DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2026-05-20 has been entered.
Newly submitted claim 21 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: it is directed towards a method of making a material that does not have all the limitations of independent claim.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 21 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
In the amendment dated 2026-05-20, the following has occurred: Claims 1 and 20 have been amended; Claim 10 has been (previously) canceled; Claim 21 has been added.
Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are pending and are examined herein. Claim 20 has been withdrawn as pertaining to a non-elected invention. This is a Non-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.
Response to Arguments
The arguments submitted 2026-05-20 have been considered but do not place the application in condition for allowance. Regarding the § 112 rejections, Applicant argues that a commercially available mesoporous carbon meets the claimed limitations, indicating that the claimed “average pore volume” and “average pore diameter” were well-understood terms at the time of invention that were not indefinite. Applicant’s arguments have been accepted and the § 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant argues that the cited prior art teaches applying alucone and other ALD/MLD coatings on electrodes, rather than on particles, such that they do not teach the claimed layer covering “an entirety of the exterior surface of each of the particles” (Remarks at pp. 10-13). The Office acknowledges that the cited references, Li, Li2, and Li3, all teach applying a coating to electrodes. It does not follow, however, that the resulting electrode comprising a “composite material” with sulfur and carbon composite particles having exterior surfaces do not have a “layer comprising a ceramic” that covers “an entirety of the exterior surface of each of the particles,” at least within some of the “composite material” of the electrode.
While this is ambiguous in Li, and Li2, which appear to teach a conformal coating over composite particles, but do not explicitly show particles completely covered, Li3 appears to disclose a composite material that reads on the claimed invention. In Fig. 2(g), for example, Li3 shows an exemplary 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). Similarly, Li2, shows schematic representations of composite particles, with their entire exterior surface coated by the alucone deposition, and uses the same method as Li3 (Fig. 1):
PNG
media_image2.png
272
388
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The claims are therefore rejected as obvious over Li2 and Li3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 4, 6-9, 11-16, 18, and 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 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—the Office also cites to the provided Supporting Information of this article), with reference to Aihara (Aihara et al. “The Electrochemical Characteristics and Applicability of an Amorphous Sulfide-Based Solid Ion Conductor for the Next-Generation Solid-State Lithium Secondary Batteries.” Frontiers in Energy Research, March 2016, vol. 4, art. 18).
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 the particles coated (Fig. 1)
Li3 teaches:
an exemplary 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). 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 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 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 Claim 9, Li2 teaches:
70 wt% sulfur (p. 1 of the Supporting Information)
Regarding Claims 11 and 20, Aihara renders obvious:
use of commercially available porous carbon, formed by a thermal KOH activation process, 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).
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.)
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)
Claims 2, 3, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li2 in view of Li3, and Aihara, in further view of Locke (US 2022/0102758 to Locke et al.).
Regarding Claims 2-3 and 17, Li2 does not explicitly teach:
a solid electrolyte material such as LiPON, LLZO, LATP, LGPS, LPS, or the like was mixed with the composite particles
Claims 5 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li2 in view of Li3 and Aihara, 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. 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).
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights