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 .
Summary
The Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments received April 7, 2026 have been entered into the record. Currently, claims 1 and 5-6 are amended; claims 2, 4, and 18 are cancelled; and claims 7-12 and 19 are withdrawn; resulting in claims 1, 3, 5-6, and 13-17 pending for examination.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5-6 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cho, et al. (WO 2019/066369 A2).
Regarding claim 1, Cho teaches a carbon-sulfur composite including a carbonized metal-organic framework (MOF) and a sulfur compound introduced to at least a part of an outside surface and an inside of the carbonized metal-organic framework (¶ [0013], Ln. 1-4). As Cho teaches that the carbonized metal-organic framework is combined with sulfur and heated such that the sulfur compound may impregnate the carbonized metal-organic framework (¶ [0045], Ln. 1-4), there would be a higher content of sulfur-carbon composite on the outside surface of the carbonized metal-organic framework. In this case, the sulfur-carbon composite (sulfur-doped second MOF) on at least a part of the outside surface of the carbonized metal-organic framework is the shell of the particle, with the remaining carbonized metal-organic framework (first MOF) being the core. Cho further teaches that the carbonized metal-organic framework may have a pore volume of 0.1 cc/g to 10 cc/g, further specifying that the preferred pore volume is 2.2 cc/g to 3.0 cc/g, and even more preferably 2.2 cc/g to 2.5 cc/g, within the claimed range of 1.5 cc/g to 4.5 cc/g (¶ [0030], Ln. 1-3).
Regarding claim 3, Cho teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches that the carbonized metal-organic framework may have a specific surface area of 1000 m2/g to 4000 m2/g, further specifying that the preferred specific surface area is 1500 m2/g to 3000 m2/g, and even more preferably 2000 m2/g to 2500 m2/g, within the claimed range of 1500 m2/g to 3000 m2/g (¶ [0029], Ln. 1-3).
Regarding claim 5, Cho teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches that the metal of the metal-organic framework may be selected from the group consisting of copper (Cu), zinc (Zn), iron (Fe), nickel (Ni), chromium (Cr), scandium (Sc), cobalt (Co), titanium (Ti),manganese (Mn), vanadium (V), aluminum (Al), magnesium (Mg), gallium (Ga), and indium (In) (¶ [0026], Ln. 1-5). Specifically, Example 1 uses zinc (¶ [0086], Ln. 1), such that zinc is the metal ion of the first MOF and second MOF.
Regarding claim 6, Cho teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches that the ligand of the metal-organic framework may be selected from the group consisting of 1,4-benzenedicarboxylate (BDC), 1,3,5-benzenetricarboxlate (BTC), 1,1'-biphenyl-3,3',5,5'-tetracarboxylate (BPTC), and 2-(N,N,N',N'-tetrakis(4-carboxyphenyl)-biphenyl-4,4'-diamine (TCBTDA) (¶ [0026], Ln. 6-9). Specifically, Example 1 uses 1,4-benzenedicarboxylate (consisting of a carboxylate) (¶ [0086], Ln. 1), such that the ligand of the first MOF and second MOF comprises a carboxylate group.
Regarding claims 13 and 16-17, Cho teaches that the carbon-sulfur composite meeting the limitations of claims 1-4 above is used as a positive electrode active material of a lithium secondary battery, preferably a lithium-sulfur battery (¶ [0055], Ln. 1-3).
Regarding claim 14, Cho teaches all of the limitations of claim 13 above and further teaches that the lithium-sulfur battery includes sulfur as a positive electrode active material (¶ [0056], Ln. 1). As a sulfur-carbon composite is formed, the carbon acts a sulfur carrier.
Regarding claim 15, Cho teaches that the positive electrode meeting the limitations of claim 13 above is used in a lithium secondary battery including the positive electrode, a negative electrode, a separator provided between the positive electrode and negative electrode, and an electrolyte including a lithium salt and an organic solvent (¶ [0070], Ln. 1-6).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui, et al. (CN 110212194 A) in view of Cho, et al. (WO 2019/066369 A2).
Regarding claim 1, Cui teaches a porous carbon@nitrogen-doped porous carbon core-shell structure using a one-dimensional MOF@ZIF core-shell structure (¶ [0027], Ln. 1-2), further teaching that the MOF of the core is preferably one of Co-BTC, Zn/Co-BTC, or Zn/Co-MOF-74 (¶ [0013], Ln. 1-2). Thus, Cui teaches a porous carbon structure with a core comprising a first MOF (Co-BTC, Zn/Co-BTC, or Zn/Co-MOF-74) and a shell comprising a second MOF (ZIF), wherein the shell is doped with nitrogen. Cui does not expressly teach the pore volume of the porous carbon core-shell structure, and thus does not expressly teach that the pore volume is 1.5 cc/g to 4.5 cc/g.
Cho teaches a carbon-sulfur composite including a carbonized metal-organic framework (MOF) and a sulfur compound introduced to at least a part of an outside surface and an inside of the carbonized metal-organic framework (¶ [0013], Ln. 1-4). Cho teaches that the carbonized metal organic framework has a preferred pore volume is 2.2 cc/g to 3.0 cc/g, and even more preferably 2.2 cc/g to 2.5 cc/g (¶ [0030], Ln. 1-3). Cho teaches that this pore volume provides enough space for sulfur to be introduced without decreasing specific surface area (¶ [0030], Ln. 2-4).
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 pore volume of the porous carbon core-shell structure of Cui to have a pore volume of 2.2 cc/g to 2.5 cc/g based on the teachings of Cho. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the porous carbon structures have similar roles in electrodes of lithium batteries and would find it obvious to look to the teachings of Cho for pore volume. Further, while Cui teaches doping the structure with nitrogen and Cho teaches introducing sulfur, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that nitrogen and sulfur are similar in size, and would find it obvious to apply the teaching to the porous carbon core-shell structure of Cui. One would be motivated to include this pore volume in order to provide enough space for nitrogen doping without decreasing specific surface area.
Regarding claim 5, Cui in view of Cho teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. ZIF includes zinc ions and the options for the core MOF (Co-BTC, Zn/Co-BTC, or Zn/Co-MOF-74) include cobalt and/or zinc ions.
Response to Arguments
Response-Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 112
The previous rejection of claim 4 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 is overcome by Applicant’s cancellation of claim 4 in the response filed April 7, 2026.
Response-Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 102
In light of the Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 to limit the pore volume of the porous carbon structure, the previous rejections of claims 1 and 4-6 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) over Cui, et al. (CN 110212194 A) have been overcome, however, upon further consideration, the reference is applicable under 35 U.S.C. 103 and used in combination with Cho, et al. (WO 2019/066369 A2) in the rejections above. Any arguments with respect to the reference that are still deemed valid will be addressed herein.
Applicant's arguments filed April 7, 2026 with respect to Cho, et al. (WO 2019/066369 A2) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues, see pages 8-9 of the remarks, that the claimed invention requires two separate MOF structures with different elemental compositions forming a hierarchical arrangement and that Cho does not teach a core-shell structure comprising two distinct MOFs. This argument is not persuasive. In response to the Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a hierarchical structure) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). While it is acknowledged that paragraph [0034] of the instant specification defines a hierarchical structure as “a structure in which a shell is formed in the form of a separate layer on a core in a porous carbon structure having a core-shell structure,” the specification does not further indicate a core-shell structure must be hierarchical and the claim similarly does not require a hierarchical structure. As Cho teaches that the carbonized metal-organic framework is combined with sulfur and heated such that the sulfur compound may impregnate the carbonized metal-organic framework (¶ [0045], Ln. 1-4), there would be a higher content of sulfur-carbon composite on the outside surface of the carbonized metal-organic framework. In this case, the sulfur-carbon composite having a higher content of sulfur on at least a part of the outside surface of the carbonized metal-organic framework is the shell of the particle, with the remaining carbonized metal-organic framework being the core.
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 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
Prosecution Insights