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. 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. Claims 1-8 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (hereinafter “Kim”) (KR 10-2020-0117752 A , cited by Applicant ; see English machine translation). Regarding claims 1 , Kim teaches a lithium-sulfur secondary battery in which an electrode conductive material comprises carbon nanotubes having a BET specific surface of 207 m 2 /g and a pore volume of 1.67 cm 3 /g (see paragraph 107). The limitation of claim 1 reciting “from which impurities were 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 claims 2 and 6- 8 , 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 m 2 /g and a pore volume of 1.67 cm 3 /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 w here 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 a n energy storage density relative to weight of 2,600 Wh /kg (see paragraph 2). 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 . Claim(s) 9 and 10 are 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). 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 m 2 /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 t he 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). Regarding claim 10 , Tour teaches that the microwave power may be as high from 0.1 to 1500 Watts, and the microwave exposure may occur over 35 pulses of 3 to 5 seconds per pulse (see paragraph 55). This results in a total exposure time of 105 to 175 seconds. Given these values, the claimed MPPT would be achieved for any mass of carbon nanotubes between 105 µg and 131.25 g. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT STEPHAN J ESSEX whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7866 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Barbara Gilliam can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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