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 § 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. Claim(s) 1 -12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 a1 as being anticipated by Garsuch (US20130017418) . With respect to claim 1 , Garsuch teaches a positive electrode comprising ([0081]): sulfur (1.4g), a carbon material including a carbon black with first specific surface area (BET) (1g of Printex at 100m 2 /g) and a carbon black with a second specific surface area (BET) (1g of Ketgen at 900m 2 /g) where the first specific surface area with lower than the second specific surface area ([0082]). Regarding claim 2 , Garsuch teaches that the first specific surface area is 100m 2 /g and the second is 900m 2 /g. These values fall in the claimed ranges and therefore anticipated the claim. Regarding claim 3 , Gar s ush teaches that the first specific surface area is SA and that the second specific surface area is 9 x SA (100m 2 /g and 900m 2 /g or [9x100m 2 /g]). This value falls within the claimed range and therefore anticipates the claim. Regarding claims 4-5 , Garsuch teaches that the content of carbon black with the second specific surface area is 50% with respect to the total amount of carbon black (1g of each therefore 1/2 = 50%) ([0082]). This value falls within the claimed range and therefore anticipates the claims. Regarding claims 6-7 , Garsuch teaches that the content of carbon material (2g total) is 59% with respect to the total amount of sulfur (1.4g) and carbon material (2g) i.e. 3.4g total. This value falls within the claimed range and therefore anticipates the claims. Regarding claim 8 , Gar such teaches the positive electrode is used in an electrochemical device ([0090]). The examiner notes while the art teaches the device and is provided for compact prosecution however the claim is directed to the electrode and merely the intended use rather than necessarily requiring the device in scope. Regarding claim 9 , Garsuch teaches the positive electrode can be used in a rechargeable (Garsuch claim 7) Mg-S cell ([0056]). Wherein one would appreciate that the positive electrode of Garsuch is the sulfur thus when Mg is selected as the anode the result is a Mg-S cell. Moreover, the instant claim is directed to the electrode and the scope is not limited by its intended use. Regarding claim 10 , Garsuch teaches an electrochemical cell comprising the electrode of claim 1 ([0090]). Regarding claim 11 , Garsuch teaches the electrochemical cell comprising an ether based solvent ([0058]). Regarding claim 12 , Garsuch teaches the positive electrode can be used in a rechargeable (Garsuch claim 7) Mg-S cell ([0056]). Wherein Garsuch teaches Mg among one of five possible counter electrodes to the S based inventive electrode (cathode) thereby at once envisaging the S inventive electrode of claim 1 with each of the limited five recited electrodes to form the described rechargeable cell (MPEP 2131.02). Garsuch teaches a limited number of possible cells (Mg-S; Al-S; Zn-S; Na-S and Li-S) and therefore anticipates instant claim 12. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MIRIAM STAGG whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5256 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday, 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Srilakshmi Kumar can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-7769 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /MIRIAM STAGG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724