DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
In the amendment dated 2026-09-18, the following has occurred: Claims 1, 13, 18, and 21 have been amended; Claim 10 has been previously canceled.
Claims 1-9 and 11-21 are pending; claim 21 being withdrawn. Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are examined herein. This is a Final Rejection.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li2 (Li et al. “Safe and Durable High-Temperature Lithium-Sulfur Batteries via Molecular Layer Deposited Coating.” Nano Letter. 2016, 16, 3545-3549—the Office also cites to the provided Supporting Information of this article) and Albano (US 2016/0351973 to Albano et al.), with reference to Li3 (Li et al. “A high-energy sulfur cathode in carbonate electrolyte by eliminating polysulfides via solid-phase lithium-sulfur transformation.” Nature Communications (2018) 9:4509) and Yushin (US 2013/0224594 to Yushin et al.) for evidence of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 1, Li2 teaches:
a carbon-sulfur composite material of active sulfur and conductive carbon with an MLD-deposited layer of alucone of controllable thickness, on the order of a few nm (abstract, Figs. 1 and 2, p. 3546)
wherein the alcuone layer is not only uniformly present across the surface of the electrode layer, but is also “evenly distributed throughout the electrode vertically, demonstrating the conformal and uniform nature of the MLD process” at the particle level, indicating alucone coating on individual particle surfaces (p. 3546)
used in a cathode opposite a lithium anode (Fig. 3, p. 3548)
entire surfaces of at least some of the particles coated (Fig. 1)
Li3, from the same laboratory as Li2, further teaches a schematic particle of carbon and sulfur having a conformal alucone coating over the entirety of the surface:
PNG
media_image1.png
202
828
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Li3 further discusses the morphology of particles, in particular, rather than a macroscopic electrode surface or the like (p. 2, “Results”). The method of coating was direct infiltration, suggesting coating on the entire exterior surface, i.e. all exposed surface, as claimed (p. 8, preparation of alucone coating).
Li2 does not explicitly teach:
the specific total pore volume and the pore size distribution or average
Applicant’s own specification indicates that commercially available porous carbon Maxsorb III ™ has the claimed pore volume and pore size (¶ 0017-0018, 0051).1 It would have been obvious to use a commercially available porous carbon, such as Maxsorb III ™, as the carbon support/scaffolding in a carbon-sulfur composite active material, since it was known in the art to useful for such purposes, and Li2 itself employs a commercially available porous carbon as a generic scaffolding (p. 3546). The Office further points to previously cited Aihara, which teaches the use of this commercial carbon as a porous carbon with sulfur to form a composite electrode (p. 2, column2). Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Li2 and Li3 teach MLD coating of a formed electrode, which would be expected to form a plurality of individually coated composite particles, at least some of that plurality having a layer that “covers an entirety of the exterior surface” of the particles’ surfaces, within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. The instant specification teaches preparing a carbon-sulfur composite of a given particle size (¶ 0023-0028), with a target coating covering 90-99% of the surface (¶ 0047), wherein the ALD/MLD process is applied to the particles before making the electrode slurry. Nonetheless, it is somewhat unclear how the particles are to be positioned during the ALD/MLD process such that the surface coverage differs from coating via ALD/MLD on an already fabricated electrode—are the particles dispersed, mixed, or moved during the process? how is the powder handled such that the whole surface of each particle is exposed to the coating process in a critically different way from that disclosed in Li2 and Li3? The key difference seems to be coating before electrode formation rather than any particular, novel, or non-obvious way of conducting the coating of a powder.
Albano, from the same field of invention, teaches ALD/MLD coating of electrode materials before mixing them into the electrode slurry (¶ 0029 and 0157). It further teaches use of ceramics, solid electrolytes, and metalcones like alucone (¶ 0189). It would have been obvious to perform the coating process in the Li documents before the formation of the electrode, as taught by Albano, to control the protective interface at each composite particle between the sulfur and the electrolyte, as Albano teaches metalcone coating layers on cathode materials including carbon composites and sulfur cathodes (¶ 0054). Yushin, also from the same field of invention, teaches individually coating substantially similar sulfur-carbon composite particles with a ceramic layer, and is cited as additional evidence of ordinary skill in the art (abstract, ¶ 0037).
Regarding Claims 2-3 and 17, Li2 does not teach:
coating a solid electrolyte on the particles
Albano, however, teaches using a solid electrolyte coating such as a LPS electrolyte, or the like as an alternative to alucone (¶ 0189). Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding Claims 4, 6-8, Li2 teaches:
a carbon-sulfur composite material of active sulfur and conductive carbon with an MLD-deposited layer of alucone of controllable thickness, on the order of a few nm (abstract, Figs. 1 and 2, p. 3546)
Regarding Claims 5 and 19, Li2 does not teach:
an alumina ceramic layer formed via ALD at low temperature
Albano, however, teaches using a solid electrolyte coating such as a LPS electrolyte, or the like as an alternative to alucone (¶ 0189). Yushin also does (¶ 0105). Alumina rather than alucone and ALD rather than MLD would have been substitutable equivalents within the broad range of “thin, conformal ceramic layers for carbon-sulfur composites” being claimed here, absent a showing of unexpected results for one over the other within the context of what was known by one of ordinary skill in the art. Use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way, and applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Li1, previously cited, also teaches a simple alumina ceramic layer formed via ALD at 100 °C (abstract) for a composite carbon-sulfur active material.
Regarding Claim 9, Li2 teaches:
70 wt% sulfur (p. 1 of the Supporting Information)
Regarding Claims 11 and 20, Yushin renders obvious:
use of commercially available porous carbon, formed by a thermal KOH activation process (¶ 0101-0104)
wherein melt infusion of sulfur was likewise conventional in the art (see e.g. previously cited Li3)
It would have been obvious to use conventional sulfur infiltration techniques with commercially available carbon, since Li2 teaches commercial carbon with conventional infiltration techniques. Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). See also previously cited Aihara for conventional use of activated carbon in composite sulfur materials.
Regarding Claim 12, Li2 is silent with respect to:
the conductivity of the coating layer
Li3, however, from the same field of invention, regarding an alucone layer on a composite material, teaches Nyquist left intercepts on the order of 10 ohms, strongly implying specific ionic resistances of the alucone layers being less than 10 Ω·cm2 for an electrode with area of several cm2 (pp. 8-9, Supplementary Fig. 12). In addition, Li2 and Li3 teach substantially the same material as the instant invention (e.g. alucone) at few nm thicknesses deposited via MLD, which would be expected to have an ionic resistance within the claimed value absent a showing that the claimed coating layer was different in some crucial respect
Regarding Claims 13 and 14, Li2 teaches:
use in a cell with a lithium anode (abstract, etc.)
wherein a cell is understood to have a collector with an electrode layer disposed thereon, with a binder and conductive additive (p. 1 of the Supporting Information of Li2)
Applicant’s own specification indicates that commercially available porous carbon Maxsorb III ™ has the claimed pore volume and pore size (¶ 0017-0018, 0051).2 It would have been obvious to use a commercially available porous carbon, such as Maxsorb III ™, as the carbon support/scaffolding in a carbon-sulfur composite active material, since it was known in the art to useful for such purposes, and Li2 itself employs a commercially available porous carbon as a generic scaffolding (p. 3546). The Office further points to previously cited Aihara, which teaches the use of this commercial carbon as a porous carbon with sulfur to form a composite electrode (p. 2, column2). Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding Claim 15, Li2 teaches:
conventional LiFSI salts in liquid electrolyte (p. 5 of Supporting Information)
Regarding Claim 16, Li2 teaches:
carbonate-based electrolyte comprising EC (p. 2 of Supporting Information)
Regarding Claim 18, Li2 teaches:
a method of forming the layer via MLD (abstract)
mixing the active material with a binder and solvent to form a slurry to be applied to the current collector (p. 1 Supporting Information)
Wherein Albano renders obvious applying the coating before forming the electrode. It would have been obvious to perform the coating process in the Li documents before the formation of the electrode, as taught by Albano, to control the protective interface at each composite particle between the sulfur and the electrolyte, as Albano teaches metalcone coating layers on cathode materials including carbon composites and sulfur cathodes (¶ 0054). Yushin, also from the same field of invention, teaches individually coating substantially similar sulfur-carbon composite particles with a ceramic layer, and is cited as additional evidence of ordinary skill in the art (abstract, ¶ 0037).
Claims 5 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li2 in view of Albano, with reference to Li3 and Yushin, in further view of Li1 (Li et al. “Nanoscale stabilization of Li-sulfur batteries by atomic layer deposited Al2O3.” RSC Adv., 2014, 4, 27126-27129).
Regarding Claims 5 and 19, Li2 does not teach:
an alumina ceramic layer formed via ALD at low temperature
Li1, however, teaches a simple alumina ceramic layer formed via ALD at 100 °C (abstract) for a composite carbon-sulfur active material. Albano and Yushin further teach ceramics like alumina. Alumina rather than alucone and ALD rather than MLD would have been substitutable equivalents within the broad range of “thin, conformal ceramic layers for carbon-sulfur composites” being claimed here, absent a showing of unexpected results for one over the other within the context of what was known by one of ordinary skill in the art. Use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way, and applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the Li references teach coating an electrode, and that the instant invention teaches coating particles before forming an electrode. Albano and Yushin are now cited for teaching that such an order was obvious. The Office notes, however, that while the rejections have been amended to address Applicant’s preferred construction, claim 1 as written only requires “a plurality of individually coated composite particles.” Li still appears to such a plurality, at least absent an argument that Applicant’s method of coating necessarily covers the surface entirely in a way that Li’s method does not. The instant specification does not discuss the coating method in any detail, such as how the powdered particles are dispersed, moved, or agitated during the coating process to ensure a total coating in a way that would differ from the method disclosed in Li. Nonetheless, the prior art renders obvious coating the particles taught in Li with an alucone layering before forming the electrode layer in order to individually coat the particles.
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 Michael Dignan, whose telephone number is (571) 272-6425. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 10 AM and 6:30 PM. If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tiffany Legette, can be reached at (571)270-7078. Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule an in-person interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
/MICHAEL L DIGNAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723
1 citations toPGPUB US 2023/0387397
2 citations toPGPUB US 2023/0387397
Prosecution Insights