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. Status of Claims and Other Notes Claims 1–12 are pending . 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 paragraph numbers cited in this Office Action in reference to the instant application are referring to the paragraph numbering of the PG-Pub of the instant application. See US 2024 / 0120479 A1 . Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10 August 2023, 29 October 2024, and 04 August 2025 were filed before the mailing of a first Office Action on the merits. The submissions comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. Drawings The drawings are objected to because: The numbers and letters identifying the views are associated with brackets . Numbers and letters identifying the views must be simple and clear and must not be used in association with brackets, circles, or inverted commas. The view numbers must be larger than the numbers used for reference characters. See 37 CFR 1.84 (u)(2). FIGS. 3 and 4 use shading that reduces legibility or solid black shading that is not used to represent bar graphs or color . The use of shading in views is encouraged if it aids in understanding the invention and if it does not reduce legibility. Solid black shading areas are not permitted, except when used to represent bar graphs or color. See 37 CFR 1.84 ( m ) . FIGS. 1–4 include the units for L is mAh/cm2. The units for L in FIGS. 1–4 should be mAh/cm 2 . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:. The term Ketjen black (e.g., [00 48) is not followed by a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® . The use of the term Ketjen black (e.g., [0048]), which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term . Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1–12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the mass (g) of the electrolyte by the mass (g) of sulfur contained in the positive electrode." It is unclear if the phrase "contained in the positive electrode" is further limiting only the immediately preceding element (i.e., the mass (g) of sulfur) or both of the preceding elements (i.e., the mass (g) of the electrolyte and the mass (g) of sulfur ). Claims 2–4 are directly or indirectly dependent from claim 1 and include all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claims 2–4 are also indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 5 recites the limitation "wherein when the value of L is 2 ≤ L < 2.5, the energy density of the lithium-sulfur battery is 300 Wh /kg or more and less than 350 Wh /kg." It is unclear if the limitation following the phrase is "wherein when the value of L is 2 ≤ L < 2.5" is optional because the term "when" does not require the value of L to be 2 ≤ L < 2.5. Claims 1, 3, and 4, which claim 5 is dependent, do not require the value of L to be 2 ≤ L < 2.5. Claim 6 recites the limitation "wherein when the value of L is 2.5 ≤ L ≤ 2.6, the energy density of the lithium-sulfur battery is 300 to 350 Wh /kg." It is unclear if the limitation following the phrase is "wherein when the value of L is 2.5 ≤ L ≤ 2.6" is optional because the term "when" does not require the value of L to be 2.5 ≤ L ≤ 2.6. Claims 1, 3, and 4, which claim 6 is dependent, do not require the value of L to be 2.5 ≤ L ≤ 2.6. Claim 7 recites the limitation "wherein when the value of ES/L is 1 and the value of L is 2.5 ≤ L ≤ 2.6, the energy density of the lithium-sulfur battery is 350 Wh /kg." It is unclear if the limitation following the phrase is "wherein when the value of ES/L is 1 and the value of L is 2.5 ≤ L ≤ 2.6" is optional because the term "when" does not require the value of ES/L to be 1 and the value of L to be 2.5 ≤ L ≤ 2.6. Claims 1, 3, 4, and 6, which claim 7 is dependent, do not require the value of ES/L to be 1 and the value of L to be 2 ≤ L < 2.5. Claim 8 is directly dependent from claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 8 is also indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 9 recites the limitation "wherein the positive electrode … does not comprise an electrically conductive material." Claim 8, which claim 9 is directly dependent, recites the limitation "wherein the positive electrode comprises a sulfur-carbon composite." Carbon is an electrically conductive material. It is unclear how an positive electrode does not comprise an electrically conductive material as recited in claim 9 while comprising a sulfur-carbon composite as recited in claim 8. Claims 10–12 are directly dependent from claim 1 and include all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claims 10–12 are also indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1 , 3, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Noda et al. (WO 2021/182614 A1, hereinafter Noda) . Regarding claim 1 , Noda discloses a lithium-sulfur battery, comprising: a positive electrode containing sulfur (see positive electrode, [0045]) as a positive electrode active material (TABLE 1, [0049]; TABLE 3, [0102]) ; a lithium metal negative electrode (see lithium foil, [0063]) ; and an electrolyte (see electrolytic solution, [0063]) , wherein the lithium-sulfur battery satisfies Equation 1 Noda (WO 2021/182614 A1) ; TABLE 3, [0102]) : 1 ≤ ES/L ≤ 1.4 [Equation 1 ] (TABLE 1, [0049]; TABLE 3, [0102]) wherein ES is a value obtained by dividing the mass (g) of the electrolyte by the mass (g) of sulfur contained in the positive electrode (TABLE 1, [0049]; TABLE 3, [0102]) , and L (mAh/cm 2 ) is a loading value of sulfur for the positive electrode (TABLE 1, [0049]; TABLE 3, [0102]) . Noda discloses lithium-sulfur batteries (e.g., Examples 2, 3, 5, 6, 9–13, 15, and 23–28) satisfying Equation 1: 1 ≤ ES/L ≤ 1.4 [Equation 1]. ES, L, and ES/L of Noda are summarized below. Regarding clam 3 , Noda discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a lithium-sulfur battery: wherein the value of ES is 2 ≤ ES < 3.7 (TABLE 3, [0102]) . Noda discloses a lithium-sulfur battery (e.g., Example 24) having a value of ES is 2 ≤ ES < 3.7. ES, L, and ES/L of Noda are summarized below. Regarding claim 8 , Nod a discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a lithium-sulfur battery: wherein the positive electrode comprises a sulfur-carbon composite (see positive electrode, [0045]) . Regarding claim 10 , Noda discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a lithium-sulfur battery: wherein the sulfur is contained in an amount of 60 to 80% by weight based on the total weight of the positive electrode (TABLE 1, [0049]; TABLE 3, [0102]) . Claims 1 , 3, 8, 9, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Beck (US 2023/0216081 A1) . Regarding claim 1 , Beck discloses a lithium-sulfur battery, comprising: a positive electrode containing sulfur (see cathode, [0128]) as a positive electrode active material (TABLE 1, [0136]; TABLE 2, [0136]); a lithium metal negative electrode (see anode , [ 0139 ]); and an electrolyte (TABLE 1, [0141]; TABLE 2, [0141]) , wherein the lithium-sulfur battery satisfies Equation 1 (TABLE 1, [0136]; TABLE 2, [0136]) : 1 ≤ ES/L ≤ 1.4 [Equation 1] (TABLE 1, [0136]; TABLE 2, [0136]) wherein ES is a value obtained by dividing the mass (g) of the electrolyte by the mass (g) of sulfur contained in the positive electrode (TABLE 1, [0136]; TABLE 2, [0136]) , and L (mAh/cm 2 ) is a loading value of sulfur for the positive electrode (TABLE 1, [0136]; TABLE 2, [0136]) . Beck discloses lithium-sulfur batteries (e.g., Examples 4 and 14 ) satisfying Equation 1: 1 ≤ ES/L ≤ 1.4 [Equation 1]. ES, L, and ES/L of Beck are summarized below. Regarding clam 3 , Beck discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a lithium-sulfur battery: wherein the value of ES is 2 ≤ ES < 3.7 (TABLE 1, [0136]; TABLE 2, [0136]) . Beck discloses lithium-sulfur batter ies (e.g., Example s 4 and 14 ) having a value of ES is 2 ≤ ES < 3.7. ES, L, and ES/L of Beck are summarized below. Regarding claim 8 , Beck discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a lithium-sulfur battery: wherein the positive electrode comprises a sulfur-carbon composite (see cathode , [ 0137 ]). Regarding claim 9 , Beck discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a lithium-sulfur battery: wherein the positive electrode comprises the positive electrode active material and a binder (see cathode, [0137]), and the positive electrode does not comprise an electrically conductive material (see cathode, [0137]). Regarding claim 10 , Beck discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a lithium-sulfur battery: wherein the sulfur is contained in an amount of 60 to 80% by weight based on the total weight of the positive electrode ( see cathode, [0137] ). Regarding claim 12 , Beck discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a lithium-sulfur battery: wherein the lithium-sulfur battery is a battery for aircraft used as an urban air mobility (UAM) (see vehicles, [0006]). The recitation that said battery is for aircraft used as an urban air mobility (UAM) does not confer patentability to the claim; since, the recitation of an intended use does not impart patentability to otherwise old compounds or compositions. In re Tuominen , 671 F.2d 1359, 213 USPQ 89 (CCPA 1982). A recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. The recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable. In re Schreiber , 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP §§ 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114–2115. 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. 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noda (WO 2021/182614 A1) . Regarding claim 4 , Noda discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a lithium-sulfur battery: wherein the value of L is 2 ≤ L ≤ 2.6 (TABLE 1, [0049]) . Noda discloses lithium-sulfur batteries (e.g., Examples 8, 18, and 19) having a value of L is 2 ≤ L ≤ 2.6. ES, L, and ES/L of Noda are summarized above. However, claim 4 is directly dependent from claim 3. Claim 3 recites the limitation "wherein the value of ES is 2 ≤ ES < 3.7." Noda does not explicitly disclose a single embodiment having both 2 ≤ L ≤ 2.6 and 2 ≤ ES < 3.7. Noda discloses a value of L is 2 ≤ L ≤ 2.6 improves the energy density of the lithium-sulfur battery (TABLE 1, [0100]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to make the lithium-sulfur battery with the ES of Noda with the L of Noda, which is taught in a separate embodiment, in order improve t he energy density of the lithium-sulfur battery. Regarding claim 11 , Noda discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a lithium-sulfur battery: wherein the electrolyte contains a second solvent comprising at least one of an ether-based compound, an ester-based compound, an amide-based compound, and a carbonate-based compound (see electrolytic solution, [0063]) ; and a lithium salt (see electrolytic solution, [0063]) . Noda does not explicitly disclose in a single embodiment: wherein the electrolyte contains a first solvent comprising a heterocyclic compound containing at least one double bond, and at the same time, containing any one of an oxygen atom and a sulfur atom . Noda discloses the electrolyte may contain a first solvent comprising a heterocyclic compound containing at least one double bond, and at the same time, containing any one of an oxygen atom and a sulfur atom (see fluoroethylene carbonate, [0073]) to improve the energy density of the lithium-sulfur battery (see additive, [0074]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to make the lithium-sulfur battery having the ES/L of Noda with the additive of Noda, which is taught in a separate embodiment, in order improve the energy density of the lithium-sulfur battery. Claims 2 and 5 – 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noda (WO 2021/182614 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of He et al. (US 2016/0240841 A1, hereinafter He) . Regarding claims 2 and 5–7 , Noda discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a lithium-sulfur battery: wherein when the value of L is 2 ≤ L < 2.5 (TABLE 1, [0049]), wherein when the value of L is 2.5 ≤ L ≤ 2.6 (TABLE 1, [0049]), wherein when the value of ES/L is 1 (TABLE 3, [0102]) and the value of L is 2.5 ≤ L ≤ 2.6 (TABLE 1, [0049]). Noda discloses lithium-sulfur batteries (e.g., Examples 3 and 24) having an ES/L of 1 and a lithium-sulfur battery (e.g., Example 18) having 2.5 ≤ L ≤ 2.6. ES, L, and ES/L of Noda are summarized above. Noda does not explicitly disclose: wherein the energy density of the lithium-sulfur battery is 300 Wh /kg or more, and at the same time, the maximum power of the lithium-sulfur battery is 2 kW/kg or more ; the energy density of the lithium-sulfur battery is 300 Wh /kg or more and less than 350 Wh /kg, and at that time, the power value of the lithium-sulfur battery is 2 to 2.6 kW/kg ; the energy density of the lithium-sulfur battery is 300 to 350 Wh /kg, and at that time, the power value of the lithium-sulfur battery is from exceeding 2 kW/kg to 2.6 kW/kg. the energy density of the lithium-sulfur battery is 350 Wh /kg, and at that time, the power value of the lithium-sulfur battery is from exceeding 2 kW/kg to 2.3 kW/kg. He discloses a lithium-sulfur battery having an energy density of 300 Wh /kg or more (FIG. 5, [0187]), and at the same time, a maximum power of 2 kW/kg or more (FIG. 5, [0187]); the energy density is 300 Wh /kg or more and less than 350 Wh /kg, and at that time, the power value is 2 to 2.6 kW/kg (FIG. 5, [0187]); the energy density is 300 to 350 Wh /kg (FIG. 5, [0187]), and at that time, the power value is from exceeding 2 kW/kg to 2.6 kW/kg (FIG. 5, [0187]); and the energy density is 350 Wh /kg (FIG. 5, [0187]), and at that time, the power value is from exceeding 2 kW/kg to 2.3 kW/kg (FIG. 5, [0187]) to improve the vehicle capability of the lithium-sulfur battery (FIG. 5, [0190]). Noda and He are analogous because they are directed to lithium-sulfur batteries. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to make the lithium-sulfur battery of Noda with the energy density and power value of he in order to improve the vehicle capability of the lithium-sulfur battery. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chung (US 2022/0293914 A1) discloses a lithium-sulfur battery, comprising a positive electrode containing sulfur as a positive electrode active material ( see sulfur cathode , [0029] ); a lithium metal negative electrode (see lithium anode, [ 0068 ]); and an electrolyte ( see electrolyte, [0067] ), wherein the lithium-sulfur battery satisfies Equation 1 (see electrolyte-to-sulfur ratio, [0027]; see sulfur loading, [0028]): 0.3 ≤ ES/L ≤ 5.7 [Equation 1] ( see electrolyte-to-sulfur ratio, [0027]; see sulfur loading, [0028] ) wherein ES is a value obtained by dividing the mass (g) of the electrolyte by the mass (g) of sulfur contained in the positive electrode (see electrolyte-to-sulfur ratio, [0027]; see sulfur loading, [0028]), and L (mAh/cm 2 ) is a loading value of sulfur for the positive electrode (see electrolyte-to-sulfur ratio, [0027]; see sulfur loading, [0028]). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Sean P Cullen, Ph.D. whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-1251 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday to Thursday 6:00 am to 4:00 pm CT, Friday 6:00 am to 12:00 pm CT . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Basia A Ridley can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1453 . 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. /Sean P Cullen, Ph.D./ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725