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 .
Examiner’s Comments
Applicants’ response filed on 10/15/2025 has been fully considered. Claims 2-3 are cancelled and claims 1 and 4-13 are pending.
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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (KR 20180077794 A) in view of Ha et al (KR 20200061293 A).
Machine translations are being used as the English translations for Lee et al (KR 20180077794 A) and Ha et al (KR 20200061293 A).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a lithium-sulfur battery (electrochemical device; paragraph [0001]) comprising:
a positive electrode containing at least one sulfur-modified polyacrylonitrile-based compound as an active material (cathode comprising a cathode active material layer including sulfurized polyacrylonitrile; paragraphs [0046]) and [0112]);
a negative electrode (anode; paragraph [0012]); and
an electrolyte comprising: a second solvent containing diglyme (a non-aqueous solvent where the non-aqueous solvent includes at least one selected from carbonate solvents, ester solvents, ether solvents, ketone solvents, alcohol solvents and aprotic solvents; and wherein the wherein the ether solvent comprises diglyme; paragraph [0120]); and a lithium salt (paragraph [0118]).
Lee does not disclose the lithium-sulfur battery comprising a first solvent containing a heterocyclic compound having one or more double bonds and any one of an oxygen atom or a sulfur atom.
However, Ha discloses an electrolyte for a lithium-sulfur battery comprising an additive comprising a first solvent containing a heterocyclic compound having one or more double bonds and any one of an oxygen atom and a sulfur atom (a heterocyclic compound containing one or more double bonds and containing an oxygen atom or a sulfur atom; paragraphs [0027]-[0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the lithium-sulfur battery of Lee to include the heterocyclic compound of Ha in the electrolyte of Lee because having the heterocyclic compound increases uniformity of the reaction of the lithium-based metal, suppresses formation of lithium dendrites and improves the life characteristics of the battery (paragraphs [0023]-[0024] of Ha).
Lee does not disclose the lithium-sulfur battery comprising the second solvent not containing an ether-based compound other than diglyme.
However, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to choose the non-aqueous solvent to be an ether solvent of diglyme because doing so allows for the lithium salt to be dissolved so that it can act as a source of lithium ions within the battery enabling the basic operation of a lithium secondary battery (paragraph [0122] of Lee).
Lee does not disclose the lithium-sulfur battery comprising the second solvent contained in an amount of 40 to 80% by volume relative to 100% by volume of the total solvent contained in the electrolyte.
However, Ha discloses an electrolyte for a lithium-sulfur battery comprising the heterocyclic compound included in a volume ratio of 0.1 to 100 with respect to 100 volume ratio of organic solvent (paragraph [0037]).
The heterocyclic compound included in a volume ratio of 0.1 to 100 with respect to 100 volume ratio of organic solvent overlaps the claimed amount of second solvent relative to 100% by volume of total solvent contained in the electrolyte.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference in order to have a protective film formed on the lithium-based metal and prevent reduced battery life (paragraph [0038] of Lee). It has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Please see MPEP 2144.05, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claims 4-5, Lee and Ha disclose the lithium-sulfur battery of claim 1 as noted above.
Lee does not disclose the lithium-sulfur battery comprising the heterocyclic compound being 2-methylfuran.
However, Ha discloses an electrolyte for a lithium-sulfur battery comprising the heterocyclic compound comprising 2-methylfuran (paragraph [0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the lithium-sulfur battery of Lee to include the heterocyclic compound of 2-methylfuran Ha in the electrolyte of Lee because having the heterocyclic compound, such as 2-methylfuran, increases uniformity of the reaction of the lithium-based metal, suppresses formation of lithium dendrites and improves the life characteristics of the battery (paragraphs [0023]-[0024] of Lee).
Regarding claims 6-7, Lee and Ha disclose the lithium-sulfur battery of claim 1 as noted above and Lee discloses the lithium-sulfur battery comprising the lithium salt containing LiFSI (paragraph [0122]).
Regarding claim 8, Lee and Ha disclose the lithium-sulfur battery of claim 1 as noted above and Lee discloses the lithium-sulfur battery comprising the lithium salt having a concentration of 0.1 mol/liter to 2 mol/liter (paragraph [0122]).
The concentration of the lithium salt disclosed in Lee overlaps the claimed range for the concentration of lithium salt.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference in order to enable basis operation of a lithium secondary battery and promote movement of lithium ions between the positive and negative electrodes (paragraph 0122] of Lee). It has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Please see MPEP 2144.05, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 9, Lee and Ha disclose the lithium-sulfur battery of claim 1 as noted above.
Lee does not disclose the lithium-sulfur battery comprising the electrolyte comprising lithium nitrate.
However, Ha discloses an electrolyte for a lithium-sulfur battery comprising an additive of lithium nitrate (paragraph [0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the lithium-sulfur battery of Lee to include the lithium nitrate in the electrolyte of because having an additive of lithium nitrate provides enhanced stability of a solid electrolyte interphase and improved lithium deposition.
Regarding claim 10, Lee and Ha disclose the lithium-sulfur battery of claim 1 as noted above and Lee discloses the lithium-sulfur battery comprising the sulfurized polyacrylonitrile represented by at least one selected from Formulas 1 to 5 (paragraphs [0052]-[0065]).
Regarding claim 11, Lee and Ha disclose the lithium-sulfur battery of claim 1 as noted above and Lee discloses the lithium-sulfur battery comprising the positive electrode active material layer comprising a porous metal additive represented by Formula 6 of M1.8Co1.2O4 where M is at least one selected from Zn, Co, Cu, Fe, Ni and Mn (paragraphs [0046] and [0092]-[0100]).
Regarding claim 12, Lee and Ha disclose the lithium-sulfur battery of claim 1 as noted above and Lee discloses the lithium-sulfur battery comprising a sulfur-carbon composite (sulfurized polyacrylonitrile comprising 40% to 60 mass% of carbon, 15 to 30 mass% of sulfur, 10 to 25 mass% of nitrogen and 1 to 5 mass% of hydrogen; paragraph [0085]).
Regarding claim 13, Lee and Ha disclose the lithium-sulfur battery of claim 1 as noted above and Lee discloses the lithium-sulfur battery comprising the sulfur-modified polyacrylonitrile-based compound comprising 15 to 45% by weight of sulfur (sulfurized polyacrylonitrile comprising 15 to 30 mass% of sulfur; paragraph [0085]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue that Lee does not disclose the second solvent not containing an ether-based solvent other than diglyme and the second solvent contained in an amount of 40 to 80% by volume of the total solvent contained in the electrolyte.
This argument is not persuasive as paragraph [0120] of Lee discloses that the organic solvent in the electrolyte can be an ether solvent and that the ether solvent can contain diglyme. The claimed amount of the second solvent by volume of the total solvent contained in the electrolyte is disclosed by Ha in the rejection noted above.
Applicants argue that Ha cannot cure the deficiencies of Lee.
This argument is not persuasive as Ha is a teaching reference used to teach a heterocyclic compound.
However, note that while Ha does not disclose all the features of the present claimed invention, Ha is a teaching reference, and therefore, it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather this reference teaches certain concepts, namely a heterocyclic compound, and in combination with the primary reference, discloses the presently claimed invention.
Applicants argue that Lee and Ha do not provide explicitly motivation for a skilled person to select diglyme among the range of ether solvents and that a person skilled in the art would not adopt diglyme among the glyme compounds.
This argument is not persuasive as it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to choose the non-aqueous solvent to be an ether solvent of diglyme because doing so allows for the lithium salt to be dissolved so that it can act as a source of lithium ions within the battery enabling the basic operation of a lithium secondary battery (see paragraph [0122] of Lee).
Applicants argue that Ha would not adopt diglyme among the glyme compounds.
This argument is not persuasive as Lee is being used to disclose diglyme and the rationale to use diglyme among other ether solvents is noted in the previous response to argument above.
Applicants argue that the examples of Lee and Ha do not use diglyme as an electrolyte solvent.
This argument is not persuasive as the Examiner is referring to the disclosure of Lee in order to disclose diglyme as the second solvent.
Applicants argue that Lee and Ha do not teach or suggest the specific configuration of the second solvent in the electrolyte and that the unexpected and superior results would not have been apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art.
This argument is not persuasive as the claims are not commensurate in scope with the data in Applicant’s Specification. Examples 1-5 of Applicant’s Specification are for a lithium-sulfur battery comprising a positive electrode containing a sulfur-modified polyacrylonitrile-based compound of Formula 1, a lithium metal negative electrode require a first solvent of 2-methylfuran contained in an amount of 20 to 60% by volume relative to 100% by volume of the total solvent contained in the electrolyte, a second solvent of diglyme contained in an amount of 40 to 80% by volume relative to 100% by volume of the total solvent contained in the electrolyte and a lithium salt of LiFSI having a concentration of 1.0 M; while the claim 1 requires the lithium-sulfur battery comprising the positive electrode containing any sulfur-modified polyacrylonitrile-based compound, any negative electrode, any first solvent containing a heterocyclic compound having one or more double bonds and any one of an oxygen atom or a sulfur atom and any lithium salt.
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 SATHAVARAM I REDDY whose telephone number is (571)270-7061. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM-6:00 PM EST.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571)-272-1291. 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.
/SATHAVARAM I REDDY/Examiner, Art Unit 1785