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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I in the reply filed on May 5th, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 8-13 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method of making a high energy-density lithium-sulfur battery, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on May 5th, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 2-3 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.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites the electrolyte is comprised in an amount constituting a “lean electrolyte battery condition.” It is unclear what is meant by a lean electrolyte condition. The instant specification provides “the expression ‘lean electrolyte’ relates to a low volume of electrolyte with a low electrolyte/sulfur ratio” (Paragraph 0050), however this is not a definition and it is further unclear the way in which the lean electrolyte “relates to” the volume of the electrolyte and the electrolyte/sulfur ratio, and further the metes of bounds of what is considered a “low” volume and a “low” ratio. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 3, it is rejected based on its dependency on a previously rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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, 4, 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mahankali (Non-Patent Literature “Unveiling the Electrocatalytic Activity of 1T′-MoSe2 on Lithium-Polysulfide Conversion Reactions”).
Regarding claim 1, Mahankali teaches a high energy-density lithium-sulfur battery (Abstract).
Mahankali teaches in the fabrication of the cells, the cathode includes a catholyte comprising sulfur (Page 24494, Column 1, Paragraph 1), which is considered to teach the limitation of a cathode including sulfur.
Mahankali teaches an anode including lithium metal and a separator positioned between the cathode and the anode (Page 24494, Column 1, Paragraph 1).
The recitation of the lithium-sulfur battery having a “high” energy density is broad in limiting what constitutes the energy density of the lithium-sulfur battery. As described above, the lithium-sulfur battery of Mahankali comprises the same components as the battery of the instant claim as therefore can be considered a high energy-density lithium sulfur battery. Further, Mahankali teaches a battery comprising a 2D material to enhance the electrocatalytic activity toward LiPS redox reactions (Abstract). Therefore, the lithium sulfur battery of Mahankali has sufficient energy density to function in that way and is interpreted to be a high energy density battery.
Mahankali discloses the use of dichalcogenide material MoSe2 in the fabrication of the battery (Page 24494, Column 1, Paragraph 1), responsible for providing superior lithium ion diffusion, cycling performance, and catalytic activity in a 1T’ phase compared to the 2H phase (Page 24491, Column 2).
The recitation of the separator being “modified by” the 1T’-phase transition metal dichalcogenide layer is interpreted by the Examiner as a 1T’-phase transition metal dichalcogenide layer present in the lithium sulfur battery comprising a separator, as the instant claim does not require a specific structure or further limit what is required by the separator being “modified by” the 1T’-phase transition metal dichalcogenide layer. As the lithium sulfur battery of Mahankali comprises a separator and a 1T’-phase transition metal dichalcogenide layer, the claimed limitations are met.
The limitation of “self-assembled” 1T'-phase transition metal dichalcogenide layer is a product by process claim. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If 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 art product was made by a different process”. Further, “the burden shifts to applicant to
come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the
prior art product.” See MPEP 2113.
The structure resulting in a 1T'-phase transition metal dichalcogenide layer as taught by Mahankali discussed above reads on the structural limitations of the claim.
Regarding claim 4, Mahankali teaches the high energy-density lithium-sulfur battery of claim 1, wherein the 1T'-phase transition metal dichalcogenides includes one or more of MoSe2 (Abstract).
Regarding claim 6, Mahankali teaches the high energy-density lithium-sulfur battery of claim 1, wherein the separator is a polypropylene or polyethylene separator (Celgard) (Page 24494, Column 1, Paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 7, Mahankali teaches the high energy-density lithium-sulfur battery of claim 1.
Mahankali teaches the claimed invention above but does not expressly teach the battery having an energy density of at least 400 Wh kg-1 and 820 Wh L-1.
However, it is reasonable to presume that the energy density of the battery is inherent to Mahankali.
Support for said presumption is found in that the structure of the battery and the metal dichalcogenide layer of Mahankali overlaps with that of the instant disclosure, which lends itself to the inherent property of energy density, as the instant specification provides that the unique atomic structure of the 1T’-phase transition metal dichalcogenide enables rapid conversion and catalysis of polysulfides, which enhances energy density (Paragraph 0050).
Particularly, as discussed above, Mahankali discloses a lithium sulfur battery in which the cathode includes sulfur, the anode includes lithium metal, and the separator is made of polypropylene or polyethylene. Additionally, Mahankali teaches the electrolyte contains a lithium salt (Page 24494, Column 1, Paragraph 1) and the battery including a transition metal dichalcogenide layer made of 1T’ MoSe2 which is also listed as suitable materials in the instant disclosure. Thus, Mahankali teaches a battery comprising the same components and materials as the instant disclosure. Further, Mahankali emphasizes the 1T’ phase of MoSe2 is crucial in establish superior electrolytic activity, cycling performance, and sulfur utilization.
The instant disclosure establishes 1T’ phase of the metal dichalcogenide as contributing to the enhanced energy density of the Li-S battery. Therefore, the battery disclosed by Mahankali, which teaches a 1T’-phase transition metal dichalcogenide layer, is expected to have the same properties of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1, 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qu (Chinese Patent Publication No. 105428699 A) further in view of Mahankali.
Regarding claim 1, Qu teaches a high energy-density lithium-sulfur battery (Paragraph 9) comprising:
a cathode including sulfur (Paragraph 16);
an anode including lithium metal (Paragraph 14); and
a separator positioned between the cathode and the anode (Paragraph 10).
Qu teaches the battery comprising a sulfur-barrier composite layer adjacent to the separator comprising a chalcogenide (Paragraphs 0010-0011) that may be TiS2, MoS2, WS2, SnS2, TaSe2, TiSe2, MoSe2, WSe2, SnSe2, TaSe2, TiTe2, MoTe2, WTe2, SnTe2, TaTe2. Thus, the separator is considered to be modified by a transition metal dichalcogenide layer, meeting the instant claimed limitations.
The recitation of the lithium-sulfur battery having a “high” energy density is broad in limiting what constitutes the energy density of the lithium-sulfur battery. As described above, the lithium-sulfur battery of Qu comprises the same components as the battery of the instant claim as therefore can be considered a high energy-density lithium sulfur battery. Further, Qu teaches a battery which functions to provide energy storage. Therefore, the lithium sulfur battery of Qu has sufficient energy density to function in that way and is interpreted to be a high energy density battery.
Qu is silent that the transition metal dichalcogenide layer is in the 1T’-phase.
However, Mahankali discloses the use of metal dichalcogenides (MoSe2) in lithium sulfur batteries (Page 24487, Column 1) in order to promote LiPS adsorption and curb the shuttling effect (Abstract), which solves a similar problem as Qu who includes the sulfur-blocking composite layer to block the migration of lithium polysulfide through the battery (Paragraph 19). Additionally, MoSe2 used by Mahankali is a suitable metal dichalcogenide material listed in the disclosure of Qu, further evidence that Qu is open to modification by Mahankali (Paragraph 12).
As is taught by Mahankali and is known in the art, MoSe2 exists in a variety of structural forms including 2H, 1T, and 1T’. However, Mahankali further teaches that the 1T’ phase of MoSe2 material in the battery is desirable, owing to the activation of the basal plane that allows for LiPS adsorption, strong electrolytic activity, superior cycling performance (Abstract), and the improvement of sulfur utilization (Page 24488, Column 1).
As discussed above, Qu does not specify the phase of the transition metal dichalcogenide layer of the invention.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select the 1T’ phase from the finite lists of possible configurations of the phase of the transition metal dichalcogenide layer of Qu to arrive at the structure of the transition metal dichalcogenide layer of the instant claim since providing the metal dichalcogenide such as MoSe2 in the 1T’ phase is taught by Mahankali to obtain advantageous effects of strong electrolytic activity, superior cycling performance, and improved sulfur utilization and the combination of components further would have yielded predictable results in a lithium-sulfur battery, absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
The limitation of “self-assembled” 1T'-phase transition metal dichalcogenide layer is a product by process claim.
Although Qu is silent as to the 1T'-phase transition metal dichalcogenide layer is produced by a self-assembling dichalcogenide layer, it is noted that “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-by-
process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even
though the prior art product was made by a different process”. Further, “the burden shifts to applicant to
come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the
prior art product.” See MPEP 2113.
The structure resulting in a 1T'-phase transition metal dichalcogenide layer as taught by Qu in view of Mahankali discussed above reads on the structural limitations of the claim.
Regarding claim 4, Qu teaches the high energy-density lithium-sulfur battery of claim 1, wherein the 1T'-phase transition metal dichalcogenides include one or more of WS2, WSe2, MoS2, MoSe2, TaS2, TaSe2, TiS2, and TiSe2 (Paragraph 12).
Regarding claim 5, Qu teaches the high energy-density lithium-sulfur battery of claim 1.
Qu teaches an embodiment where the sulfur composite layer does not contain a conductive additive (Paragraph 13) and further teaches in example 1 the sulfur composite layer is not fabricated using a conductive additive, consisting only of the metal dichalcogenide material (Paragraphs 24-25).
Therefore, Qu teaches the 1T'-phase transition metal dichalcogenide layer does not include additional conductive materials or it would have been obvious to exclude additional conductive materials from the 1T'-phase transition metal dichalcogenide layer of Qu, as is a suitable configuration taught by of Qu.
Regarding claim 6, Qu teaches the high energy-density lithium-sulfur battery of claim 1, wherein the separator is a polypropylene or polyethylene separator (Paragraph 15).
Regarding claim 7, Qu teaches the high energy-density lithium-sulfur battery of claim 1.
Qu in view of Mahankali teaches the claimed invention above but does not expressly teach the battery having an energy density of at least 400 Wh kg-1 and 820 Wh L-1.
However, it is reasonable to presume that the energy density of the battery is inherent to Qu in view of Mahankali.
Support for said presumption is found in that the structure of the battery and the metal dichalcogenide layer of Qu in view of Mahankali overlaps with that of the instant disclosure, which lends itself to the inherent property of energy density, as the instant specification provides that the unique atomic structure of the 1T’-phase transition metal dichalcogenide enables rapid conversion and catalysis of polysulfides, which enhances energy density (Paragraph 0050).
Particularly, as discussed above, Qu in view of Mahankali discloses a lithium sulfur battery in which the cathode includes sulfur, the anode includes lithium metal, the electrolyte contains a lithium salt, and the separator is made of polypropylene or polyethylene. Additionally, Qu teaches a transition metal dichalcogenide layer in contact with the separator, which is considered to modify the separator in accordance with the claimed limitations, and shared the identity of the transition metal dichalcogenide in the layer including WS2, WSe2, MoS2, MoSe2, TaS2, TaSe2, TiS2, and TiSe2 which are also listed as suitable materials in the instant disclosure. Thus, Qu teaches a battery comprising the same components and materials as the instant disclosure. Further, Qu in view of Mahankali established it would have been obvious to provide the transition metal dichalcogenide layer on the separator in the 1T’ phase in order to establish superior electrolytic activity, cycling performance, and sulfur utilization, as recognized by Qu.
The instant disclosure establishes 1T’ phase of the metal dichalcogenide as contributing to the enhanced energy density of the Li-S battery. Therefore, the battery disclosed by Qu in view of Mahankali, which teaches a 1T’-phase transition metal dichalcogenide layer, is expected to have the same properties of the claimed invention.
Claims 2-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qu in view of Mahankali as applied to claims 1, 4-7 above, and further in view of Liu (Non-Patent Literature, “Strategy of Enhancing the Volumetric Energy Density for Lithium-Sulfur Batteries”).
Regarding claim 2, Qu teaches the high energy-density lithium-sulfur battery of claim 1.
Qu teaches the battery comprising an electrolyte (Paragraph 17).
Qu is silent as to the battery further comprising an electrolyte in an amount constituting a lean electrolyte battery condition.
However, Liu teaches lean electrolyte is indispensable for achieving high energy of a Li-S battery, noting how the E/S ratio of electrolytes may be adjusted to obtain target energy densities (Page 18, Column 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrolyte in the battery of Qu to incorporate the teachings of Liu such that the amount of electrolyte in the system established a lean electrolyte condition. Doing so would advantageously result in a high energy Li-S battery, as recognized by Liu.
Regarding claim 3, Qu teaches the high energy-density lithium-sulfur battery of claim 2, wherein the electrolyte is a lithium-containing electrolyte (Paragraph 26).
In the case that the energy density of the battery taught by Qu in view of Mahankali is not found to be inherent, an alternate rejection in view of Liu is presented below:
Regarding claim 7, Qu teaches the high energy-density lithium-sulfur battery of claim 1.
Qu is silent as to the battery having an energy density of at least 400 Wh kg-1 and 820 Wh L-1.
However, Liu discloses factors which are critical to achieving high energy densities of lithium-sulfur batteries, including cathode density, sulfur content, and electroactivity (Abstract). Liu teaches that sufficiently high gravimetric and volumetric energy densities are crucial to the application of Li-S batteries in commercial applications of batteries, such as portable devices and electric automobiles (Page 2, Column 2). Liu teaches that by tuning the pore structure of the sulfur cathode, especially as it relates to cathode density and sulfur redox, a high gravimetric and volumetric energy density can be obtained (Page 3, Column 1). Liu teaches high sulfur loading (Page 4, Column 2) and a low E/S ratio (“lean electrolyte condition”) (Page 5, Column 2) are parameters which control the energy density of the battery (Figure 2e and Figure 3b). Further, Liu teaches that under optimized conditions of sulfur loading and cathode density, the volumetric energy density of the battery can reach 900 Wh L-1 (Page 5, Column 1) and the gravimetric energy density can reach 500 Wh kg-1 (Table 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Qu to incorporate the teachings of Liu in which the cathode structure (sulfur loading, density, and porosity) and the E/S ratio of the lithium sulfur battery are variables which are optimized to attain a volumetric energy density up to 900 Wh L-1 and a gravimetric energy density can reach 500 Wh kg-1, which lie within the instant claimed ranges, in order to use Li-S batteries in a myriad of commercial applications.
Absent unexpected results, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the cathode porosity, density, and sulfur loading in addition to the quantity of electrolyte in the battery of Qu in view of Liu in since it has been held that where 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 MPEP 2144.05.
In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the cathode structure (sulfur loading, density, and porosity) and the E/S ratio of the battery to achieve a volumetric and gravimetric energy density within the claimed ranges, in order for the Li-S battery to be implemented in a variety of applications, as recognized by Liu (Page 1, Column 2).
For example, the ordinary artisan would recognize that the properties of sulfur in fabricating the cathode of the battery as well as the electrolyte quantity in the battery may be tuned in order to obtain the desired energy density.
Cited Art Not Relied Upon
Yu (Non-Patent Literature, “Mitigation of Shuttle Effect in Li–S Battery Using a Self-Assembled Ultrathin Molybdenum Disulfide Interlayer”) discloses a self-assembled layer of molybdenum disulfide on the separator of a lithium sulfur battery.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVIA A JONES whose telephone number is (571)272-1718. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30 AM - 4:30 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, Marla McConnell can be reached at (571) 270-7692. 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.
/O.A.J./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights