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
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. EP 3304623 B1 in view of JEONG et al. KR 20190061215A.
With respect to claim 1, Guo teaches a positive electrode for a lithium-sulfur battery (lithium-sulfur battery; Summary of Invention, paragraph 4), the positive electrode including a positive electrode active material (Background) comprising a first sulfur-carbon composite (sulfur-carbon composite; Detailed Description, paragraph 1), wherein the first sulfur-carbon composite (sulfur-carbon composite; Detailed Description, paragraph 1) comprises a first porous carbonaceous material (carbon nanosheet; Detailed Description, paragraph 1), and sulfur (sulfur-carbon composite; Detailed Description, paragraph 1), and the first carbonaceous material has a BET specific surface area of 1,600 m2/g ( 400 to 2000 m2/g; Detailed Description, paragraph 6; or more; Furthermore, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
and 80 vol% or more of pores having a diameter of less than 3 nm based on 100 vol% of the total pores 1nm pore size of no less than 80% total ore volume; Detailed Description, paragraph 1 & 5), With respect to claim 2, the first carbonaceous material has a BET specific surface area of 2,000 m2/g or more ( 400 to 2000 m2/g; Detailed Description, paragraph 6; or more; Furthermore, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.). With respect to claim 3, the first carbonaceous material comprises activated carbon (activated carbon; Summary of Invention, paragraph 7).
With respect to claim 4, the first carbonaceous material comprises activated carbon in an amount of 95 wt% or more based on 100 wt% or the first carbonaceous material (activated carbon is the only carbon present, thus 100%; Summary of Invention, paragraph 7). With respect to claim 6, the first sulfur-carbon composite has an SCP value of larger than 0.65 and less than 1, as defined by the following Formula 1: [Formula 1] SCP = Sulfur content ratio (A) + Pore volume ratio of carbonaceous material (B) wherein A represents a ratio of a weight of sulfur based on a weight of the carbon-sulfur composite, and B represents a ratio of pore volume in the carbonaceous material based on the apparent volume of the carbonaceous material (sulfur load amount of 10-85wt%; Detailed Description, paragraph 8; preferably no less than 75%pore volume; Detailed Description, paragraph 8; SCP value of larger than 0.65 and less than 1; 10%/75%= 0.133; In accordance with MPEP 2112.01, “[p]roducts of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. “A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In the instant case, the SCP is necessarily present; Furthermore, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.). With respect to claim 8, the first sulfur-carbon composite is one or more of a composite formed through simple mixing of sulfur with the carbonaceous material, a coated composite having a core-shell structure, or a composite comprising sulfur packed in the internal pores of the carbonaceous material (sulfur is loaded into the micropores; Detailed Description, paragraph 1). With respect to claim 9, the positive electrode active material further comprises a binder resin (poly-(vinyl difluoride) (PVDF) ; Example 1a) and a conductive material (carbon black; Example 1a) . With respect to claim 10, a lithium-sulfur battery (lithium-sulfur battery ; teaching claim 6) comprising a positive electrode (Background), a negative electrode (Lithium foil was used as the counter electrode; Example 1a), a separator between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (Example 1a), and an electrolyte (Example 1a).
Guo does not teach or suggest: the second sulfur-carbon composite comprising a second porous carbonaceous material and sulfur, and the second carbonaceous material has a BET specific surface area of equal to or larger than 1,000 m2/g and less than 1,600 m2/g and 50 vol% or less of pores having a diameter of less than 3 nm based on 100 vol% of the total pores (claim 1); the first sulfur-carbon composite is present in an amount of less than 90 wt% based on 100 wt% of the first sulfur-carbon composite and the second sulfur- carbon composite (claim 5); the second sulfur-carbon composite has an SCP value of larger than 0.55 and less than 0.85- as defined by the following Formula 1: [Formula 1] SCP = Sulfur content ratio (A) + Pore volume ratio of carbonaceous material (B) wherein A represents a ratio of a weight of sulfur based on a weight of the carbon-sulfur composite, and B represents a ratio of pore volume in the carbonaceous material based on the apparent volume of the carbonaceous material (claim 6); the first sulfur- carbon composite and the second sulfur-carbon composite in an amount of 70 wt% or more based on 100 wt% of the positive electrode active material (claim 7); the second sulfur- carbon composite is one or more of a composite formed through simple mixing of sulfur with the carbonaceous material, a coated composite having a core-shell structure, or a composite comprising sulfur packed in the internal pores of the carbonaceous material (claim 8); the electrolyte comprises at one or more selected from a cyclic ether, a linear ether and a fluorinated ether(claim 10).
JEONG teaches that it is well known in the art to employ: the second sulfur-carbon composite comprising a second porous carbonaceous material and sulfur (sulfur-carbon tube composite, DESCRIPTION-OF-EMBODIMENTS, paragraph 5) and the second carbonaceous material has a BET specific surface area of equal to or larger than 1,000 m2/g and less than 1,600 m2/g (1500 m2/g or more; DESCRIPTION-OF-EMBODIMENTS, paragraph 14; Furthermore, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.; claim 1); the second sulfur-carbon composite has an SCP value of larger than 0.55 and less than 0.85- as defined by the following Formula 1: [Formula 1] SCP = Sulfur content ratio (A) + Pore volume ratio of carbonaceous material (B) wherein A represents a ratio of a weight of sulfur based on a weight of the carbon-sulfur composite, and B represents a ratio of pore volume in the carbonaceous material based on the apparent volume of the carbonaceous material (60 to 95 wt% sulfur DESCRIPTION-OF-EMBODIMENTS, paragraph 22; at least 95% of the porosity DESCRIPTION-OF-EMBODIMENTS, paragraph 21; SCP value of larger than 0.55 and less than 0.85; 60%/95%= 0.632; claim 6); the second sulfur- carbon composite is one or more of a composite formed through simple mixing of sulfur with the carbonaceous material, a coated composite having a core-shell structure, or a composite comprising sulfur packed in the internal pores of the carbonaceous material(may include sulfur carried in the through-holes of the inner and tube walls; DESCRIPTION-OF-EMBODIMENTS, paragraph 19; claim 8); the electrolyte comprises at one or more selected from a cyclic ether, a linear ether and a fluorinated ether(dimethyl ether, diethyl ether; DESCRIPTION-OF-EMBODIMENTS claim 10).
Guo and JEONG are analogous art from the dame field of endeavor, namely fabricating electrodes of second sulfur-carbon composites.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a second sulfur-carbon composite comprising a second porous carbonaceous material and sulfur, and the second carbonaceous material has a BET specific surface area of equal to or larger than 1,000 m2/g and less than 1,600 m2/g of JEONG, in the positive electrode of Guo, to provide a high battery capacity and a stable lifespan by using the pappus, which is a very inexpensive biomass, See Guo Abstract. With respect to the second sulfur-carbon composite comprising 50 vol% or less of pores having a diameter of less than 3 nm based on 100 vol% of the total pores; it would have been obvious in the positive electrode of Guo in view of JEONG, in order to increase the surface area, and thus utilization of the active material. JEONG teaches mesopores having an average diameter of 2 to 4 nm, Detailed Description, paragraph 8. Furthermore, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.
With respect to the first sulfur-carbon composite is present being an amount of less than 90 wt% based on 100 wt% of the first sulfur-carbon composite and the second sulfur- carbon composite (claim 5); it would have been obvious in the positive electrode of Guo in view of JEONG, in order to increase capacity of the electrode. Furthermore, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.
With respect to the first sulfur- carbon composite and the second sulfur-carbon composite in an amount of 70 wt% or more based on 100 wt% of the positive electrode active material (claim 7); it would have been obvious in the positive electrode of Guo in view of JEONG, in order to increase capacity of the electrode. Furthermore, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONIQUE M WILLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1309. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30am to 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Tiffany Legette, may be reached at 571-270-7078. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Monique M Wills/
Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723