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, 13-14 has been amended, claim 12 has been cancelled, claims 29-32 are newly added. Claims 11 and 13-32 are presently presented
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/08/2026 has been entered.
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_image1.png
60
697
media_image1.png
Greyscale
While dependent claim 36 line 2-3 recites the limitation:
PNG
media_image2.png
55
629
media_image2.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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 11, 18, 23-25, 27, and 35-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Son (US20160190561A1).
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 disclose 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[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%.
Finally, Son discloses that the inorganic (“lithium transition metal composite”) oxide is disposed as a coating layer [0034, Son].
The use of a coating layer reads on “partially on the outer surface of the carbon material”.
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 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) 13-14, 19, 26, and 28-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son (US20160190561A1) and in view of Nogami (JP2017188301A)
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%.
Finally, Son discloses that the inorganic (“lithium transition metal composite”) oxide is disposed as a coating layer [0034, Son].
The use of a coating layer reads on “partially on the outer surface of the carbon material”.
Son discloses the use of ZrO2 as an inorganic oxide [0021, Son]. But is explicitly silent to the use of a lithium transition metal composite oxide wherein the transition metal is Zr or W.
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 and Li2WO4 [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 of Li2ZrO3 and Li2WO4. Doing so makes it possible to suppress polysulfides from being separated from the carbon material and promote good cycle characteristics [0028, Nogami].
Regarding claim 14, modified Son discloses the positive electrode composition for lithium sulfur batteries, wherein the lithium transition metal composite oxide comprises lithium zirconate [0028, Nogami], or the lithium transition metal composite oxide comprises lithium tungstate [0028, Nogami].
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 and 0014, 0028, Nogami].
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 29, modified Son discloses a positive electrode composition for lithium sulfur batteries, wherein the transition metal comprises Zr [0028, Nogami].
Regarding claim 30, modified Son discloses the positive electrode composition for lithium sulfur batteries, wherein the lithium transition metal composite oxide comprises lithium zirconate [0028, Nogami].
Regarding claim 31, modified Son discloses the positive electrode composition for lithium sulfur batteries, wherein the transition metal comprises W [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 Nogami 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 04/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See below for additional details.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 11 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.
In regards to newly amended independent claim 13. As cited in the rejection of claim 13 above Son teaches the amended limitation.
No additional arguments have been presented, the examiner maintains their rejection.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights