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
The amendment filed September 22, 2025 has been received and fully considered.
Claims 1-5 and 7-10 are pending.
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 1-4, 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MANTHIRAM et al., WO 2017/218150 A1.
Regarding claim 1, MANTHIRAM et al. clearly teaches a cathode for a lithium-sulfur battery, including an electrically conductive porous shell and a sulfur-based core enclosed within the shell. MANTHIRAM et al. also teaches the Li-S batteries including said cathodes (abstract).
PNG
media_image1.png
291
668
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The conductive, porous shell comprises a first layer, an O-ring located on the first layer to form a volume that contains the sulfur-based core, and a second layer located on the O-ring to enclose the sulfur-based core (claim 2). The shell is preferably an electrically conductive, porous carbon material such as carbon nanofibers and carbon nanotubes (claims 3 & 4) and may comprise carbon particles and/or graphene (claims 5 & 6). See also Figure 1; page 12, lines 4-17.
The sulfur compound may include polysulfides such as Li2Sn, 4<n<8 in the form of a liquid (page 13, lines 1-6; claim 26).
MANTHIRAM et al. clearly teaches polysulfide Li-S batteries comprising the same. See page 21, line 31 – page 22, line 8.
MANTHIRAM et al. does not expressly disclose the electrolyte-to-sulfur ratio however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the electrolyte and sulfur containing components in preferred amounts obtained through routine optimization therefore rendering the claimed range obvious absent any teaching to suggest said claimed range has criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II A.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, MANTHIRAM et al. teaches a sulfur loading of at least 4 mg/cm2 and at least 40 wt% based on total weight of the core and shell (Table 1; 3claims 28-30).
Regarding claim 4, the carbon paper used for the shell of the particles is taught to have a specific surface are of 81 m2/g.
Regarding claim 7, MANTHIRAM et al. teaches an areal capacity of at least 5 mAh/cm2 (page 273, lines 10-12; claim 14).
Regarding claim 8, it is the Office’s position the energy density of the lithium-sulfur battery necessarily has an energy density of between 10 mWh/cm2 and 30 mWh/cm2 given the instantly claimed battery is the same as the lithium-sulfur battery of MANTHIRAM et al. Applicant is reminded of MPEP 2112.01 I: Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773.
Further regarding claim 9, it would have been obvious to optimize the electrolyte-to-capacity ratio of the lithium-sulfur battery of MANTHIRAM et al given the benefits taught therein of obtaining high sulfur loading and sulfur mass ([0126]). MPEP 2144.05 II A.
Regarding claim 10, MANTHIRAM et al. teaches specific examples with capacity retention of at least 75% at C/10 (100 cycles) (Table 3).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MANTHIRAM et al., WO 2017/218150 A1 in view of CHEN et al., US 2018/0351166 A1.
Regarding claim 5, MANTHIRAM et al., teaches a cathode for a lithium-sulfur battery, including an electrically conductive porous shell and a sulfur-based core enclosed within the shell as discussed above. MANTHIRAM et al. however does not teach the claimed pore volume or pore diameter of said particles. CHEN et al. teaches sulfur-carbon composite particles with a preferred pore diameter of 0.4nm -50nm and a preferred pore volume of 0.3 – 1.5 ([0031], [0033]) which render the claimed ranges obvious. MPEP 2144.05 I. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the particles of MANTHIRAM et al. within the specifications taught by CHEN et al. before the effective filing date of the instant application with reasonable expectation of improving the specific capacity and cyclic stability ([0014]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 22, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has amended claim 1 to include the limitations of claim 6, thus the rejection under 35 USC 102 over MANTHIRAM et al. is withdrawn. Claim 1 is now rejected under 35 USC 103 over MANTHIRAM et al.
Applicant appears to allege unexpected results as a result of requiring the electrolyte-to-sulfur ration of between 3 and 10 mL/mg. However the referenced advantage refers to paragraph [0038] of the published PG Pub (not the specification of the application) which clearly states “In some embodiments, … “ without indicating which embodiments and if those embodiments are commensurate in scope with claim 1. Specifically in paragraph [0038], it argued range of 3 to 7 mL/mg which is not commensurate in scope with the claimed range of 3 to 10 mL/mg. Applicant is reminded of MPEP 716.02(d). Also it unclear what is the battery system of Example 5 referenced in paragraph [0114] and whether that battery system is commensurate in scope with claim 1. Applicant is also reminded "The fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious." Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Applicant argues the sulfur to electrolyte ratio in MANTHIRAM et al. is 1:10 but based on the entire battery systems meaning the volume of all electrolytes added in the cathode and anode of MANTHIRAM et al. and is much higher for this reason.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
In US 2024/0105998 A1, XU et al. teaches an electrochemical energy storage device comprising a lean electrolyte (abstract; [0003]-[0009], [0022];[0065]).
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 BARBARA GILLIAM whose telephone number is (571)272-1330. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00 AM - 4:00 PM& 2nd Friday 7:00 AM - 3:00 PM.
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, Srilakshmi Kumar can be reached at 571-272-7769. 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.
BARBARA L GILLIAM
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1727
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727