DETAILED ACTION
The applicant’s amendment filed on June 24, 2026 was received. Claims 6, 8 and 10 were cancelled. Claims 1, 7 and 9 were amended.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office 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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In view of Applicant’s amendment of claim 1, the Examiner withdraws the previously set forth [rejection/objection/35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph rejection] as detailed in the Office action dated [mail date].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-5, 7, 9 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (hereinafter “Kim”) (KR 10-2020-0117752 A, cited by Applicant; see English machine translation already of record) in view of Feng et al. (hereinafter “Feng”) (CN 108899544 A; see English machine translation).
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Kim teaches a lithium-sulfur secondary battery in which an electrode conductive material comprises carbon nanotubes having a BET specific surface of 207 m2/g and a pore volume of 1.67 cm3/g (see paragraph 107).
Kim is silent as to an impurity content.
Feng teaches that ultra-high purity carbon nanotubes with a specific surface area of 255 m2/g and a purity of 99.82% may be utilized to improve electron conduction in the positive and negative electrode materials of lithium batteries (see paragraphs 21 and 118). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized high-purity carbon nanotubes in the lithium-sulfur secondary battery of Kim as taught by Feng because Feng teaches that such high-purity conductive materials can significantly improve the conductivity and rate performance of batteries (see paragraph 6).
The limitation of claim 1 reciting “removed through pre-treatment using microwaves” is considered a product-by-process limitation and is not given patentable weight. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
Regarding claim 2 , the limitations recited therein are considered product-by-process limitations are not given patentable weight. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
Regarding claims 3-5, as set forth above, Kim teaches a lithium-sulfur secondary battery in which an electrode conductive material comprises carbon nanotubes having a BET specific surface of 207 m2/g and a pore volume of 1.67 cm3/g (see paragraph 107).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Kim teaches that the conductive material may be present in the positive electrode (see paragraph 11).
Regarding claim 13, Kim teaches that the lithium-sulfur battery comprises a positive electrode, a negative electrode, a separator, and an electrolyte (see paragraph 38). The electrolyte may comprise a fluorinated ether-based solvent (see paragraph 84). The electrolyte may further comprise n-glyme as an additive (see paragraph 86).
Regarding claim 14, although Kim does not explicitly teach a utilization rate of sulfur contained in the positive electrode, it is noted that the sulfur battery of Kim is substantially identical in structure and composition to that of the claimed lithium-sulfur battery. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the lithium-sulfur battery of Kim to exhibit properties which are substantially identical to those of the claimed lithium-sulfur battery, including a utilization rate of sulfur in the positive electrode. It has been held by the courts that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) (see MPEP § 2112.01).
Regarding claim 15, Kim teaches that lithium-sulfur batteries can theoretically achieve an energy storage density relative to weight of 2,600 Wh/kg (see paragraph 2).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tour et al. (hereinafter “Tour”) (U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0180244 A1) in view of Kim et al. (hereinafter “Kim”) (KR 10-2020-0117752 A, cited by Applicant; see English machine translation).
Regarding claim 9, Tour teaches a process of subjecting carbon nanotubes containing a species, or elements such as hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen to microwave radiation for certain predetermined amounts of time in an inert gas chamber. The result of said process is heat release, light emission and gas evolution, accompanied by intense mechanical motion and carbon nanotube reconstruction (see paragraph 51). The carbon nanotubes of Tour may be utilized in high yield power battery sources (see paragraph 95). The microwave power may be as high from 0.1 to 1500 Watts, and the microwave exposure may occur over approximately 20 seconds (see paragraph 55). A 5 mg (0.005 g) sample of purified carbon nanotubes may be used (see paragraph 79). Given these values, the MPPT is in a range of 400 to 6,000,000 W∙s/g. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2144.05).
Tour does not explicitly teach a specific surface area of the carbon nanotubes.
Kim teaches carbon nanotubes for use in lithium-sulfur secondary batteries having a BET specific surface of 207 m2/g. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized carbon nanotubes having the specific surface area as taught by Kim in the process of Tour because both are utilized in the production of batteries and the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Conclusion
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 STEPHAN J ESSEX whose telephone number is (571)270-7866. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 am - 6:00 pm.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571) 272-1330. 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.
/STEPHAN J ESSEX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
