CTNF 18/281,768 CTNF 78031 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Specification 06-16 AIA Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided . In this instance, the abstract recites the legal term “comprises” in the 2 nd line . The use of the terms “Ketjen black” and “Denka black”, which are trade names or marks used in commerce, has been noted in this application (in the 1 st full paragraph on page 10 of the “clean copy” of the substitute specification). The terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the terms should be capitalized wherever they appear or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the terms. Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1-13 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. With regard to independent claim 1, the limitation “sulfur and carbon material” (at the end of the claim) is indefinite, as it is unclear whether or not sulfur and carbon are to be considered as “separate” or “combined” materials. In this instance, should “sulfur and carbon material” be replaced with “a sulfur material and a carbon material” (as separate materials) or “sulfur and carbon materials (as combined materials, or as a chemical compound/composite)? Correction and clarification are required. Claim 3 recites the limitation "the concentration" bridging the two lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis. Claim 7 recites the limitation "the total weight" in the 2 nd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis. Claim 8 recites the limitation "the carbon material" in the 2 nd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis. Claim 10 recites the limitation "the theoretical discharging capacity" bridging the 2 nd and 3 rd lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-13 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 claims 2 and 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 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 cm 3 /g with a specific surface area of at least 1,700 m 2 /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). Conclusion 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 March 14, 2026 Application/Control Number: 18/281,768 Page 2 Art Unit: 1735 Application/Control Number: 18/281,768 Page 3 Art Unit: 1735 Application/Control Number: 18/281,768 Page 4 Art Unit: 1735 Application/Control Number: 18/281,768 Page 5 Art Unit: 1735 Application/Control Number: 18/281,768 Page 6 Art Unit: 1735 Application/Control Number: 18/281,768 Page 7 Art Unit: 1735 Application/Control Number: 18/281,768 Page 8 Art Unit: 1735