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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention II in the reply filed on 07/21/2026 is acknowledged.
Applicant has cancelled claims 21-28 and 34-40, drawn to the non-elected inventions.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received on 07/21/2026:
Claims 29-33 and 41-44 are pending in the current application. Claims 21-28 and 34-40 have been cancelled. Claims 1-44 are newly added.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
32 in Fig. 1
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
In Applicant’s specification, the anode is noted to be adjacent to a first current collector while the cathode is coupled to a second current collector (see P4, 32, 34, 72-73 using the PGPub US 20240128435 A1).
The Examiner notes this because in claims 41-42, the cathode is stated to be coupled to a first current collector and the anode is coupled to a second current collector, which is opposite to how the current collectors are recited in Applicant’s specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 33 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 33 states “…wherein: the host has a strong affinity to the sulfur whereby…” when it should state “…wherein: the host has a strong affinity to the elemental sulfur…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 32 and 41-44 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 claims 32 and 43- 44, the term “approximately” in claims 32 and 43-44 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claims 41 – 44, the claims recite the limitation "the cathode". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
In order to advance prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting claim 41 as if it states “The cathode material of claim 29, wherein the cathode material is provided within a cathode in a lithium-sulfur battery cell, wherein the cathode is configured to be coupled to a first current collector in the lithium-sulfur battery cell”.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 29, 31, and 41-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al (US 20210384508 A1).
Regarding claim 29, Kim discloses a cathode material for a battery cell (positive electrode active material layer for a lithium secondary battery; see entire disclosure and especially P48, 51), the cathode material comprising:
an active material including: a host including (1) a porous carbon and one or both of a metal and a metal oxide; and (2) elemental sulfur coupled to the host (positive electrode active material layer includes the positive electrode active material 2 including a porous carbon 10, transition metal composite 20, and sulfur-containing material 30 in Fig. 2; the transition metal composite 20 is formed by binding four nitrogen atoms to a transition metal; the sulfur-containing material 30 can be an elemental sulfur; see entire disclosure and especially P53, 76, 79, 85, 92, 118, 120); and
a conductive carbon material (see entire disclosure and especially P53, 56); and
a binder material (see entire disclosure and especially P53, 57).
Regarding claim 31, Kim discloses wherein: the one of the metal and metal oxide include any one or more of Ni, Mn, Fe, La, Zr, and Mo (“The transition metal may be at least one selected from the group consisting of Fe, Ni, Mn, Cu, and Zn, but is not limited thereto as long as it is a transition metal capable of exhibiting catalytic activity for the reduction of sulfur”, see entire disclosure and especially P92).
Regarding claim 41, Kim discloses wherein the cathode material is provided within a cathode in a lithium-sulfur battery cell, wherein the cathode is configured to be coupled to a first current collector in a the lithium-sulfur battery cell (see the rejection of claim 41 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above; in Kim, the lithium secondary battery can be a lithium-sulfur secondary battery; the positive electrode includes a positive electrode active material layer and a positive electrode current collector formed thereon; the positive electrode active material is in the positive electrode active material layer; see entire disclosure and especially P48-51).
Regarding claim 42, Kim discloses wherein the lithium-sulfur battery cell further comprises: an anode coupled to a second current collector, the anode comprising lithium metal; a separator operably disposed between the anode and the cathode; and an electrolyte dispersed between the anode and the cathode (negative electrode can be a lithium metal thin film or a negative current collector having a negative electrode active material formed thereon wherein the negative electrode active material can include lithium metal or a lithium alloy; the separator can be a porous polymer film; the electrolyte solution can comprise an organic solvent and lithium salt; see entire disclosure and especially P48, 60, 62-63, 65-70).
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.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 20210384508 A1) as applied to claim 29, further in view of Choudhury et al (US 20170365851 A1).
Regarding claim 30, Kim does not disclose wherein the porous carbon is resorcinol-formaldehyde carbon (RFC).
In a similar field of endeavor, Choudhury teaches a process for preparing a porous carbon structure which is suitable for design of cathodes for lithium-sulfur batteries (P4-5). Choudhury teaches the process for the preparation of a porous carbon structure comprising the following steps: a) providing a template comprising voids, b) filling of at least part of the voids with a precursor for the formation of the porous carbon structure, c) carbonizing the precursor for the formation of the porous carbon structure and d) removing at least part of the template (P5-9).
Choudhury teaches their procedure allows the use for materials for the template that will provide a porous carbon structure for use as sulfur-carbon cathodes with an optimized microstructure, while it allows at the same time to choose a precursor for the porous carbon structure, which provides porous carbon with improved electrochemical properties for use in sulfur-carbon cathodes (P10).
Choudhury teaches this procedure provides well defined carbon structures with regular micro structures and disordered nanostructures that result in a high conductivity and a high initial capacity in sulfur-carbon cathodes (P10).
Choudhury teaches the precursor for the formation of the porous carbon structure is a resorcinol-formaldehyde resin, as it provides carbon that is disordered in the nano scale and partially graphitized and has a high conductivity and a high capacity (P10).
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 utilized the teaching of Choudhury and chosen to form the porous carbon of Kim by the process utilizing resorcinol-formaldehyde resin as taught by Choudhury, given Choudhury teaches their procedure allows the use for materials for the template that will provide a porous carbon structure for use as sulfur-carbon cathodes with an optimized microstructure, while it allows at the same time to choose a precursor for the porous carbon structure, such as resorcinol-formaldehyde resin, which provides porous carbon with improved electrochemical properties for use in sulfur-carbon cathodes.
Therefore, modified Kim meets the limitation wherein the porous carbon is resorcinol-formaldehyde carbon (RFC).
Claims 32 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 20210384508 A1) as applied to claim 29 and 42 respectively.
Regarding claim 32, Kim discloses wherein: the cathode material comprises approximately 60 to 90% by weight of the active material, approximately 5-20% by weight of the conductive carbon material, and approximately 5 to 20% by weight of the binder material (see entire disclosure and especially P55-57).
These weight ranges overlap the claimed weight ranges of claim 32 (“the cathode material comprises approximately 80 weight % of the active material, approximately 5 weight % of the conductive carbon material, and approximately 15 weight % of the binder material”), and in the case where the 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) (See MPEP § 2144.05). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 44, the claim recites the limitation “wherein: the lithium-sulfur battery cell exhibits a charge and discharge specific capacity of approximately 900-1200 mAh/g during galvanostatic cycling under a constant current density of approximately 0.5 C and a voltage window of approximately 1.8-2.8 V for a plurality of charge and discharge processes”.
The lithium-sulfur battery cell of Kim meets all of the claimed structure set forth in claim 41, therefore, it can be presumed that the function/property of the lithium-sulfur battery cell claimed is met by the lithium-sulfur battery cell of Kim. Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Kim et al (US 20210384508 A1) as applied to claim 29, or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kim et al (US 20210384508 A1) as applied to claim 29, further in view of Choudhury et al (US 20170365851 A1).
Regarding claim 33, the claim recites the limitation “wherein: the host has a strong affinity to the sulfur whereby the elemental sulfur remains coupled to the host at temperatures of 300 °C in a nitrogen atmosphere”.
The host of Kim meets all of the claimed structure set forth in claim 29, therefore, it can be presumed that the function/property of the host of Kim to have a strong affinity to the sulfur is met by the host of Kim. Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Further, Kim teaches “The liquid sulfur loaded inside the pores contained in the porous carbon of the positive electrode catalyst may be fixed on the surface of the pores by heat-treating the mixture formed in step (P2) under vacuum” (P131), therefore, it can further be assumed that the elemental sulfur of Kim would remain coupled to the host at higher temperatures, as the sulfur is heat-treated to be fixed onto the surface of the host.
Alternatively, Kim teaches the host can include a transition metal composite formed by binding four nitrogen atoms to a transition metal selected from Fe, Ni, Mn, Cu, and Zn (P85, 92). Therefore, it would be obvious to select the host of Kim to include a transition metal composite formed by binding four nitrogen atoms to nickel, because the 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).
Further, in a similar field of endeavor, Choudhury teaches a process for preparing a porous carbon structure which is suitable for design of cathodes for lithium-sulfur batteries (P4-5). Choudhury teaches the process for the preparation of a porous carbon structure comprising the following steps: a) providing a template comprising voids, b) filling of at least part of the voids with a precursor for the formation of the porous carbon structure, c) carbonizing the precursor for the formation of the porous carbon structure and d) removing at least part of the template (P5-9).
Choudhury teaches their procedure allows the use for materials for the template that will provide a porous carbon structure for use as sulfur-carbon cathodes with an optimized microstructure, while it allows at the same time to choose a precursor for the porous carbon structure, which provides porous carbon with improved electrochemical properties for use in sulfur-carbon cathodes (P10).
Choudhury teaches this procedure provides well defined carbon structures with regular micro structures and disordered nanostructures that result in a high conductivity and a high initial capacity in sulfur-carbon cathodes (P10).
Choudhury teaches the precursor for the formation of the porous carbon structure is a resorcinol-formaldehyde resin, as it provides carbon that is disordered in the nano scale and partially graphitized and has a high conductivity and a high capacity (P10).
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 utilized the teaching of Choudhury and chosen to form the porous carbon of Kim by the process utilizing resorcinol-formaldehyde resin as taught by Choudhury, given Choudhury teaches their procedure allows the use for materials for the template that will provide a porous carbon structure for use as sulfur-carbon cathodes with an optimized microstructure, while it allows at the same time to choose a precursor for the porous carbon structure, such as resorcinol-formaldehyde resin, which provides porous carbon with improved electrochemical properties for use in sulfur-carbon cathodes.
Therefore, the host of modified Kim is a resorcinol-formaldehyde carbon including a nickel transition metal composite.
Applicant’s specification (using the PGPub US 20240128435 A1) sets forth that RFC@Ni host materials demonstrated a strong affinity to sulfur, and host materials with nickel demonstrate higher ending temperatures indicating that host materials with nickel have a stronger affinity to sulfur (P50).
Therefore, absent any objective evidence from Applicant to the contrary, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would necessarily believe the host of modified Kim (a resorcinol-formaldehyde carbon including a nickel transition metal composite) would meet the limitation “wherein: the host has a strong affinity to the sulfur whereby the elemental sulfur remains coupled to the host at temperatures of 300 °C in a nitrogen atmosphere”.
Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 20210384508 A1) as applied to claim 41, further in view of Peng et al (Review on High-Loading and High-Energy Lithium–Sulfur Batteries) and Chen et al (US 20180190973 A1).
Regarding claim 43, Kim does not disclose wherein: a mass loading of the cathode on the first current collector is in a range of approximately 1.0-9.04 mg-S /cm2.
In a similar field of endeavor, Peng teaches superb battery performance in lithium-sulfur batteries has been found at sulfur loadings of 3-10 mg/cm2 (Conclusions and Perspective).
Also in a similar field of endeavor, Chen teaches to achieve a cost break-even for electric vehicles, a high areal capacity greater than 8 mAh/cm2 (or high sulfur loading of ~7 mg S/cm2) is calculated to be a desired energy density (P39).
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 utilized the teachings of both Peng and Chen and modified Kim such that a mass loading of the cathode on the first current collector is in a range of approximately 1.0-9.04 mg-S /cm2, such as choosing sulfur loadings in the range of 3-10 mg/cm2 or ~7 mg -S/cm2, given Peng teaches superb battery performance in lithium-sulfur batteries has been found at sulfur loadings of 3-10 mg/cm2 and Chen teaches a high sulfur loading of ~7 mg S/cm2 is calculated to be a desired energy density to achieve a cost break-even for electric vehicles.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mary Harris whose telephone number is (571)272-0690. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm EST.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571)272-1481. 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.
/MARY GRACE HARRIS/Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights