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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (US 20190245203 A1, “Cho”) in view of Han et al. (KR 20190087864 A, “Han”). The machine translation is used herein for citation purposes.
Regarding claim 1, Cho discloses a method for preparing a sulfur-carbon composite for a positive electrode active material of an electrochemical device (see [0033] “methods for forming a composite or coating with conductive materials such are carbon or polymer have been used. Among various methods, a sulfur-carbon composite has been used most widely as a positive electrode active material since it is effective in improving electrical conductivity of a positive electrode” & “lithium-sulfur battery” & see [0003] “electronic devices”; see [0057] “method for preparing the sulfur-carbon composite”), the method comprising: (S1) pretreating a porous carbon material by using microwaves (see [0053] “microwaves”); (S2) mixing the resultant product of step (S1) with sulfur (see [0062] “mixing”); and (S3) forming the resultant product of step (S2) into a composite (see [0064] “sulfur-carbon composite”). Regarding the limitations wherein step (S1) is controlled in such a manner that MPPT as defined by the following Formula 1 is larger than 30 and less than 3000, MPPT(W*sec/g) = W×(S÷Wt) wherein W is an output of microwaves, S is an irradiation time (sec) of microwaves, and Wt is a weight of the carbon material, Cho does not explicitly disclose.
Han teaches in [0053] “method for producing” & in [0055]-[0056] describes heat treating the materials by microwaves in step 1 & in step 2 mixing with sulfur to form a composite; see [0073] “microwave” & “output of 700 to 1000 W”; see [0075] “step (1) can be carried out for a time of 5 to 20 seconds”; see [0138] “30g carbon nanotubes”. Han describes a “lithium-sulfur (Li-S) battery” in [0006].
Cho and Han are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely lithium-sulfur battery (see Han [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 output of 700W (see Han [0073]), step (1) carried out at a time of 5 seconds (see Han [0075]), and 30 g of carbon (see Han [0138), which describes MPPT = 700*(5/30) = 117 which lies within the claimed range of MPPT is larger than 30 and less than 3000.
Regarding claim 2, Cho discloses the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein S, irradiation time of microwaves, is 5 seconds or more.
Han teaches in [0075] “step (1) can be carried out for a time of 5 to 20 seconds”.
Han teaches a range of 5 to 20 seconds, which overlaps with the claimed range of 5 seconds or more. 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)'.
Claims 3-4, and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (US 20190245203 A1, “Cho”) in view of Han et al. (KR 20190087864 A, “Han”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matsui et al. (JP 2021066618 A, “Matsui”). The machine translations are used herein for citation purposes.
Regarding claim 3, Cho discloses the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the resultant product of step (S1) is stored under an atmosphere of an inert gas before it is mixed with sulfur in step (S2).
Matsui teaches inert gas (see P14 par 3 “heat treatment is performed in an inert gas to obtain the porous carbon material” & “nitrogen, argon, helium, and neon”; see [0036] “the atmosphere of the chemical activation is preferably an inert gas atmosphere”; see [0026] “method for producing a porous carbon material” & “subjecting a nitrogen-containing carbon material to chemical activation, and a step of performing heat treatment in an inert gas after the chemical activation”).
Cho and Matsu are analogous to the current invention because they are both related to the same field of endeavor, namely methods for producing carbon materials for positive electrode for lithium sulfur batteries (see Matsu 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 inert gas atmosphere into the method of Cho because doing so is a preferable atmosphere for chemical activation as suggested by Matsui (see [0036]).
Regarding claim 4, Cho discloses the method of claim 3, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the inert gas comprises N2.
Matsui teaches the inert gas comprises N2 (see P14 par 3 “inert gas” & “nitrogen”). Matsui teaches in [0036] “the atmosphere of the chemical activation is preferably an inert gas atmosphere” & “nitrogen” which reads on N2.
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 inert gas atmosphere is nitrogen into the method of Cho because doing so is a preferable atmosphere for chemical activation and Matsui teaches an example of an inert gas is nitrogen (see [0036]).
Regarding claim 6, Cho discloses the method of claim 1 and further discloses in [0043] “porous carbon material” & “high specific surface area”. Cho does not explicitly disclose wherein the carbon material has a BET specific surface area of larger than 1,600 m2/g.
Matsui teaches in [0025] “porous carbon material” & specific surface area” & “1000-1800m2/g”.
Matsui teaches a range of 1000-1800 m2/g, which overlaps with the claimed range of “1,600 m2/g.” 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 7, Cho discloses the method of claim 6 and further discloses wherein the carbon material has an average pore diameter (see [0041] “porous carbon material” & “average diameter in a range of from 1 nm to 200 nm”.
Cho discloses a range of 1 nm to 200 nm, which overlaps with the claimed range of less than 10 nm. 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 8, Cho discloses the method of claim 6 and further discloses wherein the carbon material has a porosity (see [0041] “porosity may be in a range of from 10% to 90% of the total porous volume”).
Cho discloses a range of 10% to 90%, which overlaps with the claimed range of 50 vol% or more. 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)'.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (US 20190245203 A1, “Cho”) in view of Han et al. (KR 20190087864 A, “Han”) as applied to claim 1 above, and evidenced by Zhu et al. (Zhu et al. “Microwave assisted exfoliation and reduction of graphite oxide…”). The machine translation is used herein for citation purposes.
Regarding claim 5, Cho discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses in [0053] “emitting gas”. Cho does not explicitly disclose wherein step (S2) is carried out within 10 minutes after carrying out step (S1).
Zhu provides evidence that GO can be treated with microwave for less than 1 minute in P2119 par 2- par 3 “microwave assisted chemical reduction of graphene oxide” & “preparation of exfoliated and reduced GO by treating the GO precursor in a microwave oven for less than 1 min. This facile and efficient process has provided a straightforward method to generate what we will call MEGO (microwave exfoliated graphite oxide) that could be used, among other applications, as a high-performance electrode material in energy storage devices”. Zhu provides evidence on P2119 par 4 violent fuming was observed after microwaving GO.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to carry out step (S2) within 10 minutes after carrying out step (S1) because “violent fuming” occurs from microwaving GO, as evidenced by Zhu (P2119 par 4). Cho discloses “emitting gas” (see [0053]). It would have been prima facie obvious to wait for the violent fuming to stop & wait for the gas to dissipate before continuing on with step (S2).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (US 20190245203 A1, “Cho”) in view of Han et al. (KR 20190087864 A, “Han”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Usuki et al. (JP 2018039685 A, “Usuki”) and Du et al. (Du, Z. et al. “The correlation between carbon structures and electrochemical properties of sulfur/carbon composites for Li-S batteries”). The machine translation is used herein for citation purposes.
Regarding claim 10, Cho discloses the method of claim 1. Cho does not explicitly disclose wherein the carbon material has 40 vol% or more of micropores having a diameter of less than 1 nm based on 100 vol% of the total pore volume.
Du teaches “lithium sulfur battery” & “microwave-expanded graphite oxide” & “pore size of 0.9-5.6 nm” (see abstract) & “micropores” (see P140 col 2 par 1).
Du teaches a range of 0.9-5.6 nm, which overlaps with the claimed range of “less than 1 nm.” 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)'.
Usuki teaches “pore volume is 0.45 cm3/g or more” & “so that the discharge capacitance per total weight of sulfur and the carbonaceous material becomes large. Therefore, the discharge capacity per weight of the positive electrode is increased” (see [0052]).
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 0.45 or more, as suggested by Usuki into the method of Cho because doing so increases the discharge capacity of the pos. electrode, as suggested by Usuki (see [0052]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10 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.
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 06/12/2026
Prosecution Insights