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 6/10/2026 was received. Claim 1 was amended. Claim 6 was cancelled.
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 4/3/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-4, 7-11 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 20200060258 A). The rejections are restated below to address the amendment.
Regarding to claims 1, 2, 3: Lee et al. disclose a lithium-sulfur secondary battery (par. 1). The lithium-sulfur secondary battery comprises a positive electrode (par. 14). The positive electrode including a sulfur-carbon composite (par. 14),
wherein the sulfur-carbon composite comprises a microporous carbon material (equivalent to a porous carbonaceous material) and sulfur (par. 14), and
wherein the microporous carbon material has a specific surface area of 500-4500 m2/g (par. 69).
Lee et al. do not explicitly disclose the microporous carbon material has a particle diameter (D50) of primary particles of equal to or larger than 500 nm and less than 8 µm. However, Lee et al. disclose the micropores of the microporous carbon material have an average diameter of 1 to 10 nm (par. 67). If the average diameter of the micropores is less than the above range, the size of the pores is only at the molecular level, making sulfur impregnation impossible (par. 68). It indicates the average size of sulfur should be less than 10 nm. Lee et al. further discloses the sulfur-carbon complex can be a composite form in which sulfur is supported inside the microporous carbon (par. 76) and an average diameter of the sulfur-carbon complex is 0.5 to 20 µm (par. 77). As sulfur has an average size less than 10 nm and is inside the microporous carbon, the microporous carbon material should have an average size similar to that of the sulfur-carbon complex (0.5 to 20 µm). 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).
Lee et al. further disclose the sulfur is in an amount of 50 to 90 wt% based on the total weight of the sulfur-carbon complex (equivalent to 50 to 90 wt% of sulfur content ratio (A)) (par. 23). The microporous carbon material have a porosity of 10 to 90% (equivalent to 10 to 90% of pore volume ratio of carbonaceous material (B)) (par. 20). (SCP = 1 when 90 wt% of sulfur content ratio and 90 % of pore volume ratio of carbonaceous material (B) are used.) 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 4: Lee et al. disclose the microporous carbon material having micropores of an average diameter of 1 to 10 nm (par. 67). Lee et al. do not specifically disclose the carbonaceous material has 40 vol% or more of pores having a diameter of less than 3 nm based on 100 vol% of the total pores. However, Lee et al. recognize if the size of the pores is only at the molecular level, it is impossible to make sulfur impregnation. Conversely, if the size of the pores is too large, it is difficult for the carbon material to have a high specific surface area which causes a problem of reduced reactivity due to a reduced contact area with sulfur (par. 68, 69). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention can adjust the diameter and the volume distribution of the pores of Lee et al. to yield optimal balance between the sulfur impregnation and the reactivity area. 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.
Regarding to claim 7: Lee et al. disclose a lithium-sulfur secondary battery as described above. Lee et al. do not specifically disclose the carbonaceous material comprises activated carbon in an amount of 95 wt% or more based on 100 wt% of the carbonaceous material. However, Lee et al. recognize the microporous carbon material can be manufactured by carbonizing precursors of various carbon materials (par. 67) and the microporous carbon material provides a framework in which sulfur, which is an anode active material, can be uniformly and stably fixed, and enables the electrochemical reaction of sulfur to proceed smoothly (par. 65). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention should increase the amount of the carbon in the microporous carbon material to increase the amount of the framework for sulfur. Thus, the electrochemical reaction can proceed smoothly. 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.
Regarding to claims 8, 10: Lee et al. disclose a mixing ratio of 90:5:5 for sulfur-carbon complex: conductor: binder by weight in a positive electrode active material (equivalent to 90% of sulfur-carbon complex in the positive electrode active material) (par. 153).
Regarding to claim 9: Lee et al. disclose the sulfur-carbon complex may be a composite formed by simply mixing the sulfur and microporous carbon material, or may have a coating form or a support form with a core-shell structure (par. 76).
Regarding to claim 11: Lee et al. disclose the lithium-sulfur battery comprising the positive electrode according to claim 1, a negative electrode, a separator interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode, and an electrolyte (par. 14),
wherein the electrolyte comprises a fluorinated ether (par. 24).
Claim 5 remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 20200060258 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tsukazaki et al. (JP 2021141168 A) .
Regarding to claim 5: Lee et al. disclose the positive electrode comprising a sulfur-carbon composite as described in Paragraph 2 above. Lee et al. also disclose an average diameter of the sulfur-carbon complex is 0.5 to 20 μm (par. 77). Lee et al. fail to explicitly disclose the carbonaceous material has a Span value of 2.0 or less. However, Tsukazaki et al. disclose a lithium-sulfur secondary battery (par. 8). The lithium-sulfur secondary battery includes a positive electrode having a positive electrode active material containing sulfur and activated carbon (par. 52, 53). The activated carbons A to D have a Span value of 1.04 to 1.33 (Table 1, par. 77). 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 Span value of Tsukazaki et al. for the particle size distribution of the sulfur-carbon complex of Lee et al. because Tsukazaki et al. teach that the activated carbon can realize an electricity storage device that has a high capacitance at room temperature and at low temperatures (par. 5).
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments filed on 06/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant primarily argues:
Lee merely discloses very broad ranges for the porosity of the porous carbon material (10-90%) and the sulfur content (50-90 wt%), respectively, and does not disclose any technical concept of controlling the relationship between these parameters at a particular ratio.
Lee does not provide any specific values for the porosity of the porous carbon material or the sulfur content in its Examples. The office action derives an SCP value by selectively combining certain values from the broad ranges disclosed in Lee. Such an analysis, however, appears to be based on hindsight knowledge of the present claims.
In response:
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The broad ranges for the porosity of the porous carbon material (10-90%) and the sulfur content (50-90 wt%) overlap the range disclosed in the instant application. In addition, Lee discloses if the porosity in the positive electrode is lowered and the content of the positive electrode active material (sulfur) is increased, the energy density of the secondary battery increases (par. 56). The combination of the lower porosity and the higher sulfur content is equivalent to higher SCP value. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would optimize the porosity and the sulfur content to obtain the desired energy density of the battery.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Though the one data point is picked from a large range, picking one data point from a large range is held by the Office as anticipated. Further, in picking a combination from two ranges, it has been held that though a specific embodiment is not taught as preferred makes it no less obvious, also, that the mere fact that a reference suggests a multitude of possible combinations does not in and of itself make any one of those combinations less obvious, see Merck v. Biocraft, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed Cir 1985).
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