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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3, 5-12, and 14 are currently pending;
Claims 4 and 13 are canceled;
Claims 1-2 are amended.
Status of Rejections and Objections Pending Since the Office Action of 09/10/2025
The 103 rejections of claims 1-14 have been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment and argument and replaced with new 103 rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 12/08/2025, with respect to the 103 rejection of claim 1, in particular to Cho failing to teach the newly amended specific surface areas, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-3, 5-12, and 14 have been withdrawn and replaced with new 103 rejections in view of Mori in view of Lee ‘385, Mori in view of Lee ‘385 and Cho ‘656, Mori in view of Lee ‘385 and Kim, and Mori in view of Lee ‘385 and Cho.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the limitation “wherein the positive electrode active material layer has an arithmetic mean roughness (Sa) or 5 µm or less, and a maximum height roughness (Sz) of 60 µm or less” 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, namely Cho et al. (KR-20200132248-A).
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.
Claims 1-2 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori et al. (US-20240014378-A1), hereinafter Mori, in view of Lee et al. (US-20210167385-A1), hereinafter Lee ‘385.
Regarding claim 1, Mori teaches a positive electrode for a lithium-sulfur battery, comprising: a positive electrode current collector ([0051]); and a positive electrode active material layer positioned on at least one surface of the positive electrode current collector ([0051]), wherein the positive electrode active material layer comprises a first sulfur-carbon composite comprising a first carbon material and sulfur ([0031]; [0032] low specific surface area carbon black; [0051] carbon-sulfur composites), and a second sulfur-carbon composite comprising a second carbon material and sulfur ([0037]; [0031]; high specific surface area carbon black; [0051] carbon-sulfur composites), wherein the first carbon material and the second carbon material have different shapes ([0038] the high specific surface area carbon black has a hollow particle shape; [0035] the low specific surface area carbon black has a solid particle shape), wherein the first carbon material has a specific surface area greater than 200 m2/g and less than or equal to 400 m2/g ([0032] 30 to 200 m2/g). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Mori also teaches wherein the second carbon material has a specific surface area of 600 m2/g to 850 m2/g ([0037] 800 to 1600 m2/g). 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).
Mori fails to teach wherein the positive electrode active material layer has an arithmetic mean roughness (Sa) of 5 µm or less, and a maximum height roughness (Sz) of 60 µm or less.
Lee ‘385 is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cathodes for lithium sulfur batteries ([0038]). Lee ‘385 teaches that the positive electrode active material layer has an arithmetic mean roughness (Sa) of 5 µm or less, and a maximum height roughness (Sz) of 60 µm or less (Table 2; electrode of example 5 has a Sa of 4.642 and a Sz of 55.724).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mori such that the positive electrode active material layer has an arithmetic mean roughness (Sa) of 5 µm or less, and a maximum height roughness (Sz) of 60 µm or less such as in Lee ‘385. Doing so helps to reduce the curling phenomenon in the electrode (Lee ‘385 [0030]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Mori teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Mori also teaches wherein the first carbon material has a specific surface area greater than 200 m2/g and less than or equal to 300 m2/g ([0032] 30 to 200 m2/g). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 5, modified Mori teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Mori also teaches wherein each of the first carbon material and the second carbon material comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of graphite, graphene, carbon black, carbon nanotubes, carbon fibers, and activated carbon ([0031] both are carbon black).
Regarding claim 6, modified Mori teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Mori also teaches wherein the sulfur comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of inorganic sulfur, Li2Sn(n≥1), a disulfide compound, an organic sulfur compound and a carbon-sulfur polymer ([0030] polymeric sulfur or S8).
Regarding claim 7, modified Mori teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Mori also teaches wherein a weight ratio of the first sulfur-carbon composite and the second sulfur-carbon composite is 90:10 to 50:50 ([0041] the content of the high specific surface area carbon black, interpreted as the second carbon material, is 5 wt% to 75 wt % based on the total amount of both the low and high specific surface area carbon black, meaning the weight ratio of the first to the second material is 95:5 to 25:75). 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).
Regarding claim 8, modified Mori teaches all of the limitations of claim 7. Mori also teaches wherein the weight ratio of the first sulfur-carbon composite and the second sulfur-carbon composite is 80:20 to 60:40 ([0041] the content of the high specific surface area carbon black, interpreted as the second carbon material, is 5 wt% to 75 wt % based on the total amount of both the low and high specific surface area carbon black, meaning the weight ratio of the first to the second material is 95:5 to 25:75). 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).
Regarding claim 9, modified Mori teaches all of the limitations of claim 7. Mori also teaches wherein the weight ratio of the first sulfur-carbon composite and the second sulfur-carbon composite is 75:25 to 70:30 ([0041] the content of the high specific surface area carbon black, interpreted as the second carbon material, is 5 wt% to 75 wt % based on the total amount of both the low and high specific surface area carbon black, meaning the weight ratio of the first to the second material is 95:5 to 25:75). 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).
Regarding claim 10, modified Mori teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Mori also teaches wherein the sulfur is contained in an amount of 60 to 90% by weight based on 100% by weight of the total weight of the positive electrode active material layer ([0044] the carbon material is 5 wt% to 70 wt%, preferably 20 wt% to 60 wt% with respect to the total amount of sulfur and carbon; therefore, the sulfur is 30 to 95 wt% of the total carbon and sulfur; [0048] the binder is 0.1 wt% to 20 wt% of the total amount of sulfur and carbon material; [0052] the solids content of the positive electrode slurry is 2 wt% to 80 wt%).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori in view of Lee ‘385 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cho et al. (KR-20200136656-A), hereinafter Cho ‘656.
Regarding claim 3, modified Mori teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Mori fails to teach wherein the first carbon material has an average particle diameter (D50) of 20 µm to 70 µm.
Cho ‘656 is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of lithium sulfur composites for batteries ([0001]). Cho ‘656 teaches wherein the first carbon material has an average particle diameter (D50) of 20 µm to 70 µm ([0044] 100 nm to 50 µm). 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).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Mori such that the first carbon material has an average particle diameter (D50) of 20 µm to 70 µm such as in Cho ‘656. Doing so avoids problems with sulfur being loaded into the pores of the carbon material and also avoids reduction in the conductivity of the sulfur carbon composite (Cho ‘656 [0044]).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori in view of Lee ‘385 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US-20210242463-A1), hereinafter Kim.
Regarding claim 11, modified Mori teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Mori fails to teach that a porosity of the positive electrode active material layer is 72% or less based on the total volume of the positive electrode active material layer.
Kim is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of sulfur-carbon composite cathodes ([0013]). Kim teaches that a porosity of the positive electrode active material layer is 72% or less based on the total volume of the positive electrode active material layer ([0072] the positive electrode has a low porosity of 68% or less). 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).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Mori such that the porosity of the positive electrode active material layer is 72% or less based on the total volume of the positive electrode active material layer such as in Kim. Doing so allows the energy density per volume to be increased and the energy density per mass to be increased (Kim [0072]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Mori teaches all of the limitations of claim 11. Mori fails to teach that the porosity of the positive electrode active material layer is 68 % to 72 % based on the total volume of the positive electrode active material layer.
Kim is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of sulfur-carbon composite cathodes ([0013]). Kim teaches that the porosity of the positive electrode active material layer is 68 % to 72 % based on the total volume of the positive electrode active material layer ([0072] the positive electrode has a low porosity of 68% or less). 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).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Mori such that the porosity of the positive electrode active material layer is 68 % to 72 % based on the total volume of the positive electrode active material layer such as in Kim. Doing so allows the energy density per volume to be increased and the energy density per mass to be increased (Kim [0072]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori in view of Lee ‘385 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cho et al. (KR-20200132248-A), hereinafter Cho.
Regarding claim 14, modified Mori teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Modified Mori also teaches the positive electrode for the lithium-sulfur battery according to claim 1 (Mori [0029]-[0045]; Lee ‘385 Table 2); a negative electrode ([0143] negative electrode); and an electrolyte ([0143] electrolyte).
Mori fails to teach that the positive electrode for the lithium-sulfur battery according to claim 1 is used in a lithium-sulfur battery.
However, this type of sulfur electrode (see Mori [0029]-[0031]) is commonly used in lithium-sulfur batteries. For example, Cho is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of lithium-sulfur composites as cathode material. In particular, Cho uses a positive electrode for a lithium-sulfur battery (Cho [0015]) including a positive electrode active material with a first and second sulfur-carbon composite of different specific surface areas (Cho [0016]-[0020]; [0048]) similar to modified Mori, in conjunction with a negative electrode and an electrolyte (Cho [0105]). As such, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art that the sulfur positive electrode of modified Mori could be utilized in a lithium sulfur-battery including a negative electrode and electrolyte with a reasonable expectation of success.
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 MADISON L KYLE whose telephone number is (571)272-0164. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 AM - 5 PM ET.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571) 272-3433. 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.
/M.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/NIKI BAKHTIARI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722