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. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of FILLIN "Enter claim indentification information" \* MERGEFORMAT Group I, claims 1-6 and 13-18 in the reply filed on FILLIN "Enter mail date of the reply." \* MERGEFORMAT November 19, 2025 is acknowledged. Claim FILLIN "Enter claim identification information" \* MERGEFORMAT 7-12 and 19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected FILLIN "Enter the appropriate information" \* MERGEFORMAT invention , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on FILLIN "Enter mail date of the reply." \* MERGEFORMAT November 19, 2025 . Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement s (IDS) submitted on FILLIN "Enter date IDS was filed" \* MERGEFORMAT January 24, 2023 and April 15, 2024 have been considered by the examiner. 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 FILLIN "Pluralize \“Claim\” if necessary, insert \“is\” or \“are\” as appropriate, and insert the claim number(s) which are under rejection." 4 is 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. Regarding claim 4 , the claim recites that the first and second MOF comprise a metal ion and an organic ligand, however, as a metal organic framework is defined by metal ions bonded with organic ligands, this claim does not further limit the first and second MOF of claim 1. 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. (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. Claim s FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 1 and 4- 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being FILLIN "Insert either—clearly anticipated—or—anticipated—with an explanation at the end of the paragraph." \d "[ 3 ]" anticipated by FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 4 ]" Cui , et al. ( CN 110212194 A ), cited on IDS . 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 Z n /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 Z n /Co-MOF-74) and a shell comprising a second MOF (ZIF), wherein the shell is doped with nitrogen. Regarding claim 4 , C u i teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Both ZIF and the core MOF (Co-BTC, Zn/Co-BTC, or Zn/Co-MOF-74) include a metal ion and an organic ligand. Regarding claim 5 , Cui teaches all of the limitations of claim 4 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. Regarding claim 6 , Cui teaches all of the limitations of claim 4 above. The options for the core MOF (Co-BTC, Zn/Co-BTC), used in Example 5, include a carboxylate as the organic ligand. Claim s FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 1-6 and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 FILLIN "Insert either \“(a)(1)\” or \“(a)(2)\” or both. If paragraph (a)(2) of 35 U.S.C. 102 is applicable, use form paragraph 7.15.01.aia, 7.15.02.aia or 7.15.03.aia where applicable." \d "[ 2 ]" (a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being FILLIN "Insert either—clearly anticipated—or—anticipated—with an explanation at the end of the paragraph." \d "[ 3 ]" anticipated by FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 4 ]" 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. Regarding claim 2 , Cho teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and 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 m 2 /g to 4000 m 2 /g, further specifying that the preferred specific surface area is 1500 m 2 /g to 3000 m 2 /g, and even more preferably 2000 m 2 /g to 2500 m 2 /g, within the claimed range of 1500 m 2 /g to 3000 m 2 /g (¶ [0029], Ln. 1-3). Regarding claim 4 , Cho teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches that the metal-organic framework comprises metal ions and multitopic organic linkers (¶ [0023], Ln. 1-3), teaching that the metal-organic framework is prepared by dissolving a metal and organic ligand precursor in a proper solvent (¶ [0024], Ln. 1-3). Regarding claim 5 , Cho teaches all of the limitations of claim 4 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). Regarding claim 6 , Cho teaches all of the limitations of claim 4 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). Regarding claims 13 and 16-18 , 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). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT SARAH J JACOBSON whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (703)756-1647 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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. /SARAH J JACOBSON/ Examiner, Art Unit 1785 /MARK RUTHKOSKY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1785