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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received December 31, 2025:
Claims 1-13 are pending. Claim 14 has been cancelled as per applicant’s request.
The previous claim objections are withdrawn in light of the amendment.
The previous prior art rejection has been withdrawn in light of the amendment. However, a new prior art rejection has been made below. All changes to the rejection are necessitated by the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “…the positive electrode active material entirely covers a surface of the porous carbon sheet facing the separator…”. However, there is no clear support or written description in the specification nor drawings for “…entirely covers…” and the limitation is not expressly, implicitly or inherently disclosed.
Claims 2-13 are also rejected due to dependency on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 4, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manthiram et al. (US 2017/0092954) in view of Zhamu et al. (US 2018/0219214).
Regarding Claim 1, Manthiram et al. teaches an Li-S battery (Fig. 3, #100) (i.e. a cell) comprising a cathode (Fig. 3, #10) (i.e. a positive electrode), an anode (Fig. 3, #110) (i.e. a negative electrode) and a separator (Fig. 3, #120) (Para. [0107]) (i.e. a separator interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode), wherein the cathode comprises a porous carbon material layer (Fig. 1, #20) (i.e. a porous carbon sheet), and a cathode active material layer (Fig. 1, #30) (i.e. a positive electrode active material layer containing a positive electrode active material) formed on the porous carbon material layer (i.e. formed on the porous carbon sheet, wherein the positive electrode active material entirely covers a surface of the porous carbon sheet facing the separator) (see Fig. 1 and Fig. 3) and contains S-based cathode active materials in its pores (i.e. pores of the porous carbon sheet are filled with the positive electrode active material) (Para. [0090]).
Manthiram et al. does not explicitly teach only some of the pores of the porous carbon sheet are filled with the positive electrode active material.
However, Zhamu et al. teaches a cathode layer containing a sheet of graphite worms composed of multiple pores (i.e. a porous carbon sheet) with a cathode active material with the particles of the cathode active material residing in some of these pores, with some pores remaining unoccupied (Para. [0075]) (i.e. only some of the pores of the porous carbon sheet are filled with the positive electrode active material).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the porous carbon layer of Manthiram et al. to incorporate the teaching of only some of the pores of the porous carbon sheet are filled with the positive electrode active material as taught by Zhamu et al., as such a structure would act as a cushion to volume expansion of the cathode active material particles (Para. [0075]), hence not inducing a volume change of the entire cathode layer and not exerting internal pressure to the battery (Para. [0023]).
Regarding Claim 4, Manthiram et al. as modified by Zhamu et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Manthiram et al. further teaches the average largest dimension of the particles of the S-based active material is no larger than 10 micrometers (Para. [0093]) (i.e. wherein the positive electrode active material has an average particle size of 30 micrometers or less).
Regarding Claim 10, Manthiram et al. as modified by Zhamu et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Manthiram et al. further teaches the carbon layer (i.e. porous carbon sheet) may be formed from nanocarbon paper referred to as buckypaper including carbon nanofibers (Para. [0086]) and wherein the buckypaper has fibrous architecture (Para. [0133]) (i.e. a porous sheet is made of fibrous carbon).
Regarding Claim 12, Manthiram et al. as modified by Zhamu et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Manthiram et al. further teaches the cathode active material layer (Fig. 1, #30) (i.e. a positive electrode active material layer) formed on the porous carbon material layer (i.e. covers a surface of the porous carbon sheet facing the separator) (see Fig. 1 and Fig. 3) and contains S-based cathode active materials in its pores (i.e. a part of the pores of the positive electrode active material layer is held in the pores of the porous carbon sheet) (Para. [0090]).
Claims 2-3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Manthiram et al. (US 2017/0092954) in view of Zhamu et al. (US 2018/0219214) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ahn et al. (US 2022/0367873A).
Regarding Claim 2, Manthiram et al. as modified by Zhamu et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Manthiram et al. further teaches the cathode active material layer (Fig. 1, #30) (i.e. a positive electrode active material layer) formed on the porous carbon material layer (i.e. covers a surface of the porous carbon sheet facing the separator) (see Fig. 1 and Fig. 3) and contains S-based cathode active materials in its pores (i.e. a part of the pores of the positive electrode active material layer is held in the pores of the porous carbon sheet) (Para. [0090]).
Manthiram et al. not teach a surface of the positive electrode active material layer facing the separator has an arithmetic average roughness (Ra) of 10 micrometers or less or a maximum height roughness (Rz) of 50 micrometers or less.
However, Ahn et al. teaches a lithium battery comprising a positive electrode (Para. [0037]) comprising a positive electrode active material wherein the positive electrode active material layer has an arithmetic mean surface roughness of the positive electrode of 1 micrometer to 5 micrometers (i.e. a surface of the positive electrode active material layer facing the separator has an arithmetic average roughness of 10 micrometers or less) (Para. [0044]) and a maximum height roughness of 10 micrometers or more and 55 micrometers or less (Para. [0045]) (i.e. overlapping with the claimed range of a maximum height roughness of 50 micrometers or less).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positive electrode active material layer Manthiram et al. to incorporate the teaching of the surface properties as taught by Ahn et al., as such excellent surface properties would result in small irregularities preventing the formation of dendrites (Para. [0025]) and prevent internal short circuit and ignition of the battery (Para. [0044], [0045]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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(I).
Regarding Claim 3, Manthiram et al. as modified by Zhamu et al. and Ahn et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 2 as explained above.
Manthiram et al. does not teach a surface of the positive electrode active material layer facing the separator has an arithmetic average roughness (Ra) of 5 micrometers or less.
However, Ahn et al. teaches a lithium battery comprising a positive electrode (Para. [0037]) comprising a positive electrode active material comprising a positive electrode active material which comprises a sulfur-carbon composite(Para. [0052]) which is a porous carbon material providing a skeleton to which the sulfur can be uniformly and stably fixed (Para. [0055]) (i.e. a positive electrode active material layer wherein at least a part of the positive electrode active material is held in the pores of the porous carbon sheet and facing the separator) wherein the positive electrode active material layer has an arithmetic mean surface roughness of the positive electrode of 1 micrometer to 5 micrometers (i.e. a surface of the positive electrode active material layer facing the separator has an arithmetic average roughness of 5 micrometers or less) (Para. [0044]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positive electrode active material layer Manthiram et al. to incorporate the teaching of the surface properties as taught by Ahn et al., as such excellent surface properties would result in small irregularities preventing the formation of dendrites (Para. [0025]) and prevent internal short circuit and ignition of the battery (Para. [0044]).
Regarding Claim 5, Manthiram et al. as modified by Zhamu et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Manthiram et al. does not teach the separator is made a nonwoven fabric.
However, Ahn et al. teaches a separator made of a non-woven fabric (Para. [0104]).
The substitution of the non-woven fabric porous separator as taught by Ahn et al. (Para. [0104]) for the porous separator of Manthiram et al. would achieve the predictable result of providing a porous separator disposed between a positive electrode and a negative electrode for a lithium battery enabling the transport of lithium ions therebetween (Manthiram et al. – Para. [0107] and Ahn et al. [0103]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to substitute of the non-woven fabric porous separator as taught by Ahn et al. (Para. [0104]) for the porous separator of Manthiram et al. as the substitution would achieve the predictable result of providing a porous separator disposed between a positive electrode and a negative electrode for a lithium battery enabling the transport of lithium ions therebetween (Manthiram et al. – Para. [0107] and Ahn et al. [0103]). The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Regarding Claim 6, Manthiram et al. as modified by Zhamu et al. and Ahn et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 5 as explained above.
Manthiram et al. does not teach the separator is made a nonwoven fabric wherein the nonwoven fabric has a thickness of 500 micrometers or less.
However, Ahn et al. teaches a separator made of a non-woven fabric (Para. [0104]) and the thickness is 1 to 100 micrometers (Para. [0106]) (i.e. the nonwoven fabric has a thickness of 500 micrometers or less).
The substitution of the non-woven fabric porous separator as taught by Ahn et al. (Para. [0104]) for the porous separator of Manthiram et al. would achieve the predictable result of providing a porous separator disposed between a positive electrode and a negative electrode for a lithium battery enabling the transport of lithium ions therebetween (Manthiram et al. – Para. [0107] and Ahn et al. [0103]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to substitute of the non-woven fabric porous separator as taught by Ahn et al. (Para. [0104]) for the porous separator of Manthiram et al. as the substitution would achieve the predictable result of providing a porous separator disposed between a positive electrode and a negative electrode for a lithium battery enabling the transport of lithium ions therebetween (Manthiram et al. – Para. [0107] and Ahn et al. [0103]). The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). Furthermore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the separator of Zhamu et al. to incorporate the teaching of the thickness as taught by Ahn et al., as it would provide desirable mechanical properties preventing damage during use of the battery (Para. [0106]).
Regarding Claim 7, Manthiram et al. as modified by Zhamu et al. and Ahn et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 5 as explained above.
Manthiram et al. does not teach the separator is made a nonwoven fabric wherein the nonwoven fabric has a porosity of 90% by volume or less.
However, Ahn et al. teaches a separator made of a non-woven fabric (Para. [0104]) and the porosity is 10 to 95% (Para. [0107]) (i.e. wherein the nonwoven fabric has a porosity of 90% by volume or less).
The substitution of the non-woven fabric porous separator comprising a porosity of 10 to 95% as taught by Ahn et al. (Para. [0104]) for the porous separator of Manthiram et al. would achieve the predictable result of providing a porous separator disposed between a positive electrode and a negative electrode for a lithium battery enabling the transport of lithium ions therebetween (Manthiram et al. – Para. [0107] and Ahn et al. [0103]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to substitute of the non-woven fabric porous separator as taught by Ahn et al. (Para. [0104]) for the porous separator of Manthiram et al. as the substitution would achieve the predictable result of providing a porous separator disposed between a positive electrode and a negative electrode for a lithium battery enabling the transport of lithium ions therebetween (Manthiram et al. – Para. [0107] and Ahn et al. [0103]). The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manthiram et al. (US 2017/0092954) in view of Zhamu et al. (US 2018/0219214) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Huang et al. (US 2021/0399282A) and Armacanqui et al. (US 2020/0303727A).
Regarding Claim 8, Manthiram et al. as modified by Zhamu et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Manthiram et al. does not teach wherein the negative electrode is made of a zinc alloy foil containing 0.01 to 0.25% by mass of Bi.
However, Huang et al. teaches a battery cell (Para. [0022]) (i.e. a cell) wherein the porous metallic zinc anode is a foil (Para. [0006]) (i.e. wherein the negative electrode is made of a zinc alloy foil).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the anode which may be zinc as taught by Manthiram et al. to incorporate the teaching of a zinc foil, as such a structure would allow for reduced cost and weight for the resulting battery (Para. [0036]). Manthiram et al. as modified by Zhamu et al. and Huang et al. does not teach the negative electrode is made of a zinc alloy containing 0.01 to 0.25% by mass of Bi.
However, Armacanqui et al. teaches an electrochemical cell (Para. [0005]) (i.e. ac ell) comprising a zinc anode (Para. [0041]) wherein the anode active material is in the form of a zinc alloy (Para. [0044]) comprising bismuth at a concentration of 200 ppm (i.e. a zinc alloy containing 0.02% by mass of Bi, reading on 0.01 to 0.25% by mass of Bi) (Para. [0046]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the negative electrode of Manthiram et al. as modified above to incorporate the teaching of a zinc alloy comprising bismuth at a concentration of 200 ppm (i.e. 0.02% by mass Bi), as it would provide electrochemical cells of improved performance characteristics (Para. [0073]) such as enhanced discharge performance (Para. [0054]) and reliability (Para. [0070], lines 8-11).
Regarding Claim 9, Manthiram et al. as modified by Zhamu et al., Huang et al. and Armacanqui et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 8 as explained above.
Manthiram et al. does not teach wherein the negative electrode is an electrolytic zinc alloy foil with an In content of 0.04% by mass or less.
However, Huang et al. teaches a battery cell (Para. [0022]) (i.e. a cell) wherein the porous metallic zinc anode is a foil (Para. [0006]) (i.e. wherein the negative electrode is made of a zinc alloy foil) wherein the zinc coating layer is applied via electrodeposition (Para. [0031]) (i.e. an electrolytic zinc foil).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the anode which may be zinc as taught by Manthiram et al. to incorporate the teaching of an electrolytic zinc foil, as such a structure would allow for reduced cost and weight for the resulting battery (Para. [0036]).
Manthiram et al. as modified by Huang et al. does not teach a zinc alloy with an In content of 0.04% or by mass or less.
However, Armacanqui et al. teaches an electrochemical cell (Para. [0005]) (i.e. ac ell) comprising a zinc anode (Para. [0041]) wherein the anode active material is in the form of a zinc alloy (Para. [0044]) comprising indium at a concentration of 200 ppm (i.e. a zinc alloy containing 0.02% by mass of In, reading on an In content of 0.04% by mass or less) (Para. [0046]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the negative electrode of Manthiram et al. as modified above to incorporate the teaching of a zinc alloy comprising indium at a concentration of 200 ppm (i.e. In content of 0.02% by mass), as it would provide electrochemical cells of improved performance characteristics (Para. [0073]) such as enhanced discharge performance (Para. [0054]) and reliability (Para. [0070], lines 8-11).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manthiram et al. (US 2017/0092954) in view of Zhamu et al. (US 2018/0219214) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Huang et al. (US 2021/0399282).
Regarding Claim 11, Manthiram et al. as modified by Zhamu et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Manthiram et al. does not teach an aqueous solution with a pH of 3 or more and 12 or less as an electrolyte.
However, Huang et al. teaches a battery cell (Para. [0022]) (i.e. a cell) comprising an aqueous electrolyte wherein the pH of the electrolyte can vary from 0-15 (i.e. overlapping with claimed range of the aqueous solution having a pH of 3 or more and 12 or less as an electrolyte).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the aqueous electrolyte of Zhamu et al. to incorporate the teaching of the aqueous electrolyte wherein the pH of the electrolyte can vary from 0-15 (i.e. overlapping with claimed range of the aqueous solution having a pH of 3 or more and 12 or less as an electrolyte) as taught by Huang et al., as such an electrolyte
The substitution of the aqueous electrolyte wherein the pH of the electrolyte can vary from 0-15 (i.e. overlapping with claimed range of the aqueous solution having a pH of 3 or more and 12 or less as an electrolyte) as taught by Huang et al., for the liquid electrolyte of Manthiram et al. would achieve the predictable result of providing a liquid electrolyte in fluid communication with the anode, cathode and separator (see Para. [0005] – Huang et al. & Para. [0107] – Manthiram et al.). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to substitute the aqueous electrolyte wherein the pH of the electrolyte can vary from 0-15 (i.e. overlapping with claimed range of the aqueous solution having a pH of 3 or more and 12 or less as an electrolyte) as taught by Huang et al., for the aqueous electrolyte of Manthiram et al. as the substitution would achieve the predictable result of providing a liquid electrolyte in fluid communication with the anode, cathode and separator (see Para. [0005] – Huang et al. & Para. [0107] – Manthiram et al.). The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manthiram et al. (US 2017/0092954) in view of Zhamu et al. (US 2018/0219214) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Son et al. (US 2016/0190561).
Regarding Claim 13, Manthiram et al. as modified by Zhamu et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 12 as explained above.
Manthiram et al. does not teach wherein the thickness of the portion of the positive electrode active material layer covering the surface of the porous carbon sheet is 50 micrometers or less.
However, Son et al. teaches a cathode for a lithium battery (Para. [0018]) comprising a cathode active part including a sulfur-carbon composite and a cathode coating layer provided on at least a portion of a surface of the cathode active part (Para. [0018]) wherein the cathode coating layer is formed using the cathode active material slurry (Para. [0066]) (i.e. wherein a portion of the positive electrode active material layer covering the surface of a porous carbon sheet) and the cathode coating layer has a thickness of 0.01 micrometers to 20 micrometers (Para. [0036]) (i.e. the thickness is 50 micrometers or less).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positive electrode of Manthiram et al. to incorporate the teaching of the cathode coating layer as taught by Son et al., as such a cathode coating layer provides enhances cycle characteristics for the battery (Para. [0014]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed December 31, 2025 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of the references being used in the current rejection in light of the amendment.
Applicant’s arguments are drawn to a previous prior art combination and thus, are not persuasive in light of the newly cited prior art.
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 ARMINDO CARVALHO JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-5292. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a.m.-5p.m..
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571 272-1481. 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.
/ARMINDO CARVALHO JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729