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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 6-7, 9-11, 13, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20180019465 A1, “Kim”) in view of Sun et al. (Sun et al. “Conductive porous vanadium nitride/graphene composite as chemical anchor of polysulfides for lithium-sulfur batteries”…).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a positive electrode active material (see abstract “positive electrode active material”), comprising: a) particles A comprising a first carbon material (see abstract “metal nanoparticles”), at least part of the first carbon material is crystalline (see [0010] “carbon nanotubes are high crystalline carbon”) and catalyst particles deposited on the first carbon material (see abstract “a positive electrode active material of a sulfur-metal catalyst-carbon composite”); and b) particles comprising a second carbon material, at least part of the second porous carbon material is crystalline (see [0010] “carbon nanotubes are high crystalline carbon”), and sulfur infiltrated into the second carbon material (see [0031] “a sulfur series material to locate the carbon material on at least a part of its surface”). Regarding the limitation wherein the particles A and the particles B have different morphologies, Kim discloses in FIG. 4 which describes a morphology of the particles & see [0036] “large specific surface area” & [0037] describes “metal nano particles is preferably from 0.1 nm to 50 nm in terms of providing a proper surface area for the oxidation-reduction reaction”). Kim does not explicitly disclose different morphologies; however, morphologies are properties of the particle material. Kim does not explicitly disclose porous carbon material nor wherein the particles A and the particles B have different morphologies.
Sun teaches porous carbon material (see title “conductive porous vanadium nitride/graphene composite” & see P2 col 2 par 2 “porous carbon-based materials used as barriers and hosts have been demonstrated to be a simple approach to suppress the polysulfide shuttle effect”. Sun teaches lithium-sulfur (Li-S) batteries (see P2 par 1).
Kim and Sun are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely lithium-sulfur batteries (see Sun P2 par 1).
Sun teaches a morphology of the VN/G composite (see FIG. 2 & P4 par 3 describes “numerous voids, several micrometres in size, are able to hold a large amount of sulfur and provide good penetration of electrolyte” & in P4 col 2 par 1 “VN nanoribbons are typically 50-100 nm wide” & “10 to 30 nm in diameter, which are beneficial for both the ion transportation and the adsorption of polysulfides in the electrochemical process”).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the particles taught by Sun have a morphology as suggested by Sun (see FIG. 2 & P4 par 3 & P4 col 2 par 1) which is different than the morphology of the particles disclose by Kim (see FIG. 4 & FIG. 4). It would have been prima facie obvious that the particles disclosed by Kim would exhibit a different morphology because the composition is different than the particles taught by Sun. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the particles taught by Sun into the positive electrode active material of Kim because doing so is beneficial for ion transportation and adsorption of polysulfides as suggested by Sun (see P4 col 2 par 1) & further doing so allows for “hold[ing] a large amount of sulfur and provid[ing] good penetration of electrolyte”), as suggested by Sun (see P4 par 3).
Regarding claim 6, Kim discloses the positive electrode active material of claim 1 and further discloses specific surface area of the particles (see [0010] “carbon-based has a large specific surface area, which is very advantageous in terms of increasing a contact surface between sulfur and an electrolyte”; see [0036] “nano sizes are suitable so as to have a large specific surface area”). Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein a specific surface area of the particles A is larger than a specific surface area of the particles B.
Sun teaches larger specific surface area of porous carbon material (see P4 col 2 par 2 “specific surface area of the VN/G was 37 m2/g with mesopores 18 nm in diameter, which is consistent with the TEM observation. In contrast, the specific surface area of the RGO was as high as 296 m2/g”). Sun teaches on P2 col 2 par 2 “owing to the large specific surface area, macropores and mesopores can encapsulate a large amount of sulfur and facilitate fast ion transport”.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate larger specific surface area of carbon material, as suggested by Sun (see P4 col 2 par 2) into the positive electrode active material of Kim because doing so “facilitates fast ion transport”, as suggested by Sun (see P2 col 2 par 2).
Regarding claim 7, Kim discloses the positive electrode active material of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the particles A and the particles B are in contact with each other in at least one location at which the catalyst particles included in the particles A are present (see [0019] “sulfur-metal catalyst-carbon composite”; see [0047]).
Regarding claim 9, Kim discloses the positive electrode active material of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the first porous carbon material and the second porous carbon material are different materials (see abstract “metal nanoparticles”; see [0031] “a sulfur series material to locate the carbon material on at least a part of its surface” & see [0040] “sulfur-carbon composite in a form of the carbon particles being located in a part or all of the sulfur series material”).
Regarding claim 10, Kim discloses the positive electrode active material of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the first porous carbon material and the second porous carbon material are the same material (see abstract “positive electrode for a lithium-sulfur battery comprising a positive electrode active material of a sulfur-metal catalyst-carbon composite” & see [0040] “sulfur-carbon composite in a form of the carbon particles being located in a part or all of the sulfur series material”).
Regarding claim 11, Kim discloses the positive electrode active material of claim 1 and further discloses wherein each of the first porous carbon material and the second porous carbon material independently comprises bundled carbon nanotubes (CNT) (see [0010] “carbon nanotubes”).
Regarding claim 13, Kim discloses the positive electrode active material of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the catalyst particles comprise at least one of cobalt (Co) or iron (Fe) (see [0037] “iron (Fe) and cobalt (Co) may be preferably used”).
Regarding claim 15, Kim discloses the positive electrode active material of claim 1 and further discloses electrical conductivity (see [0020] “increases electrical conductivity of an electrode by the dispersion of the metal nano particles in the electrode so as to increase reactivity and electric capacity of the positive electrode”). Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein an electrical conductivity of each of the first porous carbon material and the second porous carbon material is larger than an electrical conductivity of an amorphous carbon material, however, electrical conductivity is a property of the material.
Sun teaches in P5 col 2 par 1 “VN/G composite also exhibits an electrical conductivity of approximately 1,150 S/m measured by the four-point probe method, which is over four times larger than that of RGO (about 240 S/m)”.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the porous carbon material suggested by Sun (see P5 col 2 par 1) exhibits an electrical conductivity larger than RGO, as suggested by Sun (See P5 col 2 par 1).
Regarding claim 17, Kim discloses the positive electrode active material of claim 1 and further discloses a lithium-sulfur battery (see abstract “lithium-sulfur battery”), comprising: a positive electrode, a negative electrode, a separator between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (see abstract “positive electrode” & see [0080] “separator having a function of physically separating the electrodes”); and a nonaqueous electrolyte solution (see [0069] “solid electrolyte may also serve as the separator” & see [0073] “non-aqueous”).
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20180019465 A1, “Kim”) in view of Sun et al. (Sun et al. “Conductive porous vanadium nitride/graphene composite as chemical anchor of polysulfides for lithium-sulfur batteries”…) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Joo et al. (US 20210005879 A1, “Joo”).
Regarding claim 2, Kim discloses the positive electrode active material of claim 1 and further discloses average particle diameter & surface area (see [0037] “average particle diameter of the metal nano particles is preferably from 0.1 nm to 50 nm in terms of providing a proper surface area for the oxidation-reduction reaction” & see [0010] “carbon-based has a large specific surface area”). Kim does not explicitly disclose sphericity of the particles, nor an equation for sphericity, however, a skilled artisan would recognize sphericity of a particle can be represented by the sphericity of a sphere which is equivalent to equation 1. Kim discloses a morphology of particles in FIG 4 & FIG. 5 which describes particles B.
Sun teaches morphology of the particles (see P4 par 3 “VN nanoribbons and reduced graphene oxide (RG) sheets” & see FIG. 2 describes morphology of VN/G composite”) which describes particle A.
Joo teaches sphericity (see [0102] “sphericity” & “sphericity is determined by a suitable measure available in the art”; & [0094] “control of such characteristics improves control of swelling directionality during lithiation and de-lithiation and/or facilitates better coverage and/or protection of the particles during lithiation and de-lithiation, such as by reducing delamination of the particles during usage (e.g., battery cycling” & see [0010] “lithium sulfur battery”.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Joo to include controlled characteristics including sphericity as suggested by Joo (see [0094]) into the positive electrode active material of Kim because doing so improves the battery cycling as suggested by Joo (see [0094]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine sphericity using equation 1 represented in claim 2 because Kim discloses a particle and a skilled artisan would recognize the sphericity of a particle can be represent by the sphericity of a sphere which is equivalent to equation 1.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the particles disclosed by Kim (see FIG. 4 & FIG 5) and particles taught by Sun (see FIG. 2) have different morphologies, and a skilled artisan would find it obvious that the particles disclosed by Kim (see FIG. 4 & FIG 5) have a higher sphericity than the particles taught by Sun (see FIG. 2) because Kim discloses in FIG. 4 & FIG. 5 particles which are more spherical and Sun teaches “porous VN/G composite” in FIG. 2 d&e & P3 col 2 par 2 “VN nanoribbon/graphene (VN/G) composite” which describes a ribbon shape particle which describes a particle with lower sphericity.
Regarding claim 3 and claim 4, Kim discloses the positive electrode active material of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein 50% or more of the particles A are present on a surface of the particles B nor wherein a surface of at least some of the particles B is covered by the particles A, and wherein a coverage area of the particles B by the particles A is 20% to 50% of an entire outer area of the particles B.
Joo teaches good coverage of particles “very good coverage of the particles with the carbon is achieved” (see [0129]) & see FIG. 9 describes particles covered by carbon. Joo teaches “material becomes uncovered exposed to electrolyte during cycling” & “causing rapid decline in cell performance” & “limiting the battery’s lifecycle” (see [0039]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate good coverage of particles by carbon, as suggested by Joo (see Joo [0129] & FIG. 9) into the positive electrode active material of Kim because doing so improves the lifecycle of the battery (see Joo [0039]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20180019465 A1, “Kim”) in view of Sun et al. (Sun et al. “Conductive porous vanadium nitride/graphene composite as chemical anchor of polysulfides for lithium-sulfur batteries”…) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (KR 20190056484 A, “Lee”, the machine translation is used herein for citation purposes).
Regarding claim 5, Kim discloses the positive electrode active material of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein a porosity of the particles A is larger than a porosity of the particles B.
Lee teaches “the porosity of the secondary structure may be 60 to 90%, preferably 65 to 88%, more preferably 70 to 85%. The porosity is the total volume and pore volume measured in the secondary structure and calculated as the percentage of the pore volume to the total volume. The porosity in the secondary structure may mean the volume of the passage for the material to move within the secondary structure, and the secondary structure having a certain porosity or more may be advantageous in mass transfer inside. When the porosity of the secondary structure is less than 60%, it may not be easy to transfer the substance of sulfur or electrolyte into the secondary structure. If the porosity of the secondary structure is more than 90%, the amount of carbon nanotubes in the secondary structure” & “It is difficult to secure the durability of the secondary structure in addition to the small amount of sulfur to be loaded” (see [0045]).
A result effective variable is a variable which achieves a recognized result. The determination of the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable is routine experimentation and therefore obvious. MPEP § 2144.05.
Thus, the porosity is a variable that achieves the recognized result of mass transfer inside. That makes the porosity a result-effective variable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to routinely experiment with the porosity and come up with difference in porosity for the purpose of improving the durability of the secondary structure while allowing mass transfer inside, as suggested by Lee (see [0045]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20180019465 A1, “Kim”) in view of Sun et al. (Sun et al. “Conductive porous vanadium nitride/graphene composite as chemical anchor of polysulfides for lithium-sulfur batteries”…) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sevilla et al. (Sevilla et al., “Straightforward synthesis of Sulfur/N,S-codoped carbon cathodes for Lithium-Sulfur batteries”…).
Regarding claim 8, Kim discloses the positive electrode active material of claim 1, and further discloses a weight of sulfur in [0082], but does not explicitly disclose wherein a weight of the sulfur is from 60 weight% to 90 weight % based on a total weight of the first porous carbon material and the second porous carbon material.
Sevilla teaches higher amount of sulfur (see abstract “Remarkably, the composites with 51–65 wt% S can still provide above 400 mAh g−1 at an ultra-fast rate of 4 C (where a charge and discharge cycle takes only ten minutes)” & see title “lithium sulfur batteries”.
Kim and Sevilla are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely lithium sulfur batteries (see Sevilla title).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate 51-65 wt% S, as suggested by Sevilla into the positive electrode active material of Kim because doing so improves the specific capacity of the battery, as suggested by Sevilla (see abstract).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20180019465 A1, “Kim”) in view of Sun et al. (Sun et al. “Conductive porous vanadium nitride/graphene composite as chemical anchor of polysulfides for lithium-sulfur batteries”…) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhong et al. (Zhong, Yu et al. “Confining sulfur in integrated composite scaffold with highly porous carbon fibers/vanadium nitride arrays for high-performance lithium-sulfur batteries”. Advanced Functional Materials. 2018, “Zhong”).
Regarding claim 12, Kim discloses the positive electrode active material of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the catalyst particles comprise vanadium nitride.
Zhong teaches vanadium nitride as a catalyst (see title “vanadium nitride”; see P2 par 1 “vanadium nitride is considered as an ideal anchoring material for polysulfides in LSBs since it has a series of desirable properties: (1) Strong chemical adsorption for polysulfides that can effectively inhibit the shuttle effect. (2) Large specific surface area provides fast electron/ion transfer path. (3) Highly conductive nature (1.67×106 Ω-1m-1) that boosts the electrochemical performance. (4) Similar catalytic activity to noble metals which could improve the electrochemical reaction kinetics”.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate vanadium nitride, as suggested by Zhong (see P2 par 1) into the positive electrode active material of Kim because doing so improves the electrochemical performance as suggested by Zhong (see P2 par 1).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20180019465 A1, “Kim”) in view of Sun et al. (Sun et al. “Conductive porous vanadium nitride/graphene composite as chemical anchor of polysulfides for lithium-sulfur batteries”…) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yushin et al. (US 20150236372 A1, “Yushin”).
Regarding claim 14, Kim discloses the positive electrode active material of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein an elasticity of each of the first porous carbon material and the second porous carbon material is larger than an elasticity of an amorphous carbon material, however, elasticity is a property of the material.
Yushin teaches elasticity in [0088] & “if such a material is electrically conductive, this may also be advantageous since it will improve electrical conductivity of the hierarchical composite particles. If such a material possesses some elasticity (at least 1% maximum expansion), this may also be advantageous since it will help to release some of the stresses within the core during charge or discharge of the hierarchical particles.”
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate elasticity as suggested by Yushin (see [0088]) into the positive electrode active material of Kim because doing so “help[s] to release some of the stresses within the core during charge or discharge” as suggested by Yushin (see [0088]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20180019465 A1, “Kim”) in view of Sun et al. (Sun et al. “Conductive porous vanadium nitride/graphene composite as chemical anchor of polysulfides for lithium-sulfur batteries”…) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Pol et al. (US 20110104553 A1, “Pol”).
Regarding claim 16, Kim discloses the positive electrode active material of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein an ID/IG value of the positive electrode active material is equal to or less than 2.0, however, ID/IG is a property of the material.
Pol teaches ID/IG ratio of carbon particles (see [0067] “The intensity ratio of the D and G bands (ID/IG) of about 0.93 further quantifies the relative levels of disordered and graphitic carbons in the prolate-shaped carbon particles. The arrangements of the graphene layers in these prolate-shaped particles allows lithium insertion and deinsertion to occur effectively and reversibly.”) and teaches “lithium sulfur batteries” (see [0006]).
Kim and Pol are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely lithium sulfur batteries (see Pol [0006]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate ID/IG ratio of carbon particles as suggested by Pol (see [0067]) into the positive electrode active material of Kim because Pol teaches doing so allows for reversible and effective lithium insertion and deinsertion as suggested by Pol (see [0067]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments, see P6 through P7 regarding sphericity in Joo & “there is no motivation for teaching that the sphericity of partible B must be larger than the sphericity of particle A nor the recited Equation 1”, filed 05/15/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 2 under Zhamu et al. (US 11121398 B2) in view of Kim et al. (US 20180019465 A1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Joo et al. (US 20210005879 A1) and in view of Lee et al. (US 20210050587 A1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kim et al. (US 20180019465 A1, “Kim”) in view of Sun et al. (Sun et al. “Conductive porous vanadium nitride/graphene composite as chemical anchor of polysulfides for lithium-sulfur batteries”…) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Joo et al. (US 20210005879 A1, “Joo”).
Kim does not explicitly disclose sphericity of the particles, nor an equation for sphericity, however, a skilled artisan would recognize sphericity of a particle can be represent by the sphericity of a sphere which is equivalent to equation 1. Kim discloses a morphology of particles in FIG 4 & FIG. 5 which describes particles B.
Sun teaches morphology of the particles (see P4 par 3 “VN nanoribbons and reduced graphene oxide (RG) sheets” & see FIG. 2 describes morphology of VN/G composite”) which describes particle A.
Joo teaches sphericity (see [0102] “sphericity” & “sphericity is determined by a suitable measure available in the art”; & [0094] “control of such characteristics improves control of swelling directionality during lithiation and de-lithiation and/or facilitates better coverage and/or protection of the particles during lithiation and de-lithiation, such as by reducing delamination of the particles during usage (e.g., battery cycling” & see [0010] “lithium sulfur battery”.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Joo to include controlled characteristics including sphericity as suggested by Joo (see [0094]) into the positive electrode active material of Kim because doing so improves the battery cycling as suggested by Joo (see [0094]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine sphericity using equation 1 represented in claim 2 because Kim discloses a particle and a skilled artisan would recognize the sphericity of a particle can be represent by the sphericity of a sphere which is equivalent to equation 1.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the particles disclosed by Kim (see FIG. 4 & FIG 5) and particles taught by Sun (see FIG. 2) have different morphologies, and a skilled artisan would find it obvious that the particles disclosed by Kim (see FIG. 4 & FIG 5) have a higher sphericity than the particles taught by Sun (see FIG. 2) because Kim discloses in FIG. 4 & FIG. 5 particles which are more spherical and Sun teaches “porous VN/G composite” in FIG. 2 d&e & P3 col 2 par 2 “VN nanoribbon/graphene (VN/G) composite” which describes a ribbon shape particle which describes a particle with lower sphericity.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH APPLEGATE whose telephone number is (571)270-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/S.A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/JAMES M ERWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 08/18/2026
Prosecution Insights