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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
1. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/13/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
2. Applicant’s amendments with respect to claims filed on 03/06/2026 have been entered. Claims 1, 4-6, 8-9, and 12-14 remain pending in this application and are currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. Claims 6 and 8-9 have been withdrawn from consideration. Claims 2-3, 7, and 10-11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. Claim(s) 1, 4-5, and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (Pub. No. US 20210408526 A1) in view of Kim et al. (Pub. No. US 20210036306 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Song teaches a sulfur-carbon composite (sulfur-carbon composite, see [0091]) comprising: a porous carbon material (carbon material, see [0091], see [0092] describes the carbon material as porous); and sulfur (sulfur-series compound, see [0091]) on at least a portion of inside (supporting the sulfur-series compound inside the carbon material, see [0099]) of the porous carbon material (carbon material, see [0091], see [0092] describes the carbon material as porous), wherein the porous carbon material (carbon material, see [0091], see [0092] describes the carbon material as porous) is carbon black (carbon black, see [0094] where the carbon material is carbon black), but is silent to wherein the porous carbon material has powder electrical conductivity of 25 S/cm or greater at powder density of 0.58 g/cc, and fails to teach the sulfur supported on at least a portion of the inside and a surface of the porous carbon material.
However, Kim teaches sulfur (sulfur, see [0037]) on at least a portion of inside (part of inside, see [0037]) and a surface (surface, see [0037]) of the porous carbon material (porous carbon material, see [0037]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Song such that the sulfur-series compound is supported on at least a portion of the inside and a surface of the carbon material as taught by Kim to improve the electrical conductivity of the sulfur-carbon composite and improve operation characteristics of battery comprising the sulfur-carbon composite (see [0041] of Kim). Further Song teaches that the form of the sulfur-carbon composite is not limited (see [0099] of Song) and modifications can be made (see [0221] of Song).
Song in view of Kim are silent as to wherein the porous carbon material has powder electrical conductivity of 25 S/cm or greater at powder density of 0.58 g/cc.
However, Song further teaches wherein the carbon black (carbon black, see [0094] where the carbon material is carbon black) is Ketjen Black (Ketjen Black, see [0094] where the carbon material is carbon black, and the carbon black is Ketjen Black), and heat treating (heat treatment, see [0185]) the porous carbon material (carbon material, see [0091], see [0092] describes the carbon material as porous) at a temperature of 700oC to 900oC (700---oC to 900oC, see [0187]) for 1 to 5 hours (1 to 5 hours, see [0188]) in a nitrogen atmosphere (nitrogen, see [0189]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Song in view of Kim such that Ketjen Black is used as the carbon black for the carbon material and heat treating the carbon material in a nitrogen atmosphere for 1 to 5 hours at 700oC to 900oC as Song teaches it is known in the art to do so. It would have further been obvious to modify heat treatment temperature to stay between 700oC and 850oC as heat treatment temperature is a result effective variable of sufficient surface modification, increase in carbon content, specific surface area, and pore volume, and preventing decreased conductivity (see [0187] of Song). Further Song in view of Kim teaches that modifications can be made (see [0221] of Song).
Therefore it is the Examiner’s position that if the powder electrical conductivity vs powder density of the porous carbon material as taught by Song in view of Kim was measured in the same way as the claimed invention on of ordinary skill in the art would expect the porous carbon material as taught by Song in view of Kim to exhibit a powder electrical conductivity of 25 S/cm or greater at a powder density of 0.58 g/cc or exhibit a range which obviates the claimed range as it is a result effective variable of heat treating Ketjen Black at a temperature range of 700-850oC in a nitrogen atmosphere.
Regarding claim 4, Song in view of Kim teaches wherein the sulfur (sulfur-series compound, see [0091]) includes one or more types of materials selected from the group consisting of inorganic sulfur (inorganic sulfur, see [0089]), Li.sub.2S.sub.n (n≥1) (Li.sub.2S.sub.n (n≥1), see [0089]), disulfide compounds (disulfide compounds, see [0089]), organosulfur compounds (organosulfur compounds, see [0089]), and carbon-sulfur polymers ((C.sub.2S.sub.x).sub.n, x=2.5 to 50, n≥2) (carbon-sulfur polymers ((C.sub.2S.sub.x).sub.n, x=2.5 to 50, n≥12), see [0089]).
Regarding claim 5, Song in view of Kim teaches wherein, in the sulfur-carbon composite (sulfur-carbon composite, see [0091]), the porous carbon material (carbon material, see [0091], see [0092] describes the carbon material as porous) and the sulfur (sulfur-series compound, see [0091]) have a weight ratio of 1:1 to 1:9 (1:1 to 1:9, see [0097]).
Regarding claim 12, Song in view of Kim teaches a positive electrode (positive electrode, see [0084]) for a lithium-sulfur battery (lithium secondary battery, see [0119]) comprising the sulfur-carbon composite (sulfur-carbon composite, see [0091], see [0090] the positive electrode active material is sulfur-carbon composite) of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 13, Song in view of Kim teaches a lithium-sulfur battery (lithium secondary battery, see [0169], see [0119] where the positive electrode is the positive electrode above, and where the positive electrode includes a sulfur-carbon composite making the battery a lithium-sulfur battery) comprising: the positive electrode (positive electrode, see [0084]) for a lithium-sulfur battery (lithium secondary battery, see [0119]) of claim 12 (see rejection of claim 12 above); a negative electrode (negative electrode, see [0119]) including a negative electrode active material (negative electrode active material, see [0121]); and an electrolyte (electrolyte, see [0119]).
Regarding claim 14, Song in view of Kim fails to teach wherein the negative electrode active material includes one or more types of materials selected from the group consisting of lithium metal and lithium alloys.
However, Song teaches wherein the negative electrode active material (negative electrode active material, see [0121]) includes one or more types of materials selected from the group consisting of lithium metal (lithium metal, see [0123]) and lithium alloys (lithium alloy, see [0123]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Song in view of Kim such that the negative electrode active material includes lithium metal or lithium alloy as Song teaches it is known in the art to do so. Further Song in view of Kim teaches that modifications can be made (see [0221] of Song).
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 4-5, and 12-14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same combination or interpretation of references previously applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
6. 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