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 3/13/2026 was received. Claims 1, 3 were 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention, on claim 3 is withdrawn because Applicant amended Claim 3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (WO 2021010625 A1) in view of Chen et al. (US 20140072879 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CaCl2 as a template, Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, 363, pp. 193-198, 2011) on claims 1, 2, 4-17, 20 are withdrawn because Applicant amended independent claim 1. The claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (WO 2021010625 A1) in view of Chen et al. (US 20140072879 A1), 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), 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 (WO 20200226329 A1) on claim 18 is withdrawn because Applicant amended independent claim 1.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 (WO 2021010625 A1) in view of Chen et al. (US 20140072879 A1), 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), and Choi et al. (US 20220320487 A1) on claim 19 is withdrawn because Applicant amended independent claim 1.
Claims 1, 2, 4-13, 15-17, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20180019465 A1) in view of Kim (WO 2021010625 A1), hereinafter Kim 625, and Lui et al. (US 20180297849 A1).
Regarding to claim 1: Kim 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) (Since the metal nano particle contains a plurality of metal atoms, a metallic bonding exists between the metal atoms.);
wherein the carbon material is used as a sulfur-carbon composite in a form of the carbon particles being located in a part or all of the sulfur series material (par. 40)
Kim et al. fail to explicitly disclose the carbon material is porous. However, Kim 625 discloses a lithium-sulfur secondary battery (par. 2). The lithium-sulfur secondary battery comprises a porous carbon material (10) (equivalent to a porous carbon support) to support a catalyst point (par. 75, fig. 1). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use porous carbon material (10) of Kim 625 as the carbon material of Kim et al. because Kim 625 teaches that the pore structures can promote the electrochemical reaction and improve the performance, durability, and efficiency of the catalyst site (par. 77).
Kim et al. and Kim 625 fail to explicitly disclose a carbon layer coated on at least a portion of a surface of the catalyst. 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). 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 et al. 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 to claim 2: Kim et al. 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 to claim 4: Kim et al. 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 to claim 5: Kim et al. 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 to claim 6: Kim et al. discloses the average particle diameter of the metal nano particles is preferably from 0.1 nm to 50 nm (par. 37). Kim et al. fail 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 et al. 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 to claim 7: Kim et al. 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 to claim 8: Kim et al. 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 an 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 et al. 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 to claim 9: Kim et al. disclose 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 et al. further disclose 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 to claim 10: Kim et al. disclose the lithium-sulfur secondary battery as described above. Kim et al. 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 et al. 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 to claim 11: Kim et al. disclose 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 to claim 12: Kim et al. disclose the lithium-sulfur secondary battery as described above. Kim et al. fail 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 et al. 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 to claim 13: Kim et al. disclose the lithium-sulfur secondary battery as described above. Kim et al. fail 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 et al. 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 to claim 15: Kim et al. disclose a positive electrode of a battery comprising:
a aluminum current collector (par. 87);
the sulfur-metal catalyst-carbon composite (the sulfur-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 to claim 16: Kim et al. disclose 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 to claim 17: Kim et al. disclose 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 to claim 20: Kim et al. disclose 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) in view of Kim (WO 2021010625 A1), hereinafter Kim 625, and Lui et al. (US 20180297849 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of in view of Lu (US 8277691 B2)
Regarding to claim 3: Kim et al. disclose a lithium-sulfur secondary battery as described in paragraph 4 above. Kim et al. fails 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 et al. 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 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20180019465 A1) in view of Kim (WO 2021010625 A1), hereinafter Kim 625, and Lui et al. (US 20180297849 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of 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).
Regarding to claim 14: Kim et al. disclose a lithium-sulfur secondary battery as described in paragraph 4 above. Kim et al. fail 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, Huang et al. disclose mesoporous carbons (MS) for energy-storage systems (Introduction). The mesoporous carbons contains nitrogen (NMC) (abstract, Experimental). The NMC is prepared through the carbonization of melamine formaldehyde resins (MF) (Experimental). 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 mesoporous carbons containing nitrogen (NMC) of Huang et al. as the carbon material of Kim et al. because Huang et al. teach that the NMC prepared by Huang et al. shows an amphipathic surface (both hydrophilic and lipophilic) (Introduction) which can make the NMC wettable by electrolytes.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20180019465 A1) in view of Kim (WO 2021010625 A1), hereinafter Kim 625, and Lui 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 to 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 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 et al. 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) in view of Kim (WO 2021010625 A1), hereinafter Kim 625, and Lui et al. (US 20180297849 A1) as applied in claim 1 above, and further in view of Choi et al. (US 20220320487 A1).
Regarding to claim 19: Kim et al. disclose a lithium-sulfur secondary battery as described in paragraph 4 above. Kim fails 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 03/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant primarily argues:
Kim 625, Chen, Huang, Lu, Kim 329, and Choi fail to disclose “the transition metal includes transition metal particles having a metallic bonding between transition metal atom”.
In response:
Applicant’s arguments are moot because the newly cited Kim 465 reference teaches the metal nano particles. The metal nano particles contains metal atoms which has metallic bonding between metal atoms.
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 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