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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: on page 3 of the amendment dated June 16, 2026 (under the heading AMENDMENTS TO THE SPECIFICATION), the entire paragraph bridging pages 8 and 9 of the “clean copy” of the substitute specification, as well as the entire paragraph bridging pages 9 and 10 of the “clean copy” of the substitute specification, should be provided as entire paragraphs with corrections (including underlined text if newly added), rather than only the corrected lines within these paragraphs. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ren et al. (US 2019/0140322).
Regarding independent claim 1, as well as claims 4, 5, 9, and 12, Ren et al. disclose a lithium-sulfur battery (abstract; paragraphs [0142] and [0207]-[0210]; Example 7 and TABLE 5 of paragraph [0207]; and Figures 30A, 30B, 31A, 31B, and 31C), in which the lithium-sulfur battery includes the following features:
an electrolyte including a first solvent containing fluorine-based ether compounds (1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl-2,2,3,3-tetrafluoropropyl ether (TTE) of claims 4 and 12 – see TABLE 5), a second solvent containing a glyme-based compound (dimethyl ether (DME) as a glycol diether, or dimethoxyethane of claim 5 – see TABLE 5), and a lithium salt containing lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl) imide (LiTFSI – see TABLE 5 and paragraph [0142]); and
a positive electrode including an active material containing sulfur (S) and carbon (KETJEN black (KB) conductive carbon) materials as a sulfur-carbon composite (of claim 9) to form a KB/S cathode made of 20% KB and 80% S (see paragraph [0208]).
Although lithium bis(pentafluoroethanesulfonyl) imide is not explicitly disclosed by Ren et al., one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that selection of any one or more among the group of imide compounds would have been obvious to try via routine experimentation (in view of a finite number of predictable solutions based on selective experimentation among a variety of imide compounds) with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of increasing efficiency and stability of the electrolyte within the lithium-sulfur battery (see abstract; and paragraphs [0207]-[0210]).
Regarding (cancelled) claim 2 that has been incorporated as limitations into independent claim 1, as well as claim 13, although Ren et al. do not explicitly disclose that a molar ratio of the lithium salt, the second solvent, and the first solvent contained in the electrolyte would be within a range of 1 : 1.5 to 2.7 : 2.8 to 5 (of amended independent claim 1 that includes this limitation of (cancelled) claim 2), as well as within a range of 1 : 1.9 to 2.4 : 3.1 to 3.6 (of claim 13), one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that optimization of the molar ratio with regard to the lithium salt, the second solvent, and the first solvent (all of which are disclosed and/or suggested by Ren et al. as applied in independent claim 1 above) would be conducted via routine experimentation with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of increasing efficiency and stability of the electrolyte within the lithium-sulfur battery (see abstract; and paragraphs [0207]-[0210]). With regard to the ranges of the molar ratio, these ranges would be obvious since these ranges would be readily contemplated by one of ordinary skill in the art. In this instance, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the obviousness of the ranges of the molar ratio in view of Ren et al., as set forth in MPEP 2144.05. “In the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”. 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). Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (1980).
Regarding claim 3, Ren et al. disclose that a concentration of the lithium salt would be within a range of 1 M to 1.8 M, namely 1.06 M after dilution with TTE and DME (see TABLE 5 of Example 7 in paragraph [0207]).
Regarding claim 6, Ren et al. disclose that the electrolyte does not contain a nitrile-based solvent (see paragraphs [0207]-[0210] and TABLE 5 of Example 7).
Regarding claim 7, Ren et al. disclose that sulfur (S) is contained in an amount of 60% to 80% by weight relative to a total weight of the positive electrode, of which the cathode (positive electrode) is a KB/S cathode (see independent claim 1 above) that includes an active material containing sulfur (S) and carbon (KETJEN black (KB) conductive carbon) materials as a sulfur-carbon composite to form a KB/S cathode made of 20% KB and 80% S, of which the KB/S composite is present at 80% of the total weight of the cathode (see paragraph [0208]), of which 80% of 80% would be about 64%, which lies within the range of 60% to 80% by weight relative to a total weight of the positive electrode.
Regarding claim 8, although Ren et al. do not explicitly disclose that a pore volume of a carbon material is within a range of 0.7 to 3 cm3/g with a specific surface area of at least 1,700 m2/g, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that optimization of the pore volume of the carbon material with a defined specific surface area (to be advantageously as high as possible) would be conducted via routine experimentation of the pore volume and specific surface area with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of increasing efficiency and stability of the electrolyte within the lithium-sulfur battery (see abstract; and paragraphs [0207]-[0210]). Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (1980).
Regarding claim 10, although Ren et al. do not explicitly disclose that a utilization rate of sulfur contained in the positive electrode is at least 80% of a theoretical discharging capacity, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that optimization of the theoretical discharging capacity would be conducted via routine experimentation with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of increasing efficiency and stability of the electrolyte within the lithium-sulfur battery (see abstract; and paragraphs [0207]-[0210]). Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (1980).
Regarding claim 11, although Ren et al. do not explicitly disclose that an energy density of the lithium-sulfur battery is at least 400 Wh/kg or at least 600 Wh/L, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that optimization of the energy density of the lithium-sulfur battery would be conducted via routine experimentation with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of increasing efficiency and stability of the electrolyte within the lithium-sulfur battery (see abstract; and paragraphs [0207]-[0210]). Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (1980).
Response to Arguments
The examiner acknowledges the applicants’ amendment received by the USPTO on June 16, 2026. Although the amendment overcomes the prior objections to the abstract and specification, the amendments to the specification on page 3 of the applicants’ amendment raise a new objection (see above section 1). The amendments to the claims overcome the prior 35 USC 112(b) rejections. The applicants have cancelled claim 2 and incorporated its limitations into independent claim 1. Claims 1 and 3-13 are currently under consideration in the application.
Applicants' arguments filed June 16, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the applicants’ remarks/arguments on pages 9-12 of the amendment, the applicants argue (throughout a top portion of page 9 in the REMARKS section) that the limitations of amended independent claim 1 (that include the molar ratio limitation of cancelled claim 2) are not rendered obvious by Ren et al. in view of MPEP 2144 that “the claimed features provide unexpectedly advantageous or superior properties” (in referring to the 2nd paragraph on page 9 of the REMARKS section). In addition, the applicants state that Ren et al. fail to teach the claimed feature of lithium bis(pentafluoroethanesulfonyl) imide (LiBETI) as the lithium salt. However, paragraph [0142] of Ren et al. contemplates the use and/or substitution of LiBETI from among a finite group of lithium salts. The examiner respectfully disagrees that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have considered one or more of the disclosed imide compounds as obvious to try in view of a finite number of predictable solutions based on routine experimentation, for the purpose of increasing efficiency and stability of the electrolyte within the lithium-sulfur battery (see abstract and paragraphs [0207]-[0210] of Ren et al. – also refer to the 35 USC 103 rejection).
In addition, Ren et al. disclose lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl) imide (LiTFSI) in Example 7, as disclosed in TABLE 5 and paragraph [0142] at various concentrations (molar ratios) between the lithium salt and solvents (in referring to the last full paragraph on page 9 through the 3rd full paragraph on page 10 of the REMARKS section). Although the applicants argue that Ren et al. limit “the active salts exclusively to LiFSI and LiTFSI”, as well as “the active salt and solvent A to LiFSI and DME in particular” (despite referring to claim 11 of Ren et al. which is not relied upon by the examiner in the 35 USC 103 rejection) while acknowledging that “the broadest molar ratio range disclosed in Ren overlaps the molar ratio range of the present invention”, the examiner respectfully disagrees that the explicitly recited active lithium salt(s) and solvent(s) of Ren et al. do not preclude the use of other lithium salts (as discussed in the previous paragraph), as well as other solvents, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Moreover, in referring to the bottom portion of page 10 of the REMARKS section, the applicants have not provided a distinct showing of unexpected results of the recited “discharge capacity and lifetime performance” of the battery (in referring to paragraph [0026] of the published application) from a declaration to emphasize the applicants’ unexpected results of the claimed ranges of molar ratios. Although the applicants discuss the features of Table 1 while referring to Figure 1 and paragraph [0057] of the published application in attempting to show unexpected results, as shown throughout page 11 of the REMARKS section (rather than providing a declaration addressing the 35 USC 103 rejection over Ren et al.), the examiner respectfully asserts that routine experimentation by one of ordinary skill in the art, in particular in view of the disclosure of LiBETI from among a finite group of lithium salts (see paragraph [0142] of Ren et al.) and an overlapping molar ratio range pertaining to use of LiTFSI (as a group related to LiBETI), would have been conducted to obtain a wide range of ratios that overlap (or are at least reasonably close to) the claimed ranges of molar ratios of the lithium salt, the second solvent, and the first solvent (of amended independent claim 1), for the purpose of increasing efficiency and stability of the electrolyte within the lithium-sulfur battery (see abstract and paragraphs [0207]-[0210] of Ren et al.). In order to overcome the 35 USC 103 rejection, the applicants are suggested to amend independent claim 1 (e.g. reciting specific materials and/or narrower ranges while providing a declaration to explicitly show unexpected results to clearly define over Ren et al.). In view of the 35 USC 103 rejection and for these additional reasons, claims 1 and 3-13 remain rejected.
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 KEVIN P KERNS whose telephone number is (571)272-1178. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Walker can be reached at (571)272-3458. 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.
/KEVIN P KERNS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735 June 24, 2026
Prosecution Insights