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
1. Applicant’s amendments with respect to claims filed on 03/20/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-14 remain pending in this application and are currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. Claims 8-11 have been withdrawn from consideration.
The amendments and remarks filed are sufficient to cure the previous objections set forth in the Non-Final office action mailed on 12/29/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
3. Claim(s) 1, 7, and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (Pub. No. US 20200313175 A1) in view of Dillard et al. (Pub. No. US 20180212252 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Shin teaches a positive electrode (104, Fig. 1, see [0051] where 104 is a cathode) for a lithium secondary battery (100, Fig. 1, see [0048] where 100 is a lithium ion battery), comprising: a positive electrode current collector (110, Fig. 1, see [0056]); a wet positive electrode active material layer (111, Fig. 1, see [0052] where 114 is a hybrid film although it is not depicted as one, therefore 111 and 113 seen in Fig. 1 will be referenced as the equivalent layers for 114) formed on one surface (surface of 110 in direct contact with 111, Fig. 1, similar to surface of 108 in direct contact with 111) of the positive electrode current collector (110, Fig. 1, see [0056]); and a dry positive electrode active material layer (113, Fig. 1, see [0052] where 113 is a dry processed film, not 113 is not depicted on 114 in Fig. 1 but it is a hybrid film, so the same structure of 102 is applied to 104) formed on the wet positive electrode active material layer (111, Fig. 1, see [0052] where 111 is disposed on 113, also seen in same format of 102 in Fig. 1); wherein the wet positive electrode active material layer (111, Fig. 1, see [0052]) comprises a sulfur-carbon composite (sulfur-carbon composite, see [0053] where the active material may be a sulfur-carbon composite), a binder (binder, see [0061]), and an electrically conductive material (conductive additive, see [0061]), and wherein the dry positive electrode active material layer (113, Fig. 1, see [0052]) has a form of free-standing film (free-standing, see [0013] where the dry-processed active layer is free-standing), but fails to teach wherein the dry positive electrode active material layer is a carbon-containing sulfur melt formed by dispersing a porous carbon material in a sulfur melt.
However, Dillard teaches wherein a dry positive electrode active material layer (electrically conductive porous structure for a cathode, see [0027]) is a carbon-containing sulfur melt (sulfur melted on electrically conductive porous substrate, see [0027], see [0081] where the substrate includes carbon nanofibers).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Shin such that the dry processed active layer is a carbon-containing sulfur melt as taught by Dillard as an art effective equivalent sulfur carbon composite active material layer formed using a dry process using a simple and practical sulfur melting-diffusion method that does not compromise electrochemical performance (see [0008] of Dillard). Further Shin teaches that modifications can be made (see [0096] of Shin).
Shin in view of Dillard are silent to wherein the carbon-containing sulfur melt is formed by dispersing a porous carbon material in a sulfur melt. However, it should be noted that it is the patentability of the product and not of the recited process steps which must be established (see MPEP 2113.I). Further it is the Examiner’s position that Shin in view of Dillard teaches the product limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Shin in view of Dillard is silent to wherein the dry positive electrode active material layer has an internal adhesive force of 10 gf/cm or more.
However, if the internal adhesive force of the dry positive electrode active material layer as taught by Shin in view of Dillard were measured in the same way as the present application, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the internal adhesive force to fall within the claimed range or in the alternative be close enough to the claimed range to be obvious as the dry positive electrode active material layer is formed in the same way.
Regarding claim 12, Shin in view of Dillard teaches lithium secondary battery (100, Fig. 1, see [0048] where 100 is a lithium ion battery), comprising: the positive electrode (104, Fig. 1, see [0051] where 104 is a cathode) for the lithium secondary battery (100, Fig. 1, see [0048] where 100 is a lithium ion battery) according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above); a negative electrode (102, Fig. 1, see [0051] where 102 is the anode) comprising a lithium metal (metal Li, see [0060] where the anode active material is Li metal) or a lithium alloy; a separator (106, Fig. 1, see [0049]) positioned between the positive electrode (104, Fig. 1, see [0051] where 104 is a cathode) and the negative electrode (102, Fig. 1, see [0051] where 102 is the anode); and an electrolyte (118, Fig. 1, see [0050]) impregnated with (see Fig. 1 where 102, 106, and 104 sit in the electrolyte 118 within the housing 120, therefore 118 is impregnated by 102, 106, and 104, further see [0049] the electrolyte is in contact with all 102, 106, and 104) the positive electrode (104, Fig. 1, see [0051] where 104 is a cathode), the negative electrode (102, Fig. 1, see [0051] where 102 is the anode) and the separator (106, Fig. 1, see [0049]).
Regarding claim 13, Shin in view of Dillard teaches wherein the lithium secondary battery (100, Fig. 1, see [0048] where 100 is a lithium ion battery) is a lithium-sulfur secondary battery (see [0053] where the active material is a sulfur-carbon composite, see above the wet positive electrode contains this sulfur composite, therefore being a lithium ion battery including sulfur it is a lithium-sulfur secondary battery, further see [0060] where the anode 102 comprises metal Li and/or Li.sub.4Ti.sub.5O.sub.12).
4. Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (Pub. No. US 20200313175 A1) in view of Dillard et al. (Pub. No. US 20180212252 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (Pub. No. CN 103840125 A).
Regarding claim 2, Shin in view of Dillard fails to teach wherein the wet positive electrode active material layer comprises 40 to 80% by weight of the sulfur-carbon composite, 1 to 30% by weight of the binder and 0.5 to 30% by weight of the electrically conductive material.
However, Zhang teaches wherein the wet positive electrode active material layer (2, Fig. 1, see [0034]) comprises 40 to 80% by weight (80% by weight, see Example 1 [0040] where the large-porosity carbon-sulfur composite comprises 8 parts of 10 total parts) of the sulfur-carbon composite (large-porosity carbon-sulfur composite, see [0021], see [0040] the large-porosity carbon-sulfur composite is carbon-sulfur complex A), 1 to 30% (10%, see [0040] in Example 1 the binder is 1 of 10 total parts, therefore 10%) by weight of the binder (binder, see [0021]) and 0.5 to 30% by weight (10%, see [0040] in Example 1 the binder is 1 of 10 total parts therefore 10%) of the electrically conductive material (conductive agent, see [0021]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Shin in view of Dillard such that the wet positive electrode active material layer 111 comprises 80% by weight of sulfur-carbon composite, 10% by weight of binder, and 10% by weight of electrically conductive material and use a large pore size carbon-sulfur composite as taught by Zhang to facilitate the transport of lithium ions and accommodate volume expansion caused by polysulfide during discharge (see [0016] of Zhang). Further Shin in view of Dillard teaches that modifications can be made (see [0096] of Shin).
5. Claim(s) 3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (Pub. No. US 20200313175 A1) in view of Dillard et al. (Pub. No. US 20180212252 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cheng et al. (ScienceDirect, 2013).
Regarding claim 3, Shin in view of Dillard teaches a loading amount of sulfur (1.1 mAh/cm.sup.2 to 7.5 mAh/cm.sup.2, see modifications and calculations above) of the dry positive electrode active material layer (113, Fig. 1, see [0052] where 113 is a dry processed film, not 113 is not depicted on 114 in Fig. 1 but it is a hybrid film, so the same structure of 102 is applied to 104), but fails to teach wherein a loading amount of sulfur in the wet positive electrode active material layer is 0.1 mAh/cm.sup.2 to 0.5 mAh/cm.sup.2, and the loading amount of sulfur in the wet positive electrode active material layer is 2% to 20% of the loading amount of sulfur in the dry positive electrode active material layer.
However, Dillard further teaches and wherein a loading amount of sulfur in the dry positive electrode active material layer (electrically conductive porous structure for a cathode, see [0027]) is 1.1 mAh/cm.sup.2 to 7.5 mAh/cm.sup.2 (see math calculations below).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Shin in view of Dillard such that the dry positive electrode active material layer has a loading amount of sulfur of 1.1 mAh/cm.sup.2 to 7.5 mAh/cm.sup.2 as taught by Dillard to not compromise electrochemical performance of the electrode (see [0008] of Dillard). Further Shin in view of Dillard teaches that modifications can be made (see [0096] of Shin).
Math Calculations for loading amount of sulfur: see [0016] of Dillard the discharge capacity is 1100 to 1500 mAh/g, see [0025] of Dillard the sulfur loading range is from 1 to 5 mg/cm.sup.2
Min loading amount of sulfur = 1100 mAh/g * 1 mg/cm.sup.2 * 1 g/1000 mg = 1.1 mAh/cm.sup.2
Max Loading Amount of Sulfur = 1500 mAh/g * 5 mg/cm.sup.2 * 1g/1000mg = 7.5 mAh/cm.sup.2
However, Cheng teaches wherein a loading amount of sulfur (mah cm-2, see Table 1) in the wet positive electrode active material layer (sample ID 54%, Table 1, pg. 68, see para. 2, pg. 68 where the carbon composite with binder applied on metal current collector) is 0.1 mAh/cm.sup.2 to 0.5 mAh/cm.sup.2v (0.298 mAh cm-2, Table 1, pg. 68).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Shin in view of Dillard to form the wet positive electrode active material layer 111 such that 111 has a loading amount of sulfur of 0.298 mAh cm-2 as taught by Cheng to maintain high coulombic efficiency (see Fig. 3d, pg. 69 of Cheng) while preventing shuttle of polysulfides (see para. 2, pg. 70, where shuttle of polysulfides increases with increased loading amount of sulfur). Further Shin in view of Dillard teaches that modifications can be made (see [0096] of Shin).
Therefore Shin in view of Dillard in view of Cheng teaches wherein the loading amount of sulfur (mah cm-2, see Table 1 of Cheng, see modifications above) in the wet positive electrode active material layer (111, Fig. 1, see [0052] where 114 is a hybrid film although it is not depicted as one, therefore 111 and 113 seen in Fig. 1 will be referenced as the equivalent layers for 114) is 2% to 20% (3.97% to 27%, see calculations below) of the loading amount of sulfur (1.1 mAh/cm.sup.2 to 7.5 mAh/cm.sup.2, see modifications and calculations above) of the dry positive electrode active material layer (113, Fig. 1, see [0052] where 113 is a dry processed film, not 113 is not depicted on 114 in Fig. 1 but it is a hybrid film, so the same structure of 102 is applied to 104).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Shin in view of Dillard in view of Cheng such that the loading amount of sulfur of 111 is 3.97% to 20% of the loading amount of sulfur of 113 as a prima facie case of obviousness exists “in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” (MPEP 2144.05.I) and by modifying the loading amount of sulfur of 113 as the loading amount of sulfur is a result effective variable of discharge capacity and sulfur loading (see math calculations for loading amount of sulfur for 113 above). Further Shin in view of Dillard in view of Cheng teaches that modifications can be made (see [0096] of Shin).
Regarding claim 5, Shin in view of Dillard fails to teach a density of the wet positive electrode active material layer is 0.2 to 1.4 g/cm.sup.3.
However, Cheng teaches wherein a density of the wet positive electrode active material layer (sample ID 54%, Table 1, pg. 68, see para. 2, pg. 68 where the carbon composite with binder applied on metal current collector) is 0.2 to 1.4 g/cm.sup.3 (0.4 g/cm3, Table 1, pg. 68).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Shin in view of Dillard to form the wet positive electrode active material layer 111 such that 111 has a density of 0.4 g/cm3 as taught by Cheng to maintain high coulombic efficiency (see Fig. 3d, pg. 69 of Cheng) while preventing shuttle of polysulfides (see para. 2, pg. 70, where shuttle of polysulfides increases with increased loading amount of sulfur). Further Shin in view of Dillard teaches that modifications can be made (see [0096] of Shin).
6. Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (Pub. No. US 20200313175 A1) in view of Dillard et al. (Pub. No. US 20180212252 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mikhaylik et al. (Pub. No. US 20100239914 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Shin in view of Dillard fails to teach wherein a porosity of the wet positive electrode active material layer is 30% to 90%.
However, Mikhaylik teaches a porosity of the wet positive electrode active material layer (slurry coated on current collector, see [0119]) is 30% to 90% (at least 30%, see [0054] for porosity of the cathode, and therefore the porosity of the slurry layer coated on the current collector).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Shin in view of Dillard to form the wet positive electrode active material layer 111 such that the porosity of 111 is at least 30% as taught by Mikhaylik to achieve relatively high discharge current densities (see [0043] of Mikhaylik), and further obvious to modify the porosity to stay below 90% a prima facie case of obviousness exists “in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” (MPEP 2144.05.I) and porosity is a result effective variable of ensuring effective charge and discharge even when force is applied (see [0043] of Mikhaylik). Further Shin in view of Dillard teaches that modifications can be made (see [0096] of Shin).
7. Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (Pub. No. US 20200313175 A1) in view of Dillard et al. (Pub. No. US 20180212252 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (Pub. No. US 20210242463 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Shin in view of Dillard fails to teach wherein a porosity of the dry positive electrode active material layer is 68% or less.
However, Kim teaches wherein a porosity of the dry positive electrode active material layer (positive electrode active material layer, see [0071], see [0082] the positive electrode is dried therefore considered after formation a dry active material layer) is 68% or less (68% or less, see [0072] wherein the positive electrode and therefore the positive electrode active material layer has a porosity of 68% or less, see [0071] where the positive electrode active material layer is coated on the current collector).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Shin in view of Dillard to form the dry positive electrode active material layer 113 such that 113 has a porosity of less than 68% as taught by Kim to increase the energy density per volume (see [0072] of Kim). Further Shin in view of Dillard teaches that modifications can be made (see [0096] of Shin).
8. Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (Pub. No. US 20200313175 A1) in view of Dillard et al. (Pub. No. US 20180212252 A1) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (Pub. No. WO 2020040695 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Shin in view of Dillard fails to teach wherein the positive electrode has a loading amount of sulfur from 3.0 mAh/cm.sup.2 to 5.0 mAh/cm.sup.2.
However, Lee teaches wherein the positive electrode (lithium-sulfur cathode, see [0093]) has a loading amount of sulfur from 3.0 mAh/cm.sup.2 to 5.0 mAh/cm.sup.2 (4 mAh/cm.sup.2, see [0093]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Shin in view of Dillard such that the positive electrode 104 has a sulfur loading amount of 4 mAh/cm.sup.2 as taught by Lee to ensure the positive electrode has an areal capacity greater than commercial lithium-ion batteries especially when used in larger scale battery systems (see [0093] of Lee). Further Shin in view of Dillard teaches that modifications can be made (see [0096] of Shin).
Response to Arguments
9. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7 and 12-14 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.
Conclusion
10. 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 DOUGLAS CALEB MARROQUIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0166. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30-5:00 EST.
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, Tiffany Legette can be reached at 571-270-7078. 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.
/DOUGLAS C MARROQUIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights