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.
Claims 1, 7-11, 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhamu et al. (US 11121398 B2, “Zhamu”) in view of Kim et al. (US 20180019465 A1, “Kim”).
Regarding claim 1, Zhamu discloses a positive electrode active material (see abstract “cathode active material layer” and cathode reads on positive electrode), comprising: a) particles A comprising a first porous carbon material (see abstract “particulates” & “carbon nanotubes”; see P27 Example 2 describes “highly porous activated carbon particles”), and b) particles B comprising a second porous carbon material and sulfur infiltrated into the second porous carbon material (see abstract “particulates comprises one or a plurality of sulfur-containing material particles being embraced or encapsulated by a thin layer of a conductive sulfonated elastomer composite”; see P25 col 22 par 4 “infiltrate S or sulfide into the pores of porous carbon”; see P27 col 25 par 5 Example 1 “S-containing composite particles”; see P16 col 4 par 2 “multiple particulates of a sulfur-containing material” & “carbon nanotubes”) wherein the particles A and the particles B have different morphologies (see P25 col 22 par 4 “sulfur-containing materials into particles” & “resulting particles are typically ellipsoidal or potato-like in shape” & “deposit sulfur onto surfaces of the graphene sheets, CNTs, carbon nanofibers, etc. and then form these S-coated nanomaterials into a spherical or ellipsoidal shape using high-intensity ball milling” which describes different morphologies). Zhamu discloses “cobalt (Co)” (see P26 col 24 par 8). Zhamu does not explicitly disclose at least part of the first porous carbon material is crystalline, and catalyst particles deposited on the first porous carbon material; and at least part of the second porous carbon material is crystalline.
Kim teaches carbon nanotubes are crystalline (see [0010] “carbon nanotubes are high crystalline carbon and thereby has excellent electrical conductivity, and may perform a role of a path through which sulfur in an electrode react with lithium ions”). Kim teaches a lithium-sulfur battery & cathode active material (see Title).
Zhamu and Kim are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely cathode active material and lithium-sulfur battery (see Kim 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 carbon nanotubes are crystalline into the positive electrode active material of Zhamu because Kim teaches carbon nanotubes are high crystalline carbon and doing so has excellent electrical conductivity, as suggested by Kim (see [0010]). A skilled artisan would recognize crystallinity is a property of the carbon nanotube material.
Kim teaches catalyst particles (see [0019] & [0047] “sulfur-metal catalyst-carbon composite” & see [0094] “the lithium-sulfur battery positive electrode comprising the metal nano particle catalyst had increased initial discharging capacity compared to the comparative general lithium-sulfur battery positive electrode, and lifespan characteristics were also improved”).
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 catalyst particles, as suggested by Kim (see [0019], [0047]) into the positive electrode active material of Zhamu because doing so increases the initial discharge capacity, as suggested by Kim (see [0094]).
Regarding claim 7, Zhamu 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 (see P22 col 15 par 2 “particulates of sulfonated elastomer composite-encapsulated cathode active material particles” & “the fourth” & “multiple-particle particulate containing multiple cathode active material particles” & see FIG. 4 describes the particles are in contact with each other). Zhamu does not explicitly disclose in at least one location at which the catalyst particles included in the particles A are present.
Kim teaches catalyst particles (see [0019] & [0047] “sulfur-metal catalyst-carbon composite” & see [0094] “the lithium-sulfur battery positive electrode comprising the metal nano particle catalyst had increased initial discharging capacity compared to the comparative general lithium-sulfur battery positive electrode, and lifespan characteristics were also improved”).
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 catalyst particles, as suggested by Kim (see [0019], [0047]) into the positive electrode active material of Zhamu because doing so increases the initial discharge capacity, as suggested by Kim (see [0094]).
Regarding claim 8, Zhamu discloses the positive electrode active material of claim 1 and further discloses wherein a weight of the sulfur is 80% to 99% (see P18 col 8 par 3 “80% to 99% by weight of sulfur” & “based on the total weight of the high-capacity polymer and the sulfur” which describes based on a total weight of the first porous carbon material and the second porous carbon material).
Zhamu discloses a range of 80-99% by weight, which overlaps with the claimed range of 60-90 wt%. MPEP 2144.05 I states that '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)'.
Regarding claim 9, Zhamu 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 “carbon nanotubes”; “particulates comprise one or a plurality of sulfur-containing material particles being embraced or encapsulated by a thin layer of a conductive sulfonated elastomer composite”).
Regarding claim 10, Zhamu 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 P22 col 15 par 2 “multiple-particle particulate containing multiple cathode active material particles 24 coated with a conductive protection layer 26 (carbon, graphene, etc.)”).
Regarding claim 11, Zhamu 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 comprise reduced graphene oxide (rGO) (see P17 col 6 par 3 “reduced graphene oxide (RGO)”).
Regarding claim 13, Zhamu discloses the positive electrode active material of claim 1 and further discloses cobalt (see P26 col 24 par 8 “cobalt (Co)”). Zhamu does not explicitly disclose catalyst particles.
Kim teaches catalyst particles (see [0019] & [0047] “sulfur-metal catalyst-carbon composite” & see [0094] “the lithium-sulfur battery positive electrode comprising the metal nano particle catalyst had increased initial discharging capacity compared to the comparative general lithium-sulfur battery positive electrode, and lifespan characteristics were also improved”). Kim teaches “iron (Fe) and cobalt (Co)” & “may be preferably used” (see [0037]).
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 catalyst particles, as suggested by Kim (see [0019], [0047]) into the positive electrode active material of Zhamu because doing so increases the initial discharge capacity, as suggested by Kim (see [0094]). It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate iron or cobalt (see Kim [0037]) into the positive electrode active material of Zhamu because Kim teaches “iron (Fe) and cobalt (Co)” & “may be preferably used”, as suggested by Kim (see [0037]).
Regarding claim 17, Zhamu discloses the positive electrode active material of claim 1 and further discloses a lithium-sulfur battery (see P27 col 26 par 4 “lithium-sulfur cell”), comprising: a positive electrode, a negative electrode, a separator between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (see P27 col 26 par 4 “anode” & “electrolyte” & “cathode”; see P27 col 25 par 2 “separator” & “anode” & “cathode”); and a nonaqueous electrolyte solution (see P25 col 21 par 1 “non-aqueous electrolyte”).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhamu et al. (US 11121398 B2, “Zhamu”) in view of Kim et al. (US 20180019465 A1, “Kim”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Joo et al. (US 20210005879 A1, “Joo”) in view of Lee et al. (US 20210050587 A1, “Lee”).
Regarding claim 2, Zhamu discloses the positive electrode active material of claim 1 and further discloses “resulting particles typically ellipsoidal or potato-like in shape having a size from 1 to 20 µm” (see P25 col 22 par 4). Zhamu does not explicitly disclose sphericity nor an equation relating sphericity and surface area.
Joo teaches sphericity (see [0102] “sphericity” & “sphericity is determined by a suitable measure available in the art”).
Lee teaches surface area of carbon material (see [0051] “Preferably, a porous carbon powder or carbon structure having a large specific surface area and high electrical conductivity, which is a particle or structure having a size of nano units, is used as the carbon material.”) and teaches “positive electrode active material of the present invention can increase the activity of the catalyst by comprising catalyst particles having a large specific surface area, thereby improving the positive electrode reactivity of the lithium secondary battery, preferably the lithium-sulfur battery and thus improving the discharging capacity, average voltage, and lifetime characteristics of the lithium-sulfur battery” (see [0022]).
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 sphericity as suggested by Joo (see [0102]) and a carbon structure with large specific surface area as suggested by Lee (see [0051]) into the positive electrode active material of Zhamu because Lee teaches a positive electrode active material with large specific surface area improves the pos. electrode reactivity and improves the lifetime characteristics of the lithium-sulfur battery (see Lee [0022]).
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhamu et al. (US 11121398 B2, “Zhamu”) in view of Kim et al. (US 20180019465 A1, “Kim”) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Joo et al. (US 20210005879 A1, “Joo”).
Regarding claim 3, Zhamu discloses the positive electrode active material of claim 1 and further discloses “carbon nanotubes” & “sulfonated elastomer matrix” & “sulfonated elastomer and a conducting reinforcement (0-50% by weight)” & “composite that is both electron conduction and ion-conducting” (see P21 col 13 par 1) & “can be a simple mixture (in a particle form) of sulfur and carbon nanotubes, or can contain sulfur residing in pores of activated carbon particles” (see P21 col 13 par 4). Zhamu does not explicitly disclose wherein 50% or more of the particles A are present on a surface 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 the teaching of Joo to include good coverage of particles by carbon (see Joo [0129] & FIG. 9) into the positive electrode active material of Zhamu because doing so improves the lifecycle of the battery (see Joo [0039]).
Regarding claim 4, Zhamu discloses the positive electrode active material of claim 1 and further discloses wherein a surface of at least some of the particles B is covered by the particles A (see P22 col 15 par 2 “sulfonated elastomer composite-encapsulated cathode active material particles” and encapsulated reads on covered). Zhamu does not explicitly disclose 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 the teaching of Joo to include good coverage of particles by carbon (see Joo [0129] & FIG. 9) into the positive electrode active material of Zhamu 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 Zhamu et al. (US 11121398 B2, “Zhamu”) in view of Kim et al. (US 20180019465 A1, “Kim”) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Lee et al. (KR 20190056484 A, “Lee”). The machine translation is used herein for citation purposes.
Zhamu discloses the positive electrode active material of claim 1 and further discloses “highly porous activated carbon particles” (see P27 col 25 par 7). Zhamu 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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhamu et al. (US 11121398 B2, “Zhamu”) in view of Kim et al. (US 20180019465 A1, “Kim”) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Lee et al. (US 20210050587 A1, “Lee”).
Regarding claim 6, Zhamu discloses the positive electrode active material of claim 1. Zhamu does not explicitly disclose wherein a specific surface area of the particles A is larger than a specific surface area of the particles B.
Lee teaches “preferably, a porous carbon powder or carbon structure having a large specific surface area and high electrical conductivity, which is a particle or structure having a size of nano units, is used as the carbon material” (see [0051]). Lee teaches “the positive electrode active material of the present invention can increase the activity of the catalyst by comprising catalyst particles having a large specific surface area, thereby improving the positive electrode reactivity of the lithium secondary battery, preferably the lithium-sulfur battery and thus improving the discharging capacity, average voltage, and lifetime characteristics of the lithium-sulfur battery” (see [0022]).
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, as suggested by Lee (see [0051]) into the positive electrode active material of Zhamu because doing so improves the lifetime of the battery as suggested by Lee (see [0022]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhamu et al. (US 11121398 B2, “Zhamu”) in view of Kim et al. (US 20180019465 A1, “Kim”) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further 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, Zhamu discloses the positive electrode active material of claim 1. Zhamu 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 Zhamu because doing so improves the electrochemical performance as suggested by Zhong (see P2 par 1).
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhamu et al. (US 11121398 B2, “Zhamu”) in view of Kim et al. (US 20180019465 A1, “Kim”) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Yushin et al. (US 20150236372 A1, “Yushin”).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Zhamu discloses the positive electrode active material of claim 1 and further discloses in P21 col 14 par 5 “sulfonated elastomer is a high-elasticity material” & see P22 col 15 par 3 “high elasticity of the encapsulating shell (the sulfonated elastomer composite” & see P22 col 15 par 3 “due to the high elasticity” & “remains intact, preventing the exposure of the underlying lithium sulfide to electrolyte”; see P22 col 16 par 2 “sulfonated elastomer composite must have a high elasticity (elastic deformation strain value >2%); see FIG. 1(a) “carbon black” which reads on amorphous carbon; see P17 col 5 “carbon nanotubes” & “fully recoverable tensile strain from 2% to 500%”. Zhamu discloses “carbon nanotubes” & “electrical conductivity” (see P17 col 5). Zhamu 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 nor 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, elasticity and conductivity are properties of the porous carbon materials.
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 Zhamu because doing so “help[s] to release some of the stresses within the core during charge or discharge” as suggested by Yushin (see [0088]).
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 electrical conductivity as suggested by Yushin into the positive electrode active material of Zhamu because doing so “improve[s] electrical conductivity of the hierarchical composite particles” as suggested by Yushin (see [0088]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhamu et al. (US 11121398 B2, “Zhamu”) in view of Kim et al. (US 20180019465 A1, “Kim”) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Pol et al. (US 20110104553 A1, “Pol”).
Regarding claim 16, Zhamu discloses the positive electrode active material of claim 1. Zhamu 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 value is a property of the material as evidenced by the specification of the instant invention (see [0128]).
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]).
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 Zhamu because Pol teaches doing so allows for reversible and effective lithium insertion and deinsertion as suggested by Pol (see [0067]).
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 02/17/2026