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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/26/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The art rejections still apply as presented previously.
The applicant has amended claim 1 to recite that sulfur present in the battery is derived from the positive electrode and argues in the Remarks that in the combination of Yang ‘711 and Zhao, this would not be the case. Applicant also asserts that the references are not appropriate for combination since “the batteries of Yang '711 and Zhao include completely different electrode active materials for both the negative electrode and the positive electrode, and thus driving mechanisms of the batteries are different from each other.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees on both accounts.
The new limitation is a product-by-process limitation. Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113 I. Thus, the sulfur need not actually be derived from the cathode, though the effect would need to be the same. It is the Office’s position that the structure of Yang ‘711 and Zhao as described in the rejection would have the structure of the claim: sulfur present in the SEI in the amount claimed.
The Office does not concur that Zhao is inappropriate for motivation to modify Yang ‘711. While the inventions clearly have differences, they also have similarities. Both pertain to batteries in which the anode can comprise silicon as an active material. Both have nonaqueous liquid electrolytes that form polysulfides with appropriate carbonate additives. Thus, the Office considers the references analogous art and the teaching pertaining to the cladding layer of Zhao (which is clearly stated as an SEI) appropriate for the SEI of Yang ‘711.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-5, 8, 9, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang ‘711 (US 2016/0172711 A1) in view of Zhao (WO 2023/050837 A1). Corresponding US Application 2023/0420661 A1 is used in lieu of Zhao for citation and translation purposes.
Regarding claims 1 and 3-5, Yang ‘711 discloses an apparatus comprising: an electrode assembly comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, an SEI, a separator between the positive electrode and the negative electrode, and an electrolyte solution (claim 12). Yang ‘711 discloses that the positive electrode includes a sulfur-carbon composite (paragraph 27), the negative electrode has a lithium-containing layer, and the SEI is on the lithium-containing layer (paragraph 28). Yang ‘711 discloses that the electrolyte comprises a solvent, a lithium salt, and an additive (paragraph 3). Yang ‘711 discloses that both the lithium salt and additive are LiNO3 (paragraphs 15 & 16).
Yang ‘711 discloses sulfur in the negative electrode (paragraph 27) but not the amount. Zhao—in an invention for a sulfur-carbon battery—discloses that cladding (SEI) layers are formed on the negative electrode to increase energy density and prolong cycle life (paragraph 7). Zhao discloses that a sulfur content of 0.1-4 mass % based on the total mass of the negative electrode active material because by keeping the elemental sulfur content within this range, the ion-conducting performance is further improved, the interface impedance is reduced, and the cycling performance is improved (paragraph 8). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to form an SEI layer with the sulfur content disclosed in Zhao so as to optimize the battery performance of Yang ‘711 as suggested by Zhao. It is the Office’s position that the sulfur need not actually be derived from the cathode. See MPEP 2113 I. The structure of Yang ‘711 and Zhao as described in the rejection would have the structure of the claim: sulfur present in the SEI in the amount claimed.
Regarding claim 2, Yang ‘711 discloses a voltage potential of 2.4 to 2.7 V (paragraph 49).
Regarding claim 8, Yang ‘711 discloses a S/C ratio of 5 or less (paragraph 30).
Regarding claim 9, Yang ‘711 discloses that the cathode is a sulfur-carbon composite (paragraph 30). 100% meets the claim requirements.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Yang ‘711 discloses that the electrolyte solution comprises 0-10 wt% LiNO3 (paragraph 16).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Yang ‘777 discloses the same apparatus as claimed. It would therefore have the same properties. See MPEP 2112 I.
Claims 6, 7, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang ‘711 and Zhao as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yang ‘132 (US 2020/0106132 A1).
Yang ‘711 fails to disclose the claimed thickness. Yang ‘132—in an invention for a sulfur-carbon cathode battery—discloses the use of a 40 micron negative electrode (paragraph 115) and both cyclic and non-cyclic ethers (paragraph 75) such that the cycle characteristics were improved (paragraph 118). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize the disclosed parameters of Yang ‘132 in Yang ‘711 so as to improve the battery’s performance.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang ‘711 and Zhao as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu (US 2023/0231200 A1).
Neither Yang ‘711 nor Zhao discloses the amount of nitrogen present. Liu—in an invention for a battery with LiNO3 additive—discloses a range of tested LiNO3 concentrations in the electrolyte to stabilize the Li metal surface and discloses 0.6 M as an optimal value (paragraph 100). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use 0.6 M LiNO3 additive in the electrolyte of Yang ‘711 to maximize its performance as suggested by Liu.
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 IMRAN AKRAM whose telephone number is (571)270-3241. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-5p.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/IMRAN AKRAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725