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
The amendment filed on March 4th 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-8, 10-11, & 15 remain pending in the application. Claim 9 was cancelled by the Applicant. Applicant’s arguments to the 112(b) rejection of Claim 11 is persuasive, therefore the rejection was withdrawn. The 102 rejections of the claims are withdrawn due to the Applicant’s amendments. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Lee et al. KR 2020/0073120 A. New rejections follow.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8, 10-11, & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “wherein a ratio of a specific surface area of the positive electrode active material relative to a specific surface area of a sulfur-carbon composite having the same composition but not including a carbon coating layer is 1 to 3”, which is indefinite. It is not immediately clear what the Applicant is referring to by the sulfur-carbon composite “having the same composition” as it is not specified what it has the same composition as. Additionally, since it is not clear as to what is the exact composition of the “sulfur-carbon composite having the same composition but not including a carbon coating layer”, there are no bounds for the specific surface area of “sulfur-carbon composite having the same composition but not including a carbon coating layer”. Therefore, it is not clear how the ratio can be calculated, and thus the claim is indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites “a carbon coating layer”. It is not clear if Applicant is referring to the previously recited “island-shaped carbon coating layers” or if Applicant is introducing a new and different “a carbon coating layer”. Therefore the claim is indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-8, 10-11, & 15, as they depend from Claim 1, are also indefinite for the same reasons.
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, 2, 5, & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. WO 2020/166871 A1 in further view of Lee et al. KR 2020/0073120 A. Citations are mapped to the English machine translations provided.
Regarding Claim 1, as best understood by the Examiner, Han discloses a positive electrode for a lithium-sulfur battery [Page 2 Line 59 – Page 3 Line 10], wherein the positive electrode comprises a positive electrode current collector and a positive electrode active material layer deposited on one surface of the positive electrode current collector [Page 7 Line 51 – Page 8 Line 2]. Han discloses that the positive electrode active material layer comprises, as a positive electrode active material, a sulfur carbon composite having a plurality of “island-shaped” carbon coating layers on the surface (sulfur carbon composite coated with a carbon nanostructure positioned on the surface) [Page 4 Line 48-53], also shown in Annotated Figure 1 below:
PNG
media_image1.png
485
575
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Han is silent as to the ratio of the specific surface area of the positive electrode active material relative to the specific surface area of a sulfur-carbon composite having the same composition but not including a carbon coating layer.
Lee discloses a lithium sulfur battery [Page 1 Line 12] comprising a positive electrode that further comprises a sulfur-carbon composite [Page 4 Lines 38-39]. Lee discloses that the sulfur carbon composite can be a core-shell structure wherein the sulfur is coated with the carbon material [Page 6 Lines 16-20]. Lee discloses that using conventional carbon material such as carbon black or carbon fiber as an additive provides a specific surface area of 10-50 m2/g [Page 6 Lines 39-40; Page 6 Lines 50-51], and discloses that the carbon material suggested in the core-shell sulfur-carbon composite, such as graphene (similar to Han) [Page 7 lines 4-8], provides a specific surface area of 100-500 m2/g [Page 6 Line 55]. Thus, Lee discloses that a ratio of a specific surface area of the positive electrode active material (core-shell sulfur-carbon composite) relative to a sulfur-carbon composite with no carbon coating layer (conventional sulfur-carbon composite using conventional carbon materials as an additive) is in the range of 2 to 50, which overlaps the claimed range of 1 to 3.
Lee discloses that a positive electrode active material with this high specific surface area increases the contact area between the positive electrode active materials, which improves the conductivity of the positive electrode [Page 6 Lines 52-53], and improves capacity characteristics [Page 6 Lines 46-48].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to use the suggested specific surface area ratio of Lee to modify Han to achieve improved conductivity and capacity of the positive electrode.
Regarding Claim 2, Han discloses that the carbon coating layer (carbon nanostructures positioned on the surface of the sulfur carbon composite) is made of reduced graphene oxide [Page 3 Lines 37-40].
Regarding Claim 5, Han discloses that the reduced graphene oxide (carbon nanostructure) is contained in an amount of 1-5% by weight (1-5 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of sulfur carbon composite [Page 3 Lines 25-26]), which overlaps with the claimed range.
Regarding Claim 15, Han discloses a lithium secondary battery comprising the positive electrode of the invention [Page 9 Lines 12-15], and further comprising a negative electrode and an electrolyte [Page 9 Lines 15-18]. More specifically, Han discloses that the lithium secondary battery can be a lithium sulfur battery [Page 9 Lines 20-21].
Claims 3 & 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han and Lee as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Yang et al. KR 2020/0055948 A. Citations are mapped to the English machine translation.
Regarding Claims 3 & 4, modified Han is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 2, however is silent as to the specific surface area of the reduced graphene oxide.
Yang discloses a positive electrode active material comprising a sulfur carbon composite further comprising reduced graphene oxide [0011], similar to that of Han. Yang discloses that the specific surface area of the reduced graphene oxide is 400-1200 m2/g [0013], which overlaps with the claimed range.
Yang discloses that having this specific surface area enables the reduced graphene oxide to support more sulfur [0020], which is included on the inside of the reduced graphene oxide [0021], which can lead to improved battery performance such as discharged capacity [0021], and increased energy density of the battery as well as improved electrical conductivity [0030].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the specific surface area as suggested by Yang for the reduced graphene oxide of Han to provide a battery with improved energy density and improved electrical conductivity.
Thus, modified Han discloses that the reduced graphene oxide has a specific surface area of 400-1200 m2/g which overlaps with the claimed ranges of Claims 3 & 4.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han and Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. US 2020/0274154 A1.
Regarding Claim 6, Han is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing claim 1, however is silent as to the specific surface area of the positive electrode active material.
Kim discloses a positive electrode active material comprising a sulfur-carbon composite [Abstract], similar to that of Han. Kim discloses that the sulfur carbon composite has a specific surface area of 4-30 m2/g [0015].
Kim discloses that a positive electrode active material with this specific surface area exhibits improved initial discharge capacity and high capacity rate [0022].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to use the specific surface area as suggested by Kim in the sulfur-carbon composite of Han to provide a battery with improved initial discharge capacity and high capacity rate. Thus modified Han discloses that the positive electrode active material has a specific surface area of 4-30 m2/g, which overlaps with the claimed range. In regards to the specific surface area, the Examiner directs Applicant to MPEP 2144.05 I. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the overlapping ranged disclosed by modified Han because selection of the overlapping portion or ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding Claim 7, Han is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing claim 1, however is silent as to the pore volume of the positive electrode active material.
Kim discloses that the positive electrode active material has a pore volume of 0.04-0.4 cm3/g [0015].
Kim discloses that a positive electrode active material with this pore volume ensures good electric conductivity and high performance operation of the battery [0009].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to use the pore volume as suggested by Kim in the sulfur-carbon composite of Han to provide a battery with good electrical conductivity and high batter performance. Thus modified Han discloses that the positive electrode active material has a pore volume of 0.04-0.4 cm3/g, which overlaps with the claimed range. In regards to the pore volume, the Examiner directs Applicant to MPEP 2144.05 I. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the overlapping ranged disclosed by modified Han because selection of the overlapping portion or ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding Claim 8, Han is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing claim 1, however is silent as to the pore size of the positive electrode active material.
Kim discloses that the positive electrode active material has the pore size 40-100nm [0063].
Kim discloses that a positive electrode active material with pore sizes in this range provides a battery with excellent discharge capacity and battery life characteristics [0064].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to use the pore size as suggested by Kim in the sulfur-carbon composite of Han to provide a battery with excellent discharge capacity and battery life characteristics. Thus modified Han discloses that the positive electrode active material has a pore size of 40-100nm, which overlaps with the claimed range. In regards to the pore size, the Examiner directs Applicant to MPEP 2144.05 I. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the overlapping ranged disclosed by modified Han because selection of the overlapping portion or ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Claims 10 & 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han and Lee as applied to Claim 1 above and further in view of Lu et al. WO 2020/136187 A1.
Regarding Claim 10, Han is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1, however is silent as to the positive electrode active material layer further comprising a carbon bridge connecting the positive electrode active materials.
Lu discloses a composite for an electrode [Abstract] wherein the composite comprises a plurality of core-shell structures connected by an electrically conductive supporting material [0003], also shown in Annotated Figure 1 below.
PNG
media_image2.png
571
740
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1
Lu discloses that the plurality of core-shell structures comprise a sulfur core and a carbon shell [0003], similar to that of Han (sulfur and reduced graphene oxide composite). Lu discloses that the electrically conductive supporting material comprises carbon [0008]. Thus, Lu discloses a carbon bridge connecting the positive electrode active material.
Lu discloses that the electrically conductive supporting material prevents aggregation of the plurality of core-shell structures to maintain even distribution [0003, 0054] as well as facilitates the transport of electrons [0054].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the electrically conductive supporting material of Lu in the sulfur-carbon composite of Han to provide an electrode with facilitated transport of electrons and evenly distributed sulfur-carbon composite particles. Thus modified Han discloses a positive electrode active material layer comprising a carbon bridge (electrically conductive supporting material made of carbon as modified by Lu) connecting the positive electrode active materials.
Regarding Claim 11, Lu discloses that the electrically conductive supporting material is carbon nanotubes or carbon nanofibers [0008], thus modified Han discloses that the carbon bridge is a fibrous shape.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 4th 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that previous Claim 9, now incorporated into amended Claim 1, is clear, more specifically the phrase “a sulfur-carbon composite having the same composition but not including a carbon coating layer” is now made clear. Examiner respectfully points out that as stated in the 112(b) rejection of Claim 1 above, the added limitation “having the same composition” does not provide clarity to the claim language as it is unclear as to which composition the Applicant is referring. Additionally, it is not clear if Applicant is meaning to refer to the island-shaped carbon coating layer, or introducing a new and different carbon coating layer. Due to these reasons, the ratio as recited in the claim is therefore boundless as the specific surface area of the sulfur-carbon composite having the same composition but not including a carbon coating layer is not clearly defined, and therefore the ratio cannot be clearly defined. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that the claimed invention has improved properties as a result of the claimed ratio of the specific surface areas. Examiner respectfully points out that Tables 1 & 3, as referenced by the Applicant, show the specific surface area of the positive electrode active material, the pore volume, and the pore size, however fail to report the specific surface area ratio comparing the positive electrode active material to a sulfur-carbon composite as claimed. Thus, it cannot be determined that the improved performance mentioned by the Applicant is a result of the specific surface area ratio comparing the positive electrode active material to a sulfur-carbon composite as claimed. Therefore, the evidence and argument are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Lee fails to disclose the limitation of amended claim 1, more specifically the ratio of a specific surface area of the positive electrode active material relative to a specific surface area of a sulfur-carbon composite having the same composition but not including a carbon coating layer. Examiner respectfully points out that Lee compares the specific surface area provided by a sulfur-carbon composite wherein conventional carbon is included as an additive to a sulfur-carbon composite wherein the carbon material is included as a shell in a core-shell structure, and as stated in the rejection above this results in a ratio of the specific surface areas in the range of 2-50, which reads on the limitations of Claim 1 as presently written. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, this argument is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANNA E GOULD whose telephone number is (571)270-1088. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-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, Jeffrey T. Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
/A.E.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/JEFFREY T BARTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1726 31 March 2026
Prosecution Insights