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. Election/Restrictions REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art. The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e). When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions: As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories: (1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or (2) A product and a process of use of said product; or (3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or (4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or (5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process. Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c). Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372. This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1. In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted. Group I , claim(s) 1-9 are drawn to a positive electrode for a lithium-sulfur battery. Group II , claim(s) 10 is drawn to a lithium-sulfur battery. The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons: Groups I and II lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of a positive electrode for a lithium-sulfur battery , this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Fischer et al. (WO 2021/033008) and Guo et al. (WO 2017/028301). Fischer et al. (WO ‘008) discloses (page 3, line 10 – page 4, line 26; page 5, line 5 – page 7, line 22) a positive electrode for a lithium-sulfur cell , and the lithium-sulfur cell comprising the same. The disclosed positive electrode includes a carbon-sulfur composite that comprises a microporous carbonaceous material (with BET surface area larger than e.g. 1500 m2/g, page 6, lines 15-16) and sulfur, wherein the carbonaceous material has a porous structure with a ratio of pores having a diameter between 0.5 and 2 nm larger than 90% (page 5, lines 14-17), and the sulfur accounts for 40-60% of the total weight (page 6, lines 19-25). The cathode material further comprises a binder (2-6% by weight; page 17, lines 17-19) and a conductive additive (2-7% by weight; page 7, lines 20-22), and hence the sulphur -carbon composite accounts for more than 70 wt % based on 100 wt % of the positive electrode active material. Guo et al. (WO ‘301) discloses (section “Detailed description of the preferred embodiments”) a positive electrode for a lithium-sulfur cell, and the lithium-sulfur cell comprising the same. The disclosed positive electrode includes a carbon-sulfur composite that comprise a microporous carbonaceous material (with BET surface area larger than e.g. 1600 m2/g) and sulfur, wherein the carbonaceous material has a porous structure with only micropores (less than 2nm) and a pore volume between 0.5 and 3 cm3/g. The sulfur loading is between 60 and 90 wt %. During a telephone conversation with Song K. Jung on 03/03/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of group I , claims 1-9 . Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claim 10 is withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention. 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 applicant regards as his invention. Claims 1-9 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 of “the total pores ” in 7 th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because prior to the cited limitation, claim 1 fails to define “a total pores ” . Clarification requested. Claim 1 recites the limitation of “a ratio of pores ” in 8 th line which renders the claim vague and indefinite because prior to the cited limitation, claim 1 already recites “ a ratio of pores ” in 6 th line and it is not clear if the cited limitation in 8 th line refers to the previously cited limitation in 6 th line or refers to a new limitation. Clarification requested. Claim 1 recites the limitation of “the total volume ” in 16 th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because prior to the cited limitation, claim 1 fails to define “ a total volume ”. Claim 1 included the phrase “ apparent volume ” within parentheses which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation within the parentheses is part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). 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 non-obviousness. Claim(s) 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer et al. (WO 2021/033008) in view of Yoon et al. (US 2018/0114988) As to claim 1 , Fischer et al. (WO ‘ 008) disclose s (page 3, line 10 – page 4, line 26; page 5, line 5 – page 7, line 22) a positive electrode for a lithium-sulfur cell, and the lithium-sulfur cell comprising the same. The disclosed positive electrode includes a carbon-sulfur composite that comprises a microporous carbonaceous material (with BET surface area larger than e.g. 1500 m2/g, page 6, lines 15-16) and sulfur , wherein the carbonaceous material has a porous structure with a ratio of pores having a diameter between 0.5 and 2 nm larger than 90% (page 5, lines 14-17), and the sulfur accounts for 40-60% of the total weight (page 6, lines 19-25). The cathode material further comprises a binder (2-6% by weight; page 17, lines 17-19) and a conductive additive (2-7% by weight; page 7, lines 20-22), and hence the sulp hur -carbon composite accounts for more than 70 wt % based on 100 wt % of the positive electrode active material. However, Fischer et al. (WO ‘008) fail to disclose the SCP value, as claimed in claim 1 . In the analogous art, Yoon et al. (US ‘988) disclose a cathode for a lithium-sulfur secondary battery having: a current collector; and an active layer formed on the current collector (see page 7, 2 nd column, claim 19) Further, Yoon et al. (US ‘988) disclose the cathode active material has a compound comprising a sulfur element, and specifically, may be a sulfur-carbon composite. Also, the sulfur-carbon composite may be formed by applying a compound containing a sulfur element to porous carbon, or by melting the compound and mixing it with carbon. At this time, the content ratio of carbon and sulfur in the sulfur-carbon composite may be, for example, in a ratio of 5:95 (0.05) to 50:50 (1) on the basis of mass. (see ¶ [0053]) Therefore, as to claim 1, Yoon et al. (US ‘988) discloses the sulfur-carbon composite has an SCP value of larger than 0.0 8 and less than 1 that meets the claimed range and as defined by the formula. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the time of Applicant’s Invention, to modify the SCP value, as taught by Fischer et al. (WO ‘008), through adjusting the SCP value to be larger than 0.8 and less than 1 in order to support sulfur within the porous bodies to inhibit dissolution possibility for the electrolyte and adsorbing polysulfide into the electrode, as suggested by Yoon et al. (US ‘988): see ¶ [0011]. As to claim 2, Fischer et al. (WO ‘008) disclose the porous carbonaceous material has a specific surface area (BET) of larger than 1,600 m.sup.2/g. (with BET surface area larger than e.g. 1500 m2/g, page 6, lines 15-16) As to claim 3, Fischer et al. (WO ‘008) disclose the porous carbonaceous material has a circularity of 50% or more. (page 6, lines 20-25) As to claim 4, Fischer et al. (WO ‘008) disclose the porous carbonaceous material comprises activated carbon. (page 5, lines 6-7) As to claim 5, Fischer et al. (WO ‘008) teach the porous carbonaceous material has a pore volume of 0.8 cm.sup.3/g or more. (page 5, line 21) As to claim 6, Fischer et al. (WO ‘008) disclose the porous carbonaceous material comprises activated carbon in an amount of 95 wt % or more based on 100 wt % of the porous carbonaceous material. (page 4, lines 16-17) As to claim 7, Fischer et al. (WO ‘008) teach the positive electrode active material comprises the sulfur-carbon composite in an amount of 70 wt % or more based on 100 wt % of the positive electrode active material. (page 4, lines 11-12) As to claim 8, Fischer et al. (WO ‘008) disclose the sulfur-carbon composite is at least one of a composite formed through mixing of sulfur with the porous carbonaceous material, a coated composite having a core-shell structure, and a composite comprising sulfur packed in internal pores of the porous carbonaceous material. (page 7, lines 5-9) As to claim 9, Fischer et al. (WO ‘008) teach the positive electrode active material further comprises: a binder resin; and a conductive material. (see page 6, lines 32-33 and page 7, lines1-4) Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (WO 2017/028301) in view of Yoon et al. (US 2018/0114988) As to claim 1 , Guo et al. (WO ‘ 301 ) discloses (section “Detailed description of the preferred embodiments”) a positive electrode for a lithium-sulfur cell, and the lithium-sulfur cell comprising the same. The disclosed positive electrode includes a carbon-sulfur composite that comprise a microporous carbonaceous material (with BET surface area larger than e.g. 1600 m2/g) and sulfur, wherein the carbonaceous material has a porous structure with only micropores (less than 2nm) and a pore volume between 0.5 and 3 cm3/g. The sulfur loading is between 60 and 90 wt %. However, Guo et al. (WO ‘301) fail to disclose the SCP value, as claimed in claim 1 . In the analogous art, Yoon et al. (US ‘988) disclose a cathode for a lithium-sulfur secondary battery having: a current collector; and an active layer formed on the current collector (see page 7, 2 nd column, claim 19) Further, Yoon et al. (US ‘988) disclose the cathode active material has a compound comprising a sulfur element, and specifically, may be a sulfur-carbon composite. Also, the sulfur-carbon composite may be formed by applying a compound containing a sulfur element to porous carbon, or by melting the compound and mixing it with carbon. At this time, the content ratio of carbon and sulfur in the sulfur-carbon composite may be, for example, in a ratio of 5:95 (0.05) to 50:50 (1) on the basis of mass. (see ¶ [0053]) Therefore, as to claim 1, Yoon et al. (US ‘988) discloses the sulfur-carbon composite has an SCP value of larger than 0.08 and less than 1 that meets the claimed range and as defined by the formula. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the time of Applicant’s Invention, to modify the SCP value, as taught by Guo et al. (WO ‘301) , through adjusting the SCP value to be larger than 0.8 and less than 1 in order to support sulfur within the porous bodies to inhibit dissolution possibility for the electrolyte and adsorbing polysulfide into the electrode, as suggested by Yoon et al. (US ‘988): see ¶ [0011]. As to claim 2, Guo et al. (WO ‘301) teach wherein the porous carbonaceous material has a specific surface area (BET) of larger than 1,600 m.sup.2/g. (page 4, 5 th paragraph) As to claim 3, Guo et al. (WO ‘301) disclose the porous carbonaceous material has a circularity of 50% or more. (page 5, 1 st paragraph) As to claim 4 , Guo et al. (WO ‘301) disclose the porous carbonaceous material comprises activated carbon. (page 4, line 19) As to claim 5, Guo et al. (WO ‘301) teach the porous carbonaceous material has a pore volume of 0.8 cm.sup.3/g or more. (page 4, last paragraph) As to claim 6, Guo et al. (WO ‘301) disclose the porous carbonaceous material comprises activated carbon in an amount of 95 wt % or more based on 100 wt % of the porous carbonaceous material. (page 5, 1 st paragraph) As to claim 7 , Guo et al. (WO ‘301) teach the positive electrode active material comprises the sulfur-carbon composite in an amount of 70 wt % or more based on 100 wt % of the positive electrode active material. (page 5, 1 st paragraph) As to claim 8, Guo et al. (WO ‘301) disclose the sulfur-carbon composite is at least one of a composite formed through mixing of sulfur with the porous carbonaceous material, a coated composite having a core-shell structure, and a composite comprising sulfur packed in internal pores of the porous carbonaceous material. (page 10, claim 8: lines 4-6 and page 11, claim 13: lines 2-3) As to claim 9, Guo et al. (WO ‘301) teach the positive electrode active material further comprises: a binder resin; and a conductive material. (page 6, 7 th paragraph) Correspondence Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT SEYED MASOUD MALEKZADEH whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6215 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT SUSAN D. LEONG can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-1487 . 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. /SEYED MASOUD MALEKZADEH/ Primary Examiner Art Unit 1754 03/12/2026