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 .
Remarks
Claim 11, 13, 36 has been amended, claims 14, 17-19, 23-35 are as previously presented. Claims 11, 13-14, 17-19, and 23-36 are presently presented
Status of objections and rejection
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/08/2026 has been entered.
Objection
Claims 1 and 13 line 11 recites:
PNG
media_image1.png
32
724
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This appears to be a grammatical mistake and should read “wherein the lithium transition metal…”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 36 rejected 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. Claim 11 line 11-12 recites the limitation:
PNG
media_image2.png
70
714
media_image2.png
Greyscale
While dependent claim 36 line 2-3 recites the limitation:
PNG
media_image3.png
60
716
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The above limitation of claim 36 does not further limit the limitation noted above in claim 11.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) 11, 18, 23-25, 27, and 35-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son (US20160190561A1) and in view of Chae (US20190148726A1).
Regarding claim 11, Son discloses a positive electrode composition for lithium sulfur batteries [0011, Son], the positive electrode composition comprising: a sulfur-carbon composite that comprises a carbon material having void spaces and an elemental sulfur containing material disposed in the void spaces of the carbon material [0028-0029, Son];
For clarity of the record, Son discloses that the sulfur material may be melted and mixed with a porous carbon material. One of ordinary skill within the arts prior to the effective filing date would understand that if a melted (“sulfur) material is mixed with a porous material then the melted (“sulfur”) material would in part be present in the pores (“void space”).
Son continues to teaches of an inorganic (“lithium transition metal composite”) oxide [0018, 0022-0027, Son], wherein the lithium transition metal composite oxide comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of La and Ti as a transition metal [0025, 0027, Son discloses that one may use LixLayTiO3 , 0<x<2, 0<y<3], wherein a content rate of the lithium transition metal composite oxide to the sulfur-carbon composite is 0.5-10mass % [0041, Son].
Son’s disclosure anticipates the applicant’s claimed rate of 0.1-30 mass%.
Son teaches of that the inorganic (“lithium transition metal composite”) oxide is disposed as a porous coating layer [0034, Son].
However, they are explicitly silent to wherein the lithium metal composite oxide particles are dotted about partially on the outer surface of the carbon material.
However, Chae teaches of a positive active material for a secondary battery in which the positive active material (2) has a lithium oxide coating layer (1) including W dotted about partially on the outer surface of the positive active material [abstract, 0019, 0049, fig. 1, Chae]. Chae notes that the coating layer may be a uniform coating or an island coating [0049, Chae], but an island coating may have a smaller sheet resistance which may improve battery performance [0049, Chae].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Son such that the coating layer of lithium oxide is in the form of spheres/islands and dotted partially around the outer surface of the carbon material. Doing so can allow for the coating layer to have a smaller sheet resistance which may improve battery performance [0049, Chae].
Regarding claim 18, Son discloses the positive electrode composition for lithium sulfur batteries, wherein the lithium transition metal composite oxide is disposed more on an outer surface of the carbon material than in an inside thereof [0014, 0064, 0081, Son].
Regarding claim 23, Son discloses the positive electrode composition for lithium sulfur batteries, further comprising a conductive additive [0044-0045, Son].
Regarding claim 24, Son discloses the positive electrode composition for lithium sulfur batteries, further comprising a liquid medium [0053-0056, Son].
Regarding claim 25, Son discloses A positive electrode for lithium sulfur batteries [0013, Son], the positive electrode comprising: a current collector [0066, Son]; and a positive electrode active material layer that is disposed on the current collector [0066, Son], wherein the positive electrode active material layer comprises the positive electrode composition for lithium sulfur batteries according to claim 11 [0018-0028, 0066, Son].
Regarding claim 27, Son discloses a lithium sulfur battery comprising: the positive electrode for lithium sulfur batteries [0012, Son]; a negative electrode [0012, Son]; and an electrolyte disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode [0012, Son].
Regarding claim 35, Son discloses the positive electrode composition for lithium sulfur batteries, wherein the mass ratio of the material containing elemental sulfur to the total mass of the carbon material and the elemental sulfur-containing material is 25% by mass or more and 95% by mass or less [0030, Son].
The examiner notes that Son’s teaching of the weight ratio of carbon : sulfur of the sulfur-carbon composite may be 1:20 or more and 1:1 or less reads on the applicant’s claimed range. For instance, when the mass ratio of sulfur:carbon is 20:1 then the mass ratio of sulfur:carbon and sulfur would be 20:21 = 95%. When the mass ratio of sulfur to carbon is 1:1 then the mass ratio of sulfur:carbon and sulfur would be 1:2 = 50%.
This anticipates the applicant’s claimed range.
Regarding claim 36, Son discloses the positive electrode composition for lithium sulfur batteries, wherein the lithium transition metal composite oxide is dispersed on the outer surface of the carbon material [0014, 0064, 0081, Son].
Claim(s) 13, 19, 26, 28, and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son (US20160190561A1) and in view of Chae (US20190148726A1).
Regarding claim 13, Son discloses a positive electrode composition for lithium sulfur batteries [0011, Son], the positive electrode composition comprising: a sulfur-carbon composite that comprises a carbon material having void spaces and an elemental sulfur containing material disposed in the void spaces of the carbon material [0028-0029, Son];
For clarity of the record, Son discloses that the sulfur material may be melted and mixed with a porous carbon material. One of ordinary skill within the arts prior to the effective filing date would understand that if a melted (“sulfur) material is mixed with a porous material then the melted (“sulfur”) material would in part be present in the pores (“void space”).
Son continues to disclose an inorganic (“lithium transition metal composite”) oxide [0018, 0022-0027, Son], wherein a content rate of the lithium transition metal composite oxide to the sulfur-carbon composite is 0.5-10mass % [0041, Son].
Son’s disclosure anticipates the applicant’s claimed rate of 0.1-30 mass%.
Son teaches of that the inorganic (“lithium transition metal composite”) oxide is disposed as a porous coating layer [0034, Son]. Where the inorganic oxide may be ZrO2 [0021, Son].
However, they are explicitly silent to 1) wherein the lithium metal composite oxide particles are dotted about partially on the outer surface of the carbon material. 2) the use of a lithium transition metal composite oxide wherein the transition metal is Zr or W.
In regards to 1) and 2), Chae teaches of a positive active material for a secondary battery in which the positive active material (2) has a lithium oxide coating layer (1) including W (e.g. LiWO3, LiAlWO4) dotted about partially on the outer surface of the positive active material [abstract, 0019, 0048-0049, 0103, fig. 1, Chae]. Chae notes that the coating layer may be a uniform coating or an island coating [0049, Chae], but an island coating may have a smaller sheet resistance which may improve battery performance [0049, Chae].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Son such that the coating layer of lithium oxide including W is in the form of spheres/islands and dotted partially around the outer surface of the carbon material. Doing so can allow for the coating layer to have a smaller sheet resistance which may improve battery performance [0049, 0110-0116, fig. 5-6, Chae].
Regarding claim 19, modified Son discloses the positive electrode composition for lithium sulfur batteries, wherein the lithium transition metal composite oxide is disposed more on an outer surface of the carbon material than in an inside thereof [0014, 0064, 0081, Son].
Regarding claim 26, modified Son discloses a positive electrode for lithium sulfur batteries, the positive electrode comprising: a current collector [0066, Son]; and a positive electrode active material layer that is disposed on the current collector [0066, Son], wherein the positive electrode active material layer comprises the positive electrode composition for lithium sulfur batteries [0018-0028, 0066, Son].
Regarding claim 28, modified Son discloses a lithium sulfur battery comprising: the positive electrode for lithium sulfur batteries [0012, Son]; a negative electrode [0012, Son]; and an electrolyte disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode [0012, Son].
Regarding claim 31, modified Son discloses the positive electrode composition for lithium sulfur batteries, wherein the transition metal comprises W [abstract, 0019, 0048-0049, 103, Chae] .
Claim(s) 14, 29, 30, 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son (US20160190561A1) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Nogami (JP2017188301A).
Regarding claim 14, modified Son discloses the use of LiWO3 and Li2WO3. But is explicitly silent to the use of lithium tungstate (Li2WO4).
However, Nogami discloses a sulfur-carbon composite wherein sulfur is distributed in the pores and on the surface of a porous carbon material [0014, Nogami]. Wherein, the surface of the sulfur-carbon composite is coated with a metal oxide such as Li2WO4 [0028, Nogami].
The examiner notes that Nogami additionally teaches of using lithium zirconate (Li2ZrO3) [0028, Nogami].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Son such that the sulfur-carbon composite had a coating-layer comprised Li2WO4 (lithium tungstate). Doing so makes it possible to suppress polysulfides from being separated from the carbon material and promote good cycle characteristics [0028, Nogami].
Regarding claim 29 and 30, modified Son is silent to the use of Zr as the transition metal.
However, Nogami discloses a sulfur-carbon composite wherein sulfur is distributed in the pores and on the surface of a porous carbon material [0014, Nogami]. Wherein, the surface of the sulfur-carbon composite is coated with a metal oxide such as Li2ZrO3 (lithium zirconate) [0028, Nogami].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Son such that the sulfur-carbon composite had a coating-layer comprised Li2ZrO3 (lithium zirconate). Doing so makes it possible to suppress polysulfides from being separated from the carbon material and promote good cycle characteristics [0028, Nogami].
Regarding claim 32, modified Son discloses the positive electrode composition for lithium sulfur batteries according to claim 14, wherein the lithium transition metal composite oxide comprises lithium tungstate [0028, Nogami].
Claim(s) 17, and 33-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Son as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Lanning (US20190386314A1) and Kokado (US2017098821A1).
Regarding claim 17, Son is explicitly silent to: 1) the particle diameter of the lithium transition metal oxide and 2) carbon material.
In regards to 1) Lanning discloses a lithium sulfur battery with an active material comprised of a sulfur-carbon composite that comprises a carbon material having void spaces and sulfur containing material disposed in the void spaces of the carbon material [0005-0008, 0024, 0030, 0036, Lanning], and a lithium transition metal composite oxide [0019, 0026, 0084 Lanning]. Wherein the size of the carbon ranges from 0.1-50 µm [0005, Lanning].
Prior to the effective filing date one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to utilizes the carbon range disclosed by Lanning. Doing so would provide a carbon scaffold with high surface area (up to 300 m2/g) [0006, Lanning].
In regards to 2), Kokado discloses a positive active material coated with lithium tungstate (“lithium transition metal composite oxide”) [0040-0047, 0050, Kokado]. The average particle diameter of the lithium tungstate is preferably 0.1-5 µm [0046, Kokado].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Son such that the lithium transition metal composite oxide had an average particle diameter of 0.1-5 µm. Doing so provides one with the ability to uniformly coat and a positive active material allowing for sufficient lithium ion conductivity while reducing the chances of deteriorating cycle characteristics [0046, Kokado].
The examiner notes that as presently modified the particle diameter of the lithium transition metal composite oxide ranges from 0.1-5 µm and a carbon particle diameter ranging from 1-50 µm. The ratio of the particle size of lithium composite oxide : carbon particle diameter overlaps with the applicant’s claimed range of 0.0002 – 0.2.
LMO particle size (µm)
Carbon particle size (µm)
LMO:C Ratio
0.1
1
0.1
0.1
50
0.002
5
1
5
5
50
0.1
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 (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 33, modified Son is silent to the specific surface area of the carbon material.
However, Lanning discloses a specific surface area of the carbon material is 50-300 m2/g [0006, Lanning’s disclosed range overlaps with the applicants claimed range of 100 m2/g or more and 2,000 m2/g or less].
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 (see MPEP 2144.05).
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Son such that the specific surface area of the carbon material ranged from 50-300 m2/g. Doing so would provide a material with a high surface area [0069, Lanning].
Regarding claim 34, modified Son is silent to: 1) the carbon material being secondary particles and 2) the particle size of the carbon material.
However, Lanning teaches a positive electrode composition for lithium sulfur batteries, wherein the carbon material comprises secondary particles formed by aggregation of primary particles [0047, Lanning], and that the volume-average particle diameter of the secondary particles is 1-50 µm [0047, Lanning’s disclosure anticipates the applicant’s claimed range of 0.5 µm or more and 100 µm or less].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See below for additional details.
Regarding the 35 USC§ 112 rejection. The examiner has updated the rejection in light of the amendments to the claims. However, The examiner maintains the rejection as claim 36 fails to further limit claim 1.
In response to the applicant’s amendments. The examiner has introduced Chae to read on the lithium transition metal composite oxide particles being dotted about partially on the outer surface of the carbon material.
Applicant argue that Son and Nogami do not provide motivation to arrive at the claimed invention. However, in response to claim amendments the examiner points to Son and Chae to read on the claimed limitations.
Applicant argues that Son and Nogami teach away from eliminating the coating layer in favor of dispersed particles. The examiner notes that the applicant alleges this and does not point to specifics within the art to back up this claim. The examiner’s present stance is that Son (nor Nogami) teach away from the use of dispersing particles instead of forming a coating layer.
No additional arguments have been presented; the examiner maintains their rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chen (US20120009477A1) an anode material with a carbon core and a lithium metal oxide island coating layer.
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 QUINTIN DALE ELLIOTT whose telephone number is (703)756-5423. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-6pm (MST).
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 5712705256. 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.
/QUINTIN D. ELLIOTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/STEWART A FRASER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724
