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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/17/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 12/17/2025 has been entered. Claims 19, 24, and 25 have been amended. Claims 19-30 are pending. The amendment to the specification is accepted.
Specification
The objection to the specification is withdrawn in view of the amendment to the specification filed on 12/17/2025.
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.
Claims 19-28, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji et al. (A highly ordered nanostructured carbon–sulphur cathode for lithium–sulphur batteries, NATURE MATERIALS, VOL 8, PGS 500-506, JUNE 2009), hereinafter “Ji”, in view of Yanagi et al. (Effects of Polysulfide Solubility and Li Ion Transport on Performance of Li–S Batteries Using Sparingly Solvating Electrolytes, Journal of The Electrochemical Society, 2020 167 070531), hereinafter “Yanagi” as evidenced by Fuertes et al. (Synthesis of ordered nanoporous carbons of tunable mesopore size by templating SBA-15 silica materials, Microporous and Mesoporous Materials 67 (2004) 273–281), hereinafter “Fuertes”. Ji et al. and Yanagi et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely Li batteries and electrolytes.
In regard to Claim 19 and 24-25 Ji et al. discloses an electrochemical cell comprising an anode (Ji, Page 502, Col 2), a cathode comprising greater than 65 wt.% sulfur, wherein the cathode comprises a carbon-sulfur composite material; and wherein the composite material comprises greater than 65 weight % sulfur based on the total weight of the composite material (Ji, 70% Sulfur/30% Carbon, Page 502). Ji et al. also discloses wherein the carbon sulfur composite material is formed from an electroconductive carbon material (CMK-3) having an average pore volume of 0.28-2.1 cm3 g-1 (Ji, Page 502, Col 2), which overlaps the claimed range and further comprises a particle diameter of 1 µm (Ji, Page 502, Col 1, Fig 1b), which falls within the claimed range.
Ji et al. also discloses wherein the average pore diameter of CMK-3 is 3.3 nm (Ji, Table 1). While the BJH pore diameter of CMK-3 is recorded as 3.3nm in Ji and using BJH to measure pore diameter, by definition requires at least 45% of the pores in the carbon in the electroconductive carbon material having a diameter falling within the measured range, the pore diameter is not particularly limited and in fact is tuneable by the skilled artisan to a precise amount in a range of 2.2-3.3nm as evidenced by Fuertes et al., which discloses CMK-3 carbons with a pore diameter which can be adjusted over a narrow range between 2.2 and 3.3 nm (Fuertes, pg 274). Therefore, providing a CMK-3 with a pore diameter of 2.5nm or less would amount to nothing more than a result effective variable to be optimized by the skilled artisan based on design incentives or other market forces.
While Ji discloses an electrolyte comprised of an ether solvent with an alkali metal salt (Ji, Page 505) and acknowledges novel advances in material design such as new electrolytes (Ji, Pg 500, Col 2), it is silent as to the electrolyte having a solubility for sulfur-containing species of less than 15 mM.
Yanagi et al. discloses an emerging class of electrolytes used in Li–S batteries with beneficial electrolytes comprising [Li(G4)0.8][TFSA]−4.3HFE and [Li(SL)2][TFSA]−4.0HFE wherein the solubility for sulfur-containing species is low (1 mM), which is less than the claimed 15 mM. These electrolytes are taught as being capable of suppressing polysulfide dissolution and shuttling, resulting in high Coulombic efficiency (Yanagi, Abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide an electrolyte such as those taught in Yanagi et al. to the electrochemical cell disclosed in Ji et al. as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Yanagi, and as doing so would amount to nothing more than the use of known material to improve similar devices in the same way.
In regard to Claim 20, Ji et al. in view of Yanagi et al. disclose the electrochemical cell of claim 19. Ji et al. also discloses a specific example with an electrolyte comprising 1.2M LiPF6 solution in ethyl methyl sulphone (Ji, Page 505, Col 2), which is by definition a liquid electrolyte.
In regard to Claim 21, Ji et al. in view of Yanagi et al. disclose the electrochemical cell of claim 19. Ji et al. also discloses a specific example with an anode comprising lithium metal (Ji, Page 505, Col 2), which is by definition an alkali metal.
In regard to Claims 22-23, Ji et al. in view of Yanagi et al. disclose the electrochemical cell of claim 20. While Ji et al. discloses an electrolyte with a (EMS) solvent and an alkali metal salt (LIPF6), it fails to explicitly disclose a solvent listed in the claimed group of solvents, even though the original specification supports EMS (Original Specification, Paragraph [0046]). Yanagi et al. teaches beneficial electrolytes comprising [Li(G4)0.8][TFSA]−4.3HFE and [Li(SL)2][TFSA]−4.0HFE (Yanagi, Abstract), which comprise Glyme (linear ether) and HFE (halogenated ether) which falls within the claimed group. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide an electrolyte such as those taught in Yanagi et al. to the electrochemical cell disclosed in Ji et al. as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Yanagi, and as doing so would amount to nothing more than a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
In regard to Claim 26, Ji et al. in view of Yanagi et al. disclose the electrochemical cell of claim 19. Ji et al. also discloses a specific example wherein the cathode further comprises electronically conductive carbon additives (Super-S carbon), and optionally further comprises a binder (PVDF) (Ji, Pg 505, Col 2).
In regard to Claim 27, Ji et al. in view of Yanagi et al. disclose the electrochemical cell of claim 19. Ji et al. also discloses a specific example wherein the sulfur material comprises elemental sulfur (Ji, Pg 503, Col 2).
In regard to Claim 28, Ji et al. in view of Yanagi et al. disclose the electrochemical cell of claim 19. While Ji et al. discloses an electrolyte with a (EMS) solvent and an alkali metal salt (LIPF6), and acknowledges novel advances in material design such as new electrolytes (Ji, Pg 500, Col 2), it is silent as to the electrolyte having a density of less than 1.5 g cm3.
Yanagi et al. teaches beneficial electrolytes comprising [Li(G4)1][TFSA]−4.0HFE and [Li(G4)1.5][TFSA]−3.4HFE, which have densities of 1.489 and 1.435 respectively (Yanagi, Table 1) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide an electrolyte such as those taught in Yanagi et al. to the electrochemical cell disclosed in Ji et al. as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Yanagi, and as doing so would amount to nothing more than applying a known material to a known device, ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
In regard to Claim 30, Ji et al. in view of Yanagi et al. disclose the electrochemical cell of claim 19. Ji et al. also discloses a lithium sulfur cell (Ji, Title, Abstract).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji et al. (A highly ordered nanostructured carbon–sulphur cathode for lithium–sulphur batteries, NATURE MATERIALS, VOL 8, PGS 500-506, JUNE 2009), hereinafter “Ji”, in view of Yanagi et al. (Effects of Polysulfide Solubility and Li Ion Transport on Performance of Li–S Batteries Using Sparingly Solvating Electrolytes, Journal of The Electrochemical Society, 2020 167 070531), hereinafter “Yanagi” as evidenced by Fuertes et al. (Synthesis of ordered nanoporous carbons of tunable mesopore size by templating SBA-15 silica materials, Microporous and Mesoporous Materials 67 (2004) 273–281), hereinafter “Fuertes”, as applied to claim 19 above and further in view of Visco et al. (US 20040126653 A1), hereinafter “Visco”. Ji, Yanagi, and Visco et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely Li batteries and electrolytes.
In regard to Claim 29, Ji et al. in view of Yanagi et al. disclose the electrochemical cell of claim 19. While Ji et al. discloses a lithium metal anode and mentions novel advances in material design such as protective films for the lithium anode (Ji, Pg, 500, Col 2), it is silent as to the composition of the protective layer.
Ji directly cites Visco et al. (Ji, Pg, 506, #19) as an example of the beneficial anode protective layer comprising an ionically conducting layer having a beneficial electronic conductivity of 10-7 S cm to 10 -3 S cm (Visco, Paragraph [0012]), which overlaps the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a protective layer as taught in Visco et al. to the anode disclosed in Ji et al. as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Visco and as doing so would amount to nothing more than applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection no longer relies on the previous secondary reference applied in the prior rejection of record and a newly cited reference (Yanagi et al.) is introduced wherein Ji in view of Yanagi et al. teaches all of the features of amended claim 1 including the electrolyte for a Li-S battery with the claimed properties. In regard to the argument of the average pore diameter of the carbon material, Ji et al. discloses an embodiment wherein CMK-3 is provided and as disclosed in the 35 U.S.C rejection of Claim 19 above, as evidenced by Fuertes et al. the pore diameter of CMK-3 can be adjusted over a narrow range between 2.2 and 3.3 nm (Fuertes, pg. 274), which is a variable to be optimized by the skilled artisan and overlaps the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference, as overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. 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). See MPEP § 2144.05.
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 KENNETH MAX OTERO whose telephone number is (571)272-2559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F Generally 7:30-430.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/K.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725