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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 August 21, 2026 has been entered.
Summary
The Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments received August 21, 2026 have been entered into the file. Currently, claim 1 is amended; claims 2, 4, 16, and 18 are cancelled; and claims 7-12 and 19 are withdrawn; resulting in claims 1, 3, 5-6, 13-15, and 17 pending for examination.
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 1, 3, 5, 13-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, et al. (CN 108962618 A) in view of Chu, et al. (CN 106025239 A).
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Zhang teaches a yolk-shell nitrogen-doped porous carbon to be used as an electrode material (¶ [0008], Ln. 1-7). Specifically, Zhang teaches a method for preparing a yolk-single-shell nitrogen doped hollow porous carbon wherein ZIF-67 particles are prepared, coated with a ZIF-8 shell, then coated with a ZIF-67 shell (shell is formed in the form of a separate layer on the core) (¶ [0024]-[0026]). The ZIF-67@ZIF-8@ZIF-67 core-shell structure is calcined and then the resulting carbon material is washed with a nitric acid solution (¶ [0027], Ln. 1-3). Thus, Zhang teaches a porous carbon structure having a core-shell structure in which the core comprises ZIF-67 (first MOF) and the shell comprises ZIF-67 doped with nitrogen (second MOF is the first MOF doped with a hetero element comprising one or more selected from N or S). Zhang teaches the use of the carbon material as an electrode material for a supercapacitor, but also recognizes the use in lithium-ion batteries, and additional applications (¶ [0053], Ln. 7-9). Zhang does not expressly teach that the carbon material has a pore volume of 1.5 cc/g to 4.5 cc/g. Zhang also does not expressly teach that the carbon material is used in a positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery.
Chu teaches a nitrogen-doped hierarchical porous carbon nanosheet prepared using a metal organic framework precursor used as a cathode material in lithium-sulfur batteries (¶ [0008], Ln. 7-10). Specifically, Chu teaches the use of a nitrogen-containing metal organic framework including zinc and an organic ligand such as imidazole, 2-methylimidazolium, 4-methylimidazolium, pyrazole, 3-methylpyrazole or piperazine (¶ [0037]-[0038]). Chu teaches that when the nitrogen-doped hierarchical porous carbon nanosheet is used as a cathode material in lithium-sulfur batteries, it exhibits excellent sulfur fixation and electron/ion transport characteristics (¶ [0008], Ln. 9-12). Chu teaches that the preferred pore volume of the carbon nanosheets is 0.1-4.5 cm3/g (¶ [0059], Ln. 1). Chu teaches that the pore volume includes micropores, mesopores, and macropores. Micropores reduce the dissolution and diffusion of polysulfides, and mesopores and macropores provide a larger pore volume which is beneficial to the wetting of electrolyte and the transport of lithium ions (¶ [0064], Ln. 1-8). Chu teaches that carbonization temperature affects the specific surface area and pore volume of the carbon material (¶ [0107], Ln. 13-16). Further, Chu teaches that large specific surface area and pore volume allow sulfur to be uniformly dispersed, resulting in good contact between sulfur and carbon (¶ [0108], Ln. 12-16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the carbon material of Zhang in a cathode for a lithium-sulfur battery based on the teachings of Chu. As Zhang teaches the use of the carbon material in electrodes and Chu teaches the use of a similar carbonized MOF as a cathode for a lithium-sulfur battery, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to apply the core/shell carbon material of Zhang to a cathode for a lithium-sulfur battery. Further, in using the material in a cathode for a lithium-sulfur battery, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to look to the teachings of Chu for pore volume. As Chu teaches that a pore volume of 0.1-4.5 cm3/g is preferred for the carbon material in the application of a cathode material, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to select a pore volume within that range, overlapping the claimed range of 1.5-4.5 cm3/g. Further, as Chu teaches that large specific surface area and pore volume allow sulfur to be uniformly dispersed, resulting in good contact between sulfur and carbon, one would be motivated to select a pore volume on the higher end of the range, within the claimed range of 1.5-4.5 cm3/g. Additionally, based on the teachings of Chu, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that pore volume can be optimized using the carbonization temperature.
Regarding claim 3, Zhang in view of Chu teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above, including a carbonized MOF structure used as a cathode material for a lithium-sulfur battery. Zhang does not expressly teach that the specific surface area of the carbon structure is 1500-3000 m2/g.
Chu teaches that the carbon material has a specific surface area of 200-5000 m2/g (¶ [0064], Ln. 1-4). Chu teaches the advantages of a large specific surface area in relationship to pore volume, teachings that micropores provide a large specific surface area, allowing sulfur to contact the carbon material better (¶ [0106], Ln. 7-10). Chu further teaches that large specific surface area and pore volume allow sulfur to be uniformly dispersed, resulting in good contact between sulfur and carbon (¶ [0108], Ln. 12-16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the specific surface area of the carbon material of Zhang to have a specific surface area of 200-5000 m2/g, overlapping the claimed range of 1500-3000 m2/g, based on the teachings of Chu. Similarly stated above, in using the material in a cathode for a lithium-sulfur battery, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to look to the teachings of Chu for specific surface area. As Chu teaches that large specific surface area and pore volume allow sulfur to be uniformly dispersed, resulting in good contact between sulfur and carbon, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to target a specific surface area such as 3000 m2/g.
Regarding claim 5, Zhang in view of Chu teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and Zhang further teaches that the metal ion included in the first and second MOF is cobalt (ZIF-67) (¶ [0024], Ln. 1-3).
Regarding claims 14-15, Zhang in view of Chu teaches all of the limitations of claim 13 above, including a carbonized MOF structure used as a cathode material for a lithium-sulfur battery. Chu further teaches a lithium secondary battery including a cathode, anode, separator provided between the cathode and anode, and electrolyte solution, wherein the carbonized MOF is loaded with sulfur and used as the cathode active material (¶ [0080], Ln. 1-12). Chu teaches that when the carbon material is used as a cathode material for lithium-sulfur batteries, the resulting batteries have good cycle performance and rate capability (¶ [0008], Ln. 9-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the cathode material of Zhang in view of Chu in a lithium-sulfur battery as taught by Chu. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the lithium-sulfur battery of Chu would be best suited for the carbon-sulfur cathode material of Zhang in view of Chu. Thus, the battery would include a cathode, anode, separator provided between the cathode and anode, and electrolyte solution, wherein the cathode includes the carbonized MOF of Zhang in view of Chu, meeting the limitations of claim 1, loaded with sulfur. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use this carbonized MOF in the cathode in order to produce a lithium-sulfur battery having good cycle performance and rate capability.
Regarding claim 17, Zhang in view of Chu teaches a carbonized MOF structure used as a cathode material for a lithium-sulfur battery meeting the limitations of claim 3 above. Chu further teaches a lithium secondary battery including a cathode, anode, separator provided between the cathode and anode, and electrolyte solution, wherein the carbonized MOF is loaded with sulfur and used as the cathode active material (¶ [0080], Ln. 1-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the cathode material of Zhang in view of Chu meeting the limitations of claim 3 in a cathode as taught by Chu. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the cathode of Chu would be best suited for the carbon-sulfur cathode material of Zhang in view of Chu. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use this carbonized MOF in the cathode in order to produce a lithium-sulfur battery having good cycle performance and rate capability.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, et al. (CN 108962618 A) in view of Chu, et al. (CN 106025239 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang (US 2017/0222217 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Zhang in view of Chu teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Chu further teaches that the organic ligand of the metal organic framework is preferably a nitrogen containing organic ligand (¶ [0038], Ln. 1-3). Zhang in view of Chu does not expressly teach that the organic ligand of the first and second MOF is one or more selected from the group consisting of halide, carboxylate, isocyanate, isothiocyanate, nitrile, pyridyl, nitroso, nitro and phosphate.
Wang teaches open framework composites such as enriched metal organic framework composites for use in lithium batteries (¶ [0006], Ln. 1-4), specifically teaching the use of ZIF-67 as a suitable MOF (¶ [0010], Ln. 1-10). Wang teaches that in producing ZIF composites, the organic linking compound is unsubstituted or substituted imidazole, unsubstituted or substituted benzimidazole, unsubstituted or substituted triazole, unsubstituted or substituted benzotriazole, or unsubstituted or substituted purine (¶ [0061], Ln. 1-8). Wang then provides several options for derivatives of imidazoles including substituting with nitro, nitrile, halo, carboxyl, and pyridyl groups (¶ [0062]-[0063], ¶ [0071]-[0072]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the ZIF metal organic framework of Zhang in view of Chu to include a substituted imidazole as taught by Wang. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a carbon -enriched open framework is required for the carbon structure of the cathode material and would find it obvious to look to Wang for teachings on carbon-enriched ZIF for use in cathode materials of lithium batteries. As Zhang and Chu teach the use of ZIF-based metal organic frameworks, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that a substituted imidazole may be used as the organic ligand for the metal organic framework. One or ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the substituted imidazole, including a group such as a nitro, nitrile, halo, carboxyl, and pyridyl group would serve the same purpose as the organic ligand of the metal organic framework.
Response to Arguments
Response-Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103
In light of the amendments to claim 1 requiring that the second MOF is the first MOF doped with a hetero element and that the shell is formed in the form of a separate layer on the core, and the cancellation of claim 16, the previous rejections of claims 1, 3, 5-6, and 13-17 under 35 U.S.C. 102 over Cho, et al. (WO 2019/0663969 A2) and the previous rejections of claims 1 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Cui, et al. (CN 110212194 A) in view of Cho have been withdrawn. 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH J JACOBSON whose telephone number is (703)756-1647. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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.
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.
/SARAH J JACOBSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1785
/MARK RUTHKOSKY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1785
