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 .
The Applicant’s amendment filed on 7/29/2026 was received. Claim 1 was amended.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office action issued on 12/15/2025.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/22/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-8, 10-12, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rong et al. (US 20200269215 A1).
Regarding claim 1: Rong et al. disclose a carbon-coated transition metal nanocomposite material (abstract). The nanocomposite material (equivalent to a carbon composite material), comprising:
a porous amorphous carbon matrix (equivalent to a carbon support) (par. 24, 25);
a transition metal nanoparticle (equivalent to a catalyst) (par. 18); and
a graphitized carbon layer (equivalent to a carbon layer) (par. 18) coated on the surface of the transition metal nanoparticle (par. 18),
wherein the transition metal comprises at least one element selected from cobalt (Co) and iron (Fe) (par. 162),
wherein the transition metal includes transition metal particles having a metallic bonding between transition metal atoms (Since the transition metal nanoparticle contains a plurality of metal atoms, a metallic bonding exists between the metal atoms),
wherein the graphitized carbon layer is doped with oxygen and nitrogen (par. 169).
Rong et al. do not specifically disclose a number of the metallic bonding between the transition metal atoms is greater than a number of bonding between the transition metal atoms and atoms of the at least one selected from the group consisting of nitrogen (N), sulfur (S) and oxygen (O) in the carbon composite material. However, it is the position of the examiner that such properties (number of bonding) are inherent, given that the structure of the carbon-coated transition metal particles and the mass ratio of the oxygen/nitrogen in the nanocomposite material disclosed by Rong et al. and the present application are similar. A reference which is silent about a claimed invention’s features is inherently anticipatory if the missing feature is necessarily present in that which is described in the reference. Inherency is not established by probabilities or possibilities. In re Robertson, 49 USPQ2d 1949 (1999).
Regarding claim 4: Rong et al. disclose the transition metal is one or more selected from the group consisting of iron (Fe), cobalt (Co), nickel (Ni), copper (Cu) and zinc (Zn), more preferably one or more of iron, cobalt, nickel and copper, most preferably nickel (Ni) (par. 162).
Regarding claim 5: Rong et al. disclose the transition metal is one or more selected from the group consisting of iron (Fe), cobalt (Co), nickel (Ni), copper (Cu) and zinc (Zn), more preferably one or more of iron, cobalt, nickel and copper, most preferably nickel (Ni) (par. 162).
Regarding claim 6: Rong et al. disclose the particle size of the carbon-coated transition metal particles having a core-shell structure is preferably about 4 nm to about 50 nm (par. 161).
Regarding claim 7: Rong et al. disclose the graphitized carbon layer has a thickness of preferably about 1 nm to about 3 nm (par. 160). The particle size of the carbon-coated transition metal particles having a core-shell structure is preferably about 4 nm to about 50 nm (par. 161). It follows that the transition metal nanoparticle has a particle size of approximately 2 nm to 44 nm.
Regarding claim 8: Rong et al. disclose the graphitized carbon layer has a thickness of preferably about 1 nm to about 3 nm (par. 160). The particle size of the carbon-coated transition metal particles having a core-shell structure is preferably about 4 nm to about 50 nm (par. 161) (equivalent to a ratio of a thickness of the carbon layer to an average particle diameter (D50) of the catalyst coated with the carbon layer is 25%-6%).
Regarding claim 10: Rong et al. disclose the graphitized carbon layer has a thickness of preferably about 1 nm to about 3 nm (par. 160).
Regarding claim 11: Rong et al. disclose the transition metal comprises at least one element selected from cobalt (Co) and iron (Fe) (par. 162) (equivalent to 100 mol% of cobalt based on 100 mol% of the transition metal when only cobalt is selected)
Regarding claim 12: Rong et al. disclose the graphitized carbon (equivalent to crystalline carbon) coated on the surface of the transition metal nanoparticle (par. 18).
Regarding claim 14: Rong et al. disclose a nitrogen-containing organic compound (equivalent to a precursor) is preferably selected from melamine (par. 39)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20180019465 A1) in view of Kim (WO 2021010625 A1), and Liu et al. (US 20180297849 A1) on claims 1, 2, 4-13, 15-17, 20 are withdrawn because Applicant amended independent claim 1. The claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20180019465 A1) in view of Kim (WO 2021010625 A1), Liu et al. (US 20180297849 A1), and Lu (US 8277691 B2) on claim 3 is withdrawn because Applicant amended independent claim 1. The claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20180019465 A1) in view of Kim (WO 2021010625 A1), Liu et al. (US 20180297849 A1), and Huang et al. (Nitrogen-containing mesoporous carbons prepared from melamine formaldehyde resins with CaCl2 as a template, Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, 363, pp. 193-198, 2011) on claim 14 is withdrawn because Applicant amended independent claim 1. The claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20180019465 A1) in view of Kim (WO 2021010625 A1), Liu et al. (US 20180297849 A1), and Kim et al. (WO 20200226329 A1) on claim 18 is withdrawn because Applicant amended independent claim 1. The claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20180019465 A1) in view of Kim (WO 2021010625 A1), Liu et al. (US 20180297849 A1), and Choi et al. (US 20220320487 A1) on claim 19 is withdrawn because Applicant amended independent claim 1.
Claims 1, 2, 4-17, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20180019465 A1), hereinafter Kim 465, in view of Sun et al. (US 20170358800 A1) and Liu et al. (US 20180297849 A1).
Regarding claim 1: Kim 465 discloses a lithium-sulfur secondary battery (par. 2). The lithium-sulfur secondary battery comprises a sulfur-metal catalyst-carbon composite (par. 32, fig. 1). The sulfur-metal catalyst-carbon composite (equivalent to a carbon composite material) comprising:
a carbon material (equivalent to a porous carbon support) to support the metal nano particles (par. 31);
metal nano particles (equivalent to a catalyst) (par. 32) including one or more types of metals selected from the group consisting of ruthenium (Ru), platinum (Pt), nickel (Ni), copper (Cu), iron (Fe) and cobalt (Co) (par. 37) (As the metal nano particle contains a plurality of metal atoms, a metallic bonding exists between the metal atoms).
Kim 465 fail to explicitly disclose the carbon material is porous and at least one selected from the carbon layer and the porous carbon support comprise at least one selected from the group consisting of nitrogen (N), sulfur (S) and oxygen (O). However, Sun et al. disclose a cathode for metal-sulfur batteries which includes a cathode active material layer, which contains nitrogen-doped carbon (abstract). The nitrogen-doped carbon materials (102a and 103) may be porous materials having micropores (par. 41). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the nitrogen-doped carbon materials (102a and 103) of Sun et al. as the carbon material of Kim 465 because Sun et al. teach that the nitrogen-doped carbon materials can increase polysulfide adsorption ability, thereby further delay elution of the polysulfide (par. 73).
Kim 465 and Sun et al. fail to explicitly disclose a carbon layer coated on at least a portion of a surface of the catalyst and a number of the metallic bonding between the transition metal atoms is greater than a number of bonding between the transition metal atoms and atoms of the at least one selected from the group consisting of nitrogen (N), sulfur (S) and oxygen (O) in the carbon composite material. However, Liu et al. disclose a core/carbon nanotube shell structure (abstract, par. 3). However, Liu et al. disclose a core/carbon nanotube shell structure (abstract, par. 3). The core/carbon nanotube shell structure (10) comprises a carbon nanotube network shell (12) (equivalent to a carbon layer) and core material (14) (par. 53, fig. 1). The core material (14) (equivalent to a catalyst) can be transition metals include iron (Fe) (par. 65, 71, 73). The encapsulated core material can be particle having a diameter of 1 nm to 50 nm (par. 9) (As the core material (14) contains a plurality of metal atoms, a metallic bonding exists between the metal atoms) (As the carbon nanotube network shell (12) does not have hetero-elements (nitrogen, sulfur, or oxygen) (par. 8) and the core material (14) is encapsulated by the carbon nanotube network shell (12) (par. 8), the transition metal in the core material (14) does not have bonding to the hetero-elements (nitrogen, sulfur, or oxygen). Therefore, the number of the metallic bonding between the transition metal atoms is greater than the number of bonding between the transition metal atoms and atoms of the at least one selected from the group consisting of nitrogen (N), sulfur (S) and oxygen (O) in the carbon composite material). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the carbon nanotube network shell (12) of Liu et al. on the metal nano particles of Kim 465 because Liu et al. teach that the method used to prepare this structure can tune the size of the catalytic metal particles to produce highly reactive and stable multi-core/carbon nanotube shell catalysts (par. 93).
Regarding claim 2: Kim 465 discloses the carbon material comprises carbon particles selected from among graphite-based materials; carbon black-based materials (carbon black); carbon derivatives such as fullerene; and conductive fibers such as carbon fiber (par. 41).
Regarding claim 4: Kim 465 discloses the metal nano particles (equivalent to a catalyst) (par. 32) including one or more types of metals selected from the group consisting of ruthenium (Ru), platinum (Pt), nickel (Ni), copper (Cu), iron (Fe) and cobalt (Co) (par. 37).
Regarding claim 5: Kim 465 discloses the metal nano particles (equivalent to a catalyst) (par. 32) including one or more types of metals selected from the group consisting of ruthenium (Ru), platinum (Pt), nickel (Ni), copper (Cu), iron (Fe) and cobalt (Co) (par. 37).
Regarding claim 6: Kim 465 discloses the average particle diameter of the metal nano particles is preferably from 0.1 nm to 50 nm (par. 37). Kim 465 fails to explicitly disclose the catalyst coated with the carbon layer has an average particle size (D50) of 2 to 100 nm. However, Liu et al. disclose a core/carbon nanotube shell structure (abstract, par. 3). The core/carbon nanotube shell structure (10) comprises a carbon nanotube network shell (12) (equivalent to a carbon layer) and core material (14) (par. 53, fig. 1). The core material (14) (equivalent to a catalyst) can be transition metals include iron (Fe) (par. 65, 71, 73). The thickness of the carbon nanotube network shell (12) can be 0.5 nm to 10 nm (par. 80). The diameter of the core material (14) can be 1 nm to 50 nm (par. 53). It follows that the core material (14) coated with the carbon nanotube network shell (12) has a diameter of 2nm (0.5+1+0.5) to 70nm (10+50+10). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the core/carbon nanotube shell structure of Liu et al. as the metal nano particles of Kim 465 because Liu et al. teach that the method used to prepare this structure can tune the size of the catalytic metal particles to produce highly reactive and stable multi-core/carbon nanotube shell catalysts (par. 93). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 7: Kim 465 discloses the average particle diameter of the metal nano particles is preferably from 0.1 nm to 50 nm (par. 37). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 8: Kim 465 discloses the lithium-sulfur secondary battery as described above. Kim et al. fail to explicitly disclose a ratio of a thickness of the carbon layer to an average particle diameter (D50) of the catalyst coated with the carbon layer is 40% or smaller. However, Liu et al. disclose a core/carbon nanotube shell structure (abstract, par. 3). The core/carbon nanotube shell structure (10) comprises a carbon nanotube network shell (12) (equivalent to a carbon layer) and core material (14) (par. 53, fig. 1). The core material (14) (equivalent to a catalyst) can be transition metals include iron (Fe) (par. 65, 71, 73). The thickness of the carbon nanotube network shell (12) can be 0.5 nm to 10 nm (par. 80). The diameter of the core material (14) can be 1 nm to 50 nm (par. 53). It follows that a ratio of a thickness of the carbon nanotube network shell (12) to a diameter of the core material (14) is in the range of 50% ((0.5/1)*100%) to 20% ((10/50)*100%). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the core/carbon nanotube shell structure of Liu et al. as the metal nano particles of Kim 465 because Liu et al. teach that the method used to prepare this structure can tune the size of the catalytic metal particles to produce highly reactive and stable multi-core/carbon nanotube shell catalysts (par. 93). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 9: Kim 465 discloses the metal nano particles is preferably from 0.1% by weight to 10% by weight based on the total weight of the positive electrode active material for a lithium-sulfur battery (par. 38). Kim 465 further discloses the content of the carbon material is preferably from 5% by weight to 50% by weight based on the total weight of the positive electrode active material for a lithium-sulfur battery (par. 42). One example of the weight ratio between the carbon material and the metal nano particles is 5:1 when the metal nano particles is 10% by weight and the carbon material is 50% by weight, respectively, based on the total weight of the positive electrode active material for a lithium-sulfur battery. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 10: Kim 465 discloses the lithium-sulfur secondary battery as described above. Kim 465 fail to explicitly disclose the carbon layer has a thickness of 10 nm or less. However, Liu et al. disclose a core/carbon nanotube shell structure (abstract, par. 3). The core/carbon nanotube shell structure (10) comprises a carbon nanotube network shell (12) (equivalent to a carbon layer) and core material (14) (par. 53, fig. 1). The core material (14) (equivalent to a catalyst) can be transition metals include iron (Fe) (par. 65, 71, 73). The thickness of the carbon nanotube network shell (12) can be 0.5 nm to 10 nm (par. 80). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the core/carbon nanotube shell structure of Liu et al. as the metal nano particles of Kim 465 because Liu et al. teach that the method used to prepare this structure can tune the size of the catalytic metal particles to produce highly reactive and stable multi-core/carbon nanotube shell catalysts (par. 93). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 11: Kim 465 discloses the metal nano particles (equivalent to a catalyst) (par. 32) including one or more types of metals selected from the group consisting of ruthenium (Ru), platinum (Pt), nickel (Ni), copper (Cu), iron (Fe) and cobalt (Co) (par. 37) (equivalent to 100 mol% of cobalt based on 100 mol% of the transition metal when only cobalt is selected).
Regarding claim 12: Kim 465 discloses the lithium-sulfur secondary battery as described above. Kim 465 fails to explicitly disclose the carbon layer comprises crystalline carbon. However, Liu et al. disclose a core/carbon nanotube shell structure (abstract, par. 3). The core/carbon nanotube shell structure (10) comprises a carbon nanotube network shell (12) (equivalent to a carbon layer) (carbon nanotube is a crystalline carbon as evidenced by Kim et al. (US 20180019465 A1) in par. 10) and core material (14) (par. 53, fig. 1). The core material (14) (equivalent to a catalyst) can be transition metals include iron (Fe) (par. 65, 71, 73). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the core/carbon nanotube shell structure of Liu et al. as the metal nano particles of Kim 465 because Liu et al. teach that the method used to prepare this structure can tune the size of the catalytic metal particles to produce highly reactive and stable multi-core/carbon nanotube shell catalysts (par. 93).
Regarding claim 13: Kim 465 discloses the lithium-sulfur secondary battery as described above. Kim 465 fails to explicitly disclose the carbon layer has a structure having two or more layers. However, Liu et al. disclose a core/carbon nanotube shell structure (abstract, par. 3). The core/carbon nanotube shell structure (10) comprises a carbon nanotube network shell (12) (equivalent to a carbon layer) and core material (14) (par. 53, fig. 1). The core material (14) (equivalent to a catalyst) can be transition metals include iron (Fe) (par. 65, 71, 73). The carbon nanotube material would have two layers of a carbon nanotube network surrounding the nanostructure (par. 84). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the core/carbon nanotube shell structure of Liu et al. as the metal nano particles of Kim 465 because Liu et al. teach that the method used to prepare this structure can tune the size of the catalytic metal particles to produce highly reactive and stable multi-core/carbon nanotube shell catalysts (par. 93).
Regarding claim 14: Kim 465 discloses the lithium-sulfur secondary battery as described above. Kim 465 fails to explicitly disclose the nitrogen (N)- containing carbon compound is derived from a precursor selected from the group consisting of dopamine, melamine, polydopamine, 1,10-melamine, 1,10-phenanthroline, polyaniline, carbon nitride (g-CN), phenylenediamine and a mixture thereof. However, Sun et al. disclose a cathode for metal-sulfur batteries which includes a cathode active material layer, which contains nitrogen-doped carbon (abstract). A nitrogen source for the nitrogen-doped carbon materials (102a and 103) can be melamine (par. 51). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the nitrogen-doped carbon materials (102a and 103) of Sun et al. as the carbon material of Kim 465 because Sun et al. teach that the nitrogen-doped carbon materials can increase polysulfide adsorption ability, thereby further delay elution of the polysulfide (par. 73).
Regarding claim 15: Kim 465 discloses a positive electrode of a battery comprising:
an aluminum current collector (par. 87);
the sulfur-metal catalyst-carbon composite (the metal catalyst-carbon composite is equivalent to the carbon composite material of claim 1 and an active material) (sulfur is equivalent to an active material) (par. 31-33).
Regarding claim 16: Kim 465 discloses the sulfur is a positive electrode active material (par. 31-34); and the sulfur-metal catalyst-carbon composite includes the sulfur series material (par. 31-34).
Regarding claim 17: Kim 465 discloses a lithium-sulfur secondary battery comprising: the positive electrode (par. 87) of claim 15; an anode (equivalent to a negative electrode) (par. 88); a separator between the positive electrode and the anode (par. 88); and an electrolyte (par. 88).
Regarding claim 20: Kim 465 discloses the battery can be used in electric vehicles (par. 95).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20180019465 A1), hereinafter Kim 465, in view of Sun et al. (US 20170358800 A1), and Liu et al. (US 20180297849 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of in view of Lu (US 8277691 B2).
Regarding claim 3: Kim 465 discloses a lithium-sulfur secondary battery as described in paragraph 5 above. Kim 465, Sun et al. et al. and Liu et al. fail to explicitly disclose the carbon material is entangled, multi-walled carbon nanotubes. However, Lu discloses carbon nanotube composite electrodes for high performance electrochemical devices (abstract). The composite electrode (100) comprises carbon nanotubes (108) which form an entangled network (col. 10, lines 53-67, col. 11, lines 1-11, fig. 4, 5A, 5B). The carbon nanotubes (108) are categorized as single-wall carbon nanotubes (SWNT) and multi-wall carbon nanotubes (MWNT) (col. 12, lines 37-39). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the entangled, multi-walled carbon nanotubes of Lu as the carbon material of Kim 465 because Lu teaches that the electrodes containing carbon nanotubes can support high current density and provide a fast charge and/or discharge rate (col. 13, lines 42-53).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20180019465 A1), hereinafter Kim 465, in view of Sun et al. (US 20170358800 A1) and Liu et al. (US 20180297849 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (WO 20200226329 A1), hereinafter Kim et al. 329.
Regarding claim 18: Kim et al. disclose a lithium-sulfur secondary battery comprising:
a positive electrode (par. 87);
an anode (equivalent to a negative electrode) (par. 88);
a separator between the positive electrode and the anode (par. 88); and
an electrolyte (par. 88).
Kim 465, Sun et al., and Liu et al. fail to explicitly disclose the separator comprising the carbon composite material of claim 1. However, Kim et al. 329 disclose a functional separator having a catalytic point (par. 2). The functional separator comprising: a carbon-coated porous base separator (par. 24, 33) (equivalent to a porous carbon support); a catalytic site (equivalent to a catalyst) (par. 25).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the sulfur-metal catalyst-carbon composite of Kim 465 in the separator just like what Kim et al. 329 did because Kim et al. 329 teach the functional separator having a catalytic site can improve the capacity and lifespan of the battery (par. 16).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20180019465 A1), hereinafter Kim 465, in view of Sun et al. (US 20170358800 A1) and Liu et al. (US 20180297849 A1). as applied in claim 1 above, and further in view of Choi et al. (US 20220320487 A1).
Regarding claim 19: Kim 465 discloses a lithium-sulfur secondary battery as described in paragraph 5above. Kim 465, Sun et al., and Liu et al. fail to explicitly disclose a Li-S battery having an E/S ratio of 10 µL/mg or less and a sulfur loading of 2 mg/cm2 or higher. However, Choi et al. disclose lithium-sulfur batteries (abstract). The lithium-sulfur battery can be designed and manufactured to have an E/S (electrolyte to sulfur) ratio of 3 μL/mg and a sulfur loading of 4 mg/cm2 (par. 49). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the E/S (electrolyte to sulfur) ratio of Choi et al. in the lithium-sulfur secondary battery of Kim et al. because Choi et al. teach that a higher electrolyte to sulfur (E/S) ratio of 10 with a high sulfur loading can result in an undesirably low energy density (par. 6). In addition, Choi et al. further disclose reducing the E/S ratio below 4 μL/mg can reduce the sulfur utilization of a Li-S battery, which can cause issues due to the effect on reaction kinetics (par. 6). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention can adjust the E/S ratio to achieve the optimal balance between the energy density and the sulfur utilization of a Li-S battery. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments filed on 7/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant primarily argues:
Kim 465, Kim625, and Liu fail to disclose at least one selected from the carbon layer and the porous carbon support comprise at least one selected from the group consisting of nitrogen (N), sulfur (S) and oxygen (O).
Kim 465, Kim625, and Liu fail to disclose a number of the metallic bonding between the transition metal atoms is greater than a number of bonding between the transition metal atoms and atoms of the at least one selected from the group consisting of nitrogen (N), sulfur (S) and oxygen (O) in the carbon composite material.
In response:
Applicant’s arguments are moot. The newly cited references, Rong and Sun, teach the graphitized carbon layer and the nitrogen-doped carbon materials are doped with nitrogen, respectively.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The newly cited reference, Rong, disclose a nanocomposite material. The relative number of the bonding between the transition metal atoms and between the transition metal atoms and the hetero-elements (nitrogen (N), sulfur (S) and oxygen (O)) is an inherent property. The Liu reference teaches a carbon nanotube network shell (12) encapsulating a core material (14). As the carbon nanotube network shell (12) consists of carbon nanotube (par. 8), there is no hetero-element doped in the carbon nanotube network shell (12). Thus, the number of bonding between the transition metal atoms and atoms of at least one selected from the group consisting of nitrogen (N), sulfur (S) and oxygen (O) should be zero.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PIN JAN WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7057. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached on 571-272-1295. 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.
/PIN JAN WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1717
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights