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 .
Response to Amendment
Claim 10 is withdrawn.
Claim 1 is currently amended.
In view of amendment, filed on 06/16/2026, the following rejections are withdrawn from the previous office action, mailed on 03/17/2026:
Rejection of claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
Rejection of claims 1-9 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)
The following rejections are maintained for the reason of records as given in the previous office action. The bases of these rejections are the same as given in the office action, mailed on 03/17/2026:
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.
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) 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 first and a second 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.
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, 2nd 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 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)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks filed on 06/16/2026, with respect to the prior art of Guo and that fails to disclose the clarified limitations in claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, rejections of claims 1-9 under obviousness over Guo in view of Yoon has been withdrawn.
However, Applicant's arguments, filed on 06/16/2026, regarding rejections of claims over Fischer in view of Yoon have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Fischer fails to teach or suggest the clarified limitations of claim 1 because Fisher does not teach or suggest “a second ratio of pores having a diameter of less than 1 nm of 60 vol% or more relative to 100 vol% of the total pores” as recited in claim 1.
This is not found persuasive. Fischer clearly discloses “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) which clearly covers the claimed limitation of “the porous carbonaceous material has a first ratio of pores having a diameter of less than 3 nm of 90 vol% or more relative to 100 vol% of total pores and a second ratio of pores having a diameter of less than 1 nm of 60 vol% or more relative to 100 vol% of the total pores” in claim 1.
Further, Applicant argues that “Yoon’s carbon-to-sulfur does not consider the pore volume ratio in the porous carbonaceous material relative to a total volume of the porous carbonaceous material, as required by claim 1”.
This is not found persuasive because it should be that for the purpose of the rejection the teachings of Yoon have been used in combination with the teachings of Fischer. Yoon discloses 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]). As a result, Yoon discloses the sulfur-carbon composite has an SCP value of larger than 0.08 and less than 1.
Therefore, the arguments are nor persuasive and the prior art rejection of claims 1-9 are currently maintained.
Finally, after a full review of the submitted remarks in view of prior art rejections, it has been concluded that there are differences in interpreting the claimed subject matter and the cited references by the Applicant and the Office. Therefore, Examiner would like to suggest that if Applicant’s Counsel believes an interview can benefit the prosecution of the instant application, Applicant’s Counsel is kindly invited to contact the undersigned examiner.
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 SEYED MASOUD MALEKZADEH whose telephone number is (571)272-6215. The examiner can normally be reached 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, SUSAN D. LEONG can be reached at (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 08/22/2026
Prosecution Insights