulfur/carbon composite.
Xu teaches that using active material comprising selenium in addition to sulfur can result in higher electronic conductivity than using only sulfur, thus enabling “a higher loading of active material in the electrode” and an increase in the overall energy density (Xu pg. 611 right column last paragraph). Xu teaches that selenium and selenium-sulfur cathode materials are desirable for use in rechargeable batteries due to the high electronic conductivity and high volumetric capacity of selenium. Xu further provides examples of cathode materials comprising selenium, sulfur, and carbon (Xu Table 2; Fig. 3a).
Since Xu teaches that the addition of selenium to cathode active materials can improve electronic conductivity and battery performance, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add selenium (Se) to the cathode of Park-2 in order to improve electronic conductivity and battery performance.
Adding any amount of Se to the cathode composite material of Park-2 (sulfur-carbon composite, Park Example 1) would result in a material comprising sulfur, selenium, and carbon, which would inherently result in x > 0, y > 0, 0 < p ≤ 100 (p greater than 0), 0 ≤ q < 100, p + q = 100, wherein x, y, p, and q are weight percentage values.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park-2 in view of Gaojie, Choi, Emerce, and Kong, as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and in further view of Seung (Seung-Wan Song, et al. Effect on aluminum corrosion of LiBF4 addition into lithium imide electrolyte; a study using the EQCM. Electrochimica Acta. 49, 1483-1490 (2004)).
Regarding claim 21, Park-2 in view of Gaojie, Choi, Emerce, and Kong teaches all features of claims 1 and 12, as described above. Modified Park-2 does not teach Salt B being lithium tetrafluoroborate.
Seung teaches adding LiBF4 to an electrolyte containing LiTFSI for use in lithium batteries (Seung abstract). Seung further teaches that LiBF4 can suppress aluminum foil (aluminum film current collector) corrosion (Seung abstract).
Since both LiBF4 and LiPF6 are both known to inhibit aluminum foil corrosion when used in electrolytes in lithium batteries (LiBF4 taught by Seung; LiPF6 taught by Gaojie, as described above for claim 1), it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute LiBF4 for LiPF6 in the modified electrochemical energy storage device of Park-2 in order to obtain the predictable result of the inhibition of aluminum foil corrosion. The simple substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to someone of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2413(I)(B).
Response to Arguments
Response – Specification Objections
The objection to the specification due to paragraph numbering and the objection to the abstract due to improper language usage are overcome by applicant’s amendments to the specification and abstract in the response received on January 8, 2026. These objections to the specification and abstract are withdrawn.
The objection due to trade names is maintained. The terms are not accompanied by generic terminology, as described above.
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC § 112
The rejections of claims 13-15 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention are overcome by the cancelation of claim 15 and the amendments to claims 13-14 and 18 in the response received January 8, 2026. These rejections of claims 13-15 and 18 are withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to trade names is overcome by the amendments to claim 17 in the response received January 8, 2026. This rejection of claim 17 is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to lack of antecedent basis is not overcome, as described above. This rejection of claim 17 is maintained.
The rejections of claims 14-15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends are withdrawn overcome by the amendments to claim 14 and cancelation of claim 15 in the response received January 8, 2026. These rejections of claims 14 and 15 are withdrawn.
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments filed January 8, 2026 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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.
On pages 9-12 of the response, Applicant appears to allege that the claimed invention yields unexpected results. Applicant appears to allege that the unexpected results stem from the specific salt used and the concentration of said salt.
It is noted that it is the burden of Applicant to provide evidence that establishes that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance. See MPEP 716.02(b)(I). Applicants have the burden of explaining proffered data. See MPEP 716.02(b)(II). It is further noted that in order to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, Applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. See MPEP 716.02(d) II. Additionally, the claims must be commensurate in scope with the proffered data to provide a nexus between the claims and the data establishing evidence of unexpected results. See MPEP 716.02(d).
The data presented in the instant disclosure and remarks received January 8, 2026 do not appear to be commensurate in scope with independent claim 1 and do not appear to compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed ranges.
Claim 1 requires that Salt A be selected from a group of compounds; however, the data presented in the instant disclosure only include LiTFSI. Additionally, claim 1 claims the concentration of Salt A being about 1 M to 5 M; however, only a single concentration for Salt A (1.6 M) is used in the data presented in the instant disclosure.
Claim 1 claims the concentration of Salt B being about 0.02 M to 0.1 M; however, only concentrations of 0 M, 0.05 M, 0.1 M, and 0.15 M are used in the data presented in the instant disclosure (Fig. 4). Specially, there is no data presented between 0 M and 0.02 M to support the unexpected result associated with the endpoint of 0.02 M in the claimed range.
On page 10 of the response, Applicant states that “the capacity of the 0 M LiBF4 is worst” and that a concentration of 0.15 M and greater results in capacity retention that is worse relative to cells with 0.05 M and 0.1 M.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Instead of 0 M, as alleged by Applicant, the data in Fig. 4 (drawings filed September 28, 2022) show that a concentration of 0.15 M results in the “worst” performance (specific capacity and coulombic efficiency). Additionally, the data in Fig. 4 shows that a concentration of 0.1 M yields lower specific capacity and coulombic efficiency than 0 M, thus an electrolyte without LiBF4 results in better performance relative to an electrolyte having a LiBF4 concentration of 0.1 M, which is a concentration within the claimed range for Salt B.
PNG
media_image1.png
851
985
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Song (US 2023/0140648 A1): appears to disclose an electrolyte solution for lithium-sulfur batteries (abstract) comprising LiTFSI, acetonitrile, and TTE (Preparation Example 1). Song appears to further disclose a lithium-sulfur battery comprising the electrolyte, styrene butadiene rubber (SBR) and carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) as binders, Denka black conductive agent, and a sulfur-carbon composite (Example 1).
Cao (US 20220115706 A1): appears to disclose an electrolyte for lithium ion batteries comprising lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (LiFSI), 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl-2,2,3,3-tetrafluoropropyl ether (TTE), ethylene carbonate (EC), and lithium hexafluorophosphate LiPF6 (Table 23, Electrolyte LHCE-34).
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 JULIA S CASERTO whose telephone number is (571)272-5114. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5 pm ET.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/J.S.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789