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, 2, and 5–12 are pending.
Claims 3 and 4 are canceled.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 16 July 2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Applicants' amendments have overcome the objections to the drawings.
Specification
Applicants' amendments have overcome the objections to the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicants' amendments have overcome the rejections of claims 1–12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 8, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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 as the positive electrode active material (TABLE 1, [0049]; TABLE 3, [0102]), and
L (mAh/cm2) is a loading value of sulfur for the positive electrode (TABLE 1, [0049]; TABLE 3, [0102]);
wherein the value of L is 2 ≤ L ≤ 2.6 (TABLE 1, [0049]);
wherein the value of ES is 2 ≤ ES < 3.7 (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]. Noda discloses a lithium-sulfur battery (e.g., Example 24) having a value of ES is 2 ≤ ES < 3.7. 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 below.
However, 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 the energy density of the lithium-sulfur battery.
Regarding claim 8, modified Noda 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, modified 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]).
Regarding claim 11, modified 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 with the additive of Noda, which is taught in a separate embodiment, in order improve the energy density of the lithium-sulfur battery.
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 1, 8–10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beck (US 2023/0216081 A1) in view of Noda (WO 2021/182614 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 as the positive electrode active material (TABLE 1, [0136]; TABLE 2, [0136]), and
L (mAh/cm2) is a loading value of sulfur for the positive electrode (TABLE 1, [0136]; TABLE 2, [0136]);
wherein the value of ES is 2 ≤ ES < 3.7 (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.
Beck discloses lithium-sulfur batteries (e.g., Examples 4 and 14) having a value of ES is 2 ≤ ES < 3.7. ES, L, and ES/L of Beck are summarized below.
Beck does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the value of L is 2 ≤ L ≤ 2.6.
Noda discloses a value of L is 2 ≤ L ≤ 2.6 improves the energy density of the lithium-sulfur battery (TABLE 1, [0100]). Beck and Noda 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 Beck with the with the L of Noda in order improve the energy density of the lithium-sulfur battery.
Regarding claim 8, modified 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, modified 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 other than carbon in the sulfur-carbon composite(see cathode, [0137]).
Regarding claim 10, modified 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, modified 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.
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 claim 1 above, and further in view of He et al. (US 2016/0240841 A1, hereinafter He).
Regarding claims 2 and 5–7, modified 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 < 2.5 (TABLE 1, [0049]),
wherein the value of L is 2.5 ≤ L ≤ 2.6 (TABLE 1, [0049]),
wherein 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
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
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
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
the power value of the lithium-sulfur battery is greater than 2 kW/kg and less than or equal 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 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 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 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 the power value is greater than 2 kW/kg and less than or equal 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.
Claims 2 and 5–7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beck (US 2023/0216081 A1) in view of Noda (WO 2021/182614 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of He (US 2016/0240841 A1).
Regarding claims 2 and 5–7, modified Beck discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a lithium-sulfur battery:
wherein the value of ES/L is 1 (TABLE 1, [0136]; TABLE 2, [0136]).
Beck does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the value of L is 2 ≤ L < 2.5,
wherein the value of L is 2.5 ≤ L ≤ 2.6.
Noda discloses a value of L is 2 ≤ L ≤ 2.6 (TABLE 1, [0049]), wherein the value of L is 2 ≤ L < 2.5 (TABLE 1, [0049]), wherein the value of L is 2.5 ≤ L ≤ 2.6 (TABLE 1, [0049]), the value of L is 2.5 ≤ L ≤ 2.6 (TABLE 1, [0049]) 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 of Beck with the with the L of Noda in order improve the energy density of the lithium-sulfur battery.
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.
Modified Beck does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the energy density of the lithium-sulfur battery is 300 Wh/kg or more, and
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
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
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
the power value of the lithium-sulfur battery is greater than 2 kW/kg and less than or equal 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 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 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 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 the power value is greater than 2 kW/kg and less than or equal to 2.3 kW/kg (FIG. 5, [0187]) to improve the vehicle capability of the lithium-sulfur battery (FIG. 5, [0190]). Beck 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue without explicitly teaching a correlation of ES and L poses substantial difficulty in arriving at the claimed invention (P10/¶2). The claimed invention is directed to a lithium sulfur battery. One skilled in the making and operating lithium sulfur batteries would be well-versed in the sciences and mathematics. One skilled in these arts would have an advanced degree in a relevant STEM field. It would be within routine experimentation for one skilled in the art to clearly see a correlation between ES, L, and energy density. Noda discloses examples with explicit ES, L, and energy densities (TABLE 1, [0049]; TABLE 3, [0102]); and Beck discloses examples with explicit ES, L, and energy densities (FIG. 3; TABLE 1, [0136]; TABLE 2, [0136]). Therefore, there is no difficulty in arriving at the claimed invention even though Noda and Beck do not explicitly disclose a single embodiment meeting simultaneously the claimed ranges of ES, L, and ES/L.
Applicants argue Noda fails to teach or suggest a lithium-sulfur battery satisfying (1) Equation 1 of 1 ≤ ES/L ≤ 1.4, (2) ES is 2 ≤ ES < 3.7 and (3) L is 2 ≤ L ≤ 2.6 at the same time (P10/¶5). Noda discloses examples with explicit ES, L, and energy densities (TABLE 1, [0049]; TABLE 3, [0102]). 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, 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]). 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 the energy density of the lithium-sulfur battery. Therefore, Noda suggests a lithium-sulfur battery satisfying (1) Equation 1 of 1 ≤ ES/L ≤ 1.4, (2) ES is 2 ≤ ES < 3.7 and (3) L is 2 ≤ L ≤ 2.6 at the same time
Applicants argue He cannot cure the deficiencies of Noda because He also fails to teach or suggest the above-identified features of claim 1 (P10/¶5). Noda is not deficient as detailed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tak (US 2023/0223519 A1) discloses an ES ratio of lithium-sulfur battery can be used to optimize the capacity and initial open-circuit potential (see ES ratio, [0129]).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Sean P Cullen, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-1251. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Basia A Ridley can be reached at (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
Prosecution Insights