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 .
This is a final office action in response to Applicant's remarks and amendments filed on 06/22/2026. Claims 2, 4-5, and 8 are currently amended. Claims 1-9 are pending review in this action. The previous objections regarding the claims are withdrawn in light of Applicant's amendment to the claims. The previous 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections are maintained. The examiner notes that the rejection of Claim 6 is changed (from the rejection made in the previous office action) to correct the claim dependency, however, the basis of the rejection is unchanged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 06/15/2026 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 4 recites in lines 2-5 “the additive is contained in an amount of 1 to 10% by weight based on the total weight 100% by weight of the base solids included in the positive electrode active material layer”. The examiner notes that the limitation will be considered to require that the additive is contained in an amount between 1% by weight and 10% by weight based on the total weight of solid material in the positive electrode active material layer, as is consistent with page 8, para. 5 of the instant specification. The examiner notes that the term “the base solids” will not be considered as referring to only the solids of the base of the base-treated Mo6S8, as the instant specification does not use such terminology when discussing the mass amount of the additive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. (CN 102117909 A) (disclosed by Applicant on IDS dated 06/30/2023) (citations herein are made in reference to the English machine translation attached to this office action).
Regarding Claim 1, Li discloses a positive electrode (positive electrode sheet) for a lithium secondary battery (test battery) comprising a current collector (aluminum foil), a positive electrode active material layer (mixture) disposed on at least one surface of the current collector (aluminum foil) [0069, 0071]. Li further discloses that the positive electrode active material layer (mixture) comprises a positive electrode active material (nickel-based material) and an additive (Mo6S8), and wherein the additive (Mo6S8) is base-treated with the inclusion of lithium hydroxide [0031]. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 1 are met.
Regarding Claim 2, Li further discloses that the base of the base-treated Mo6S8 is lithium hydroxide [0031]. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 2 are met.
Regarding Claim 3, Li does not explicitly disclose the pH of the positive electrode active material layer (mixture).
However, the instant application teaches that base-treating Mo6S8 with lithium hydroxide can alter the pH of the positive electrode active material layer from between 1 and 4 to between 7 and 9, as the base neutralizes the acidic atmosphere of the Mo6S8 (p.8, para. 2-4).
As such, the skilled artisan would appreciate that as lithium hydroxide is mixed with Mo6S8 in the positive electrode active material layer (mixture) of Li, the pH would be expected to be between 7 and 9. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 3 are met.
Regarding Claim 7, Li further discloses that the positive electrode active material layer (mixture) further comprises a binder (PVDF) [0069]. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 7 are met.
Regarding Claim 8, Li further discloses a lithium secondary battery (test battery) comprising the positive electrode (positive electrode sheet) of Claim 1, a negative electrode (negative electrode sheet); a separator (polypropylene separator) interposed between the positive electrode positive electrode sheet) and the negative electrode (negative electrode sheet); and an electrolyte [0069-0071]. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 8 are met.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 102117909 A) (disclosed by Applicant on IDS dated 06/30/2023) (citations herein are made in reference to the English machine translation attached to this office action), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Kamo et al. (US 2019/0148728 A1).
In Regards to Claim 4 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Li discloses the positive electrode for the lithium secondary battery according to Claim 1 as set forth above.
Li is deficient in disclosing that the additive is contained in an amount of 1% to 10% by weight based on the total weight of 100% by weight of the base solids included in the positive electrode active material layer.
Kamo discloses a positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery (30) (Figure 6, [0154]). Kamo further discloses that the positive electrode comprises a positive electrode active material (lithium nickel cobalt composite oxide), a positive electrode conductive additive, and a positive electrode binder, which are mixed to form a positive electrode active material layer (slurry) [0155]. Kamo further discloses that the positive electrode active material layer (slurry) is applied to a positive electrode current collector [0155]. Kamo further discloses that the positive electrode conductive additive is included in the positive electrode active material layer (slurry) in an amount of 2.5% by mass based on the total mass of the positive electrode active material layer (slurry) [0155].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to select for the amount of additive in the positive electrode active material layer of Li, an amount of 2.5% by weight based on the total weight of the positive electrode active material layer, as such an amount is known in the art as suitable amount of an additive within a positive electrode active material layer in a lithium secondary battery, as taught by Kamo. Furthermore, the selection of a known composition based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07). Upon the above modification, all of the limitations of Claim 4 are met.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 102117909 A) (disclosed by Applicant on IDS dated 06/30/2023) (citations herein are made in reference to the English machine translation attached to this office action), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Sung et al. (US 2020/0321598 A1).
In Regards to Claim 5 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Li discloses the positive electrode for the lithium secondary battery according to Claim 1 as set forth above. Li further discloses that the positive electrode active material (nickel-based material) may be LiNi0.8Co0.2O2 [0031].
Li is deficient in disclosing that the positive electrode active material comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of elemental sulfur (S8), Li2Sn (n≥1, n is an integer), organic sulfur compound, and carbon-sulfur polymer [(C2Sx)n, 2.5≤x≤50, n≥2, x and n are integers].
Sung discloses a positive electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery [0029]. Sung further discloses that the positive electrode active material may be selected from a group which includes lithium nickel oxides, an organic sulfur compound, a carbon-sulfur composite material, and combinations thereof [0029].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the positive electrode active material of Li to include an organic sulfur compound and a carbon-sulfur composite material, as the combination of a lithium nickel oxide, an organic sulfur compound, and a carbon-sulfur composite material is known in the art as a suitable combination for use as a positive electrode active material in a lithium secondary battery, as taught by Sung. Furthermore, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07). Upon the above modification, all of the limitations of Claim 5 are met.
In Regards to Claim 6 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Li discloses the positive electrode for the lithium secondary battery according to Claim 1 as set forth above. Li further discloses that the positive electrode active material (nickel-based material) may be LiNi0.8Co0.2O2 [0031].
Li is deficient in disclosing that the positive electrode active material comprises a sulfur-carbon composite.
Sung discloses a positive electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery [0029]. Sung further discloses that the positive electrode active material may be selected from a group which includes lithium nickel oxides, an organic sulfur compound, a carbon-sulfur composite material, and combinations thereof [0029].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the positive electrode active material of Li to include an organic sulfur compound and a carbon-sulfur composite material, as the combination of a lithium nickel oxide, an organic sulfur compound, and a carbon-sulfur composite material is known in the art as a suitable combination for use as a positive electrode active material in a lithium secondary battery, as taught by Sung. Furthermore, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07). Upon the above modification, all of the limitations of Claim 6 are met.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 102117909 A) (disclosed by Applicant on IDS dated 06/30/2023) (citations herein are made in reference to the English machine translation attached to this office action), as applied to Claim 8 above, and further in view of Picard et al. (US 2021/0296699 A1).
In Regards to Claim 9 (Dependent Upon Claim 8):
Li discloses the positive electrode for the lithium secondary battery according to Claim 8 as set forth above. Li further discloses that the lithium secondary battery (test battery) is a lithium-ion battery [0071]. Li further discloses that the negative electrode (negative electrode sheet) is comprised of primarily graphite [0070].
Li is deficient in disclosing that the lithium secondary battery is a lithium-sulfur battery.
Picard discloses an electrochemical system which may be selected from a group which includes a lithium secondary battery and a lithium-sulfur battery (lithium-sulfur accumulator) [0259]. Picard further discloses that the negative electrode of the electrochemical system may have an electrochemically active material which is selected from a group which includes graphite and lithium metal [0267].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to select for the negative electrode active material of Li, lithium metal, as it is known in the art as a recognized alternative to graphite for use as a negative electrode active material, as taught by Picard. The substitution of known equivalent structures involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Fout 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); In re Susi 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971); In re Siebentritt 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); In re Ruff 118 USPQ 343 (CCPA 1958). When a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.
Upon the above modification, it would be further obvious to the skilled artisan to modify the lithium secondary battery of Li to be a lithium-sulfur battery, as it is known in the art that a lithium secondary battery and a lithium-sulfur battery are art recognized equivalents to one another, as taught by Picard. The substitution of known equivalent structures involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Fout 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); In re Susi 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971); In re Siebentritt 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); In re Ruff 118 USPQ 343 (CCPA 1958). When a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result. By doing so, all of the limitations of Claim 9 are met.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that prior art reference Li et al. (CN 102117909 A) fails to teach that Mo6S8 is base-treated with lithium hydroxide as presented in the rejection of Claim 1 made in the previous office action (Non-Final Rejection dated 03/24/2026). The Applicant argues that in Li, the lithium hydroxide serves only as a lithium source and does not perform “base treatment” on the Mo6S8 as required by the instant claims. The Applicant further argues that Li discloses ball milling the nickel-based material, the Mo6S8, and lithium hydroxide together followed by a sintering process which would not produce the positive electrode active material layer as claimed, but rather would result in a new composite positive electrode material. The Applicant further notes that the base treatment of the instant application involves adding Mo6S8 to an aqueous base solution and stirring it to neutralize the acidic atmosphere and that the base-treated Mo6S8 remains separate from the positive electrode active material such that it may maintain a neutral pH environment.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner appreciates the differences between how the positive electrode active material, Mo6S8, and lithium hydroxide are processed in the instant application versus how they are processed in Li. However, the examiner notes that instant Claim 1 as currently written does not detail a specific method or specific requirements for “base treating” the Mo6S8 with a base such as lithium hydroxide. As such, in response to the Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., what specifics are required to be considered “base-treated”) are not recited in the rejected claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Furthermore, the instant specification teaches that the base treatment may be performed by adding Mo6S8 to an aqueous base solution and stirring it, and further specifically notes that the stirring time is not particularly limited [0042]. Thus, the skilled artisan would appreciate that the statement “the base treatment may be performed…” recited in the instant specification indicates that there are alternative methods of base treating which may be selected to form the Mo6S8 treated with a base. As such, the skilled artisan would appreciate that some degree of mixing (if not stirring) would be expected to occur during the ball milling process of Li, such that prior to the sintering process the Mo6S8 and lithium hydroxide would be mixed to some extent and may thus be considered a Mo6S8 treated with a base.
The examiner notes that amending the claims to specify what is considered “Mo6S8 treated with a base” may overcome the prior art on record.
The Applicant further argues that the positive electrode active material layer (mixture) of Li would not inherently have a pH between 7 and 9 as required by instant Claim 3.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding the Applicant’s argument that Li does not produce a positive electrode active material layer which supports an inherency determination related to the claimed pH range, the MPEP states "In relying upon the theory of inherency, the examiner must provide a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the determination that the allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily flows from the teachings of the applied prior art." (MPEP 2112 IV). As detailed above, the burden of establishing a technical reasoning of inherency based upon the disclosure of Li has been met by the examiner.
As the examiner has met the burden of establishing a technical reasoning for inherency, the burden of disproving inherency is shifted to the Applicant. "The USPTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of the claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on ‘inherency’ under 35 U.S.C. 102, on ‘prima facie obviousness’ under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same." (MPEP 2112 V). In order to meet the burden of proof, the Applicant may submit an affidavit to provide evidence that the positive electrode active material layer of Li would not possess the required characteristics of a pH within the range required by instant Claim 3.
The Applicant further argues that the skilled artisan would not look to Kamo et al. (US 2019/0148728 A1) to teach an amount of the additive included in the positive electrode active material layer (mixture) of Li as the additive of Kamo is a conductive additive.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, while the examiner appreciates that the base-treated Mo6S8 additive of Li is different from the conductive additive of Kamo, the skilled artisan would appreciate that both Li and Kamo are directed to a positive electrode for a lithium battery and thus the skilled artisan would find it reasonable to look to Kamo to provide at least a starting point for determining the mass composition for a positive electrode active material mixture which includes a positive electrode active material and an additive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 EMILY E FREEMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1498. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at (571)-270-5256. 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.
/E.E.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/STEWART A FRASER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights