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 1-2, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20200274154 A1, “Kim”) in view of Ryu et al. (US 20170237073 A1, “Ryu”).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a method for preparing a sulfur-carbon composite for a positive electrode active material of an electrochemical device (see abstract “method for preparing the same” & “sulfur-carbon composite”; see [0038] “positive electrode active material” & see [0004] “electrochemical devices”), the method comprising: (S1) pretreating a porous carbon material by using microwaves (see [0019] “applying a microwave to the mixture of the dried sulfur and porous material”); (S2) mixing the resultant product of step (S1) with sulfur (see [0017] “mixing a porous carbon material with sulfur”); and (S3) forming the resultant product of step (S2) into a composite (see [0020] “a positive electrode comprising the sulfur-carbon composite”). Regarding the limitation of microwave and weight (g) of the carbon material, Kim discloses “applying a microwave to the mixture of the dried sulfur and porous carbon material” (see [0019]) & “the pore volume of the sulfur-carbon composite and the specific surface area of the sulfur-carbon composite can be controlled depending on the weight ratio of sulfur and the porous carbon material” which reads on weight of carbon material. Kim does not explicitly disclose 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 (g) of the carbon material.
Ryu teaches irradiation time (see [0039] “output of 400 W to 2000 W for 20 seconds or less” & “irradiating microwave” & “when irradiating microwave under the condition described above, conversion efficiency of metal impurities included in the conductor to metal oxides is high. However, when the microwave frequency is less than 1 kHz or the output amount is less than 400 W, a heating effect is insufficient leading to low conversion efficiency to metal oxides, and when the frequency is greater than 50 kHz, and the output amount is greater than 2000 W, structural changes in the conductor or side reactions may occur. In addition, when irradiating microwave with the above-mentioned condition for 20 seconds or longer, the conductor may react and there is a danger of explosion”).
Kim and Ryu are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely lithium secondary batteries (see Ryu abstract).
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 microwave frequency is a variable that achieves the recognized result of improved conversion efficiency. That makes the microwave frequency 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 microwave frequency and come up with larger than 30 and less than 3000 for the purpose of improving conversion efficiency.
Regarding claim 2, Kim discloses the method of claim 1. Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein S, irradiation time of microwaves is 5 seconds or more.
Ryu teaches “irradiating microwave” & “10 seconds to 20 seconds” (see [0040]).
Ryu teaches a range of 10 seconds 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)'.
Regarding claim 5, Kim discloses the method of claim 1 and further discloses wherein step (S2) is carried out within 10 minutes after carrying out step (S1) (see [0017] “mixing a porous carbon material with sulfur” & see [0019] “applying a microwave” & see [0116] “dried mixture of sulfur and carbon, 1000 W microwave” & “was applied three times for 3 seconds respectively to prepare a sulfur-carbon composite”).
Kim discloses a range of within 10 minutes, which overlaps with the claimed range of “applied three times for 3 seconds.” 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, 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20200274154 A1, “Kim”) in view of Ryu et al. (US 20170237073 A1, “Ryu”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matsui et al. (JP 2021066618 A, “Matsui”). The machine translation is used herein for citation purposes.
Regarding claim 3, Kim discloses the method of claim 1. Kim 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”).
Kim 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 Kim because doing so is a preferable atmosphere for chemical activation as suggested by Matsui (see [0036]).
Regarding claim 4, Kim discloses the method of claim 3. Kim 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 Kim 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, Kim discloses the method of claim 1 and further discloses “porous carbon material may have a particle diameter of 100 nm to 50 µm”. Kim 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, Kim discloses the method of claim 6 and further discloses wherein the carbon material has an average pore diameter of less than 10 nm (see [0049] “thickness of 1 to 10 nm on the surface or in the pore of the porous carbon material”).
Kim discloses a range of 1 to 10 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, Kim discloses the method of claim 6. Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein the carbon material has a porosity of 50 vol% or more.
Matsui teaches porosity (see [0002] “porosity”) and see [0046] “pore volume” & “preferably the 0.54-0.73 cm3/g”.
Matsui teaches a range of 0.54-0.73, 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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20200274154 A1, “Kim”) in view of Ryu et al. (US 20170237073 A1, “Ryu”) and Matsui et al. (JP 2021066618 A, “Matsui”) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Zhamu et al. (WO 2017123544 A1, “Zhamu”). The machine translation is used herein for citation purposes.
Regarding claim 9, Kim discloses the method of claim 6. Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein a porosity of the carbon material is 60-80 vol%.
Zhamu et al. teaches porosity “preferably at least 80% porosity” (see P19 par 2) & see abstract “alkali metal-sulfur battery” & see abstract “sulfur-carbon composite”.
Kim and Zhamu are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely alkali metal-sulfur batteries (see Zhamu abstract).
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 porosity is at least 80% into the method of Kim because Zhamu teaches at least 80% porosity is preferable (see P19 par 2).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20200274154 A1, “Kim”) in view of Ryu et al. (US 20170237073 A1, “Ryu”) 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, Kim discloses the method of claim 1. Kim 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 Kim because doing so increases the discharge capacity of the pos. electrode, as suggested by Usuki (see [0052]).
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 01/27/2026