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 .
Status of Claims and Other Notes
Claims 1–15 are pending.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 14 September 2026 was filed after the mailing date of the non-final Office Action on 13 May 2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 18 September 2026 was filed after the mailing date of the non-final Office Action on 13 May 2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 14 September 2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Applicants' amendments have overcome the objections to the drawings.
Specification
Applicants' amendments have overcome the objections to the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicants' amendments have overcome the rejections of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Claim 4 is 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the porous carbon sheet" in line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the scanning electron microscopy" in line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1, 3, 8–10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Manthiram et al. (US 2017/0092954 A1, hereinafter Manthiram).
Regarding claim 1, Manthiram discloses a cathode (10, [0084]) for Li-S battery comprising:
a current collector (40a, [0090]);
a cathode composite layer (20b, 30) disposed on the current collector (40a, [0084]),
wherein the cathode composite layer (20b, 30) comprises (i) a porous carbon layer (20b), (ii) a first binder that is at least partially in contact with the porous carbon layer (see polymeric binders, [0086]) and (iii) elemental sulfur (30, [0092]);
wherein the porous carbon layer (20b) is provided as a sheet that hosts the elemental sulfur (30, [0097]); and
a second binder (40b, [0086]) that is at least partially disposed between the current collector (40a) and the cathode composite layer (20b, 30, [0084]).
Regarding claim 3, Manthiram discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a cathode for Li-S battery:
wherein the cathode composite layer (20b, 30) further comprises (iv) conductive additives (see carbon black, [0122]).
Regarding claim 8, Manthiram discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a cathode for Li-S battery:
wherein the content of the elemental sulfur in the cathode composite layer excluding the porous carbon layer is 65% by weight or more (see sulfur, [0122]).
Regarding claim 9, Manthiram discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a cathode for Li-S battery:
wherein the mass of the elemental sulfur per unit area of the cathode composite layer is 3.0 mg/cm2 or more (see sulfur loading, [0123]).
Regarding claim 13, Manthiram discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a cathode for Li-S battery:
wherein the porous carbon sheet is a 100–500 μm thick carbon paper or carbon cloth (see thickness, [0123]).
Regarding claim 10, Manthiram discloses a Li-S battery (100, [0103]) comprising a cathode (10); an anode containing lithium (110, [0104]); a separator (120) interposed between the cathode (10) and the anode (110, [0103]); and an electrolyte solution (FIG. 3, [0107]), wherein the cathode (10) comprises:
a current collector (40a, [0090]);
a cathode composite layer (20b, 30) disposed on the current collector (40a, [0084]),
wherein the cathode composite layer (20b, 30) comprises (i) a porous carbon layer (20b), (ii) a first binder that is at least partially in contact with the porous carbon layer (see polymeric binders, [0086])and (iii) elemental sulfur (30, [0092]);
wherein the porous carbon layer (20b) is provided as a sheet that hosts the elemental sulfur (30, [0097]); and
a second binder (40b, [0086]) that is at least partially disposed between the current collector (40a) and the cathode composite layer (20b, 30, [0084]).
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Manthiram (US 2017/0092954 A1) as evidenced by NanoTechLabs (Buckypaper).
Regarding claim 4, Manthiram discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a cathode for Li-S battery:
wherein the first binder is localized across the porous carbon sheet, which is provided in the form of a 100 to 500 μm thick carbon paper (see thickness, [0123]), with penetration of cathode material comprising the elemental sulfur and the first binder across the thickness of the carbon paper as confirmed by the scanning electron microscopy equipped with energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (FIG. 6, [0032]), and
the second binder is localized over a boundary region between the current collector (40a) and the cathode composite layer (20b, 30; [0084]).
Although Manthiram does not explicitly disclose the carbon paper has a total porosity of at least 60%, "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Manthiram discloses the carbon paper is a 20 GSM commercial buckypaper manufactured by NanoTechLabs (see cathode, [0122]) NanoTechLabs discloses the 20 GSM buckypaper has a total porosity of 85 to 90% (see Porosity, TYPICAL PHYSICAL PROPERTIES).
Regarding claim 14, Manthiram discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a cathode for a Li-S battery:
wherein the porous carbon sheet is a nonwoven carbon paper (see non-woven, [0091]).
Although Manthiram does not explicitly disclose the carbon paper has a total porosity of at least 60%, "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Manthiram discloses the carbon paper is a 20 GSM commercial buckypaper manufactured by NanoTechLabs (see cathode, [0122]) NanoTechLabs discloses the 20 GSM buckypaper has a total porosity of 85 to 90% (see Porosity, TYPICAL PHYSICAL PROPERTIES).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 2, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manthiram (US 2017/0092954 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jung et al. (KR 2019-0016991 A, hereinafter Jung).
Regarding claims 2, 6, and 7, Manthiram discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, but does not explicitly disclose a cathode for Li-S battery:
wherein the current collector is a metal current collector coated with carbon;
wherein the first binder has greater swelling in an ether-based solvent than the second binder; and
wherein the first binder comprises polyethylene oxide and
the second binder comprises poly (vinylidene difluoride).
Jung discloses a cathode (100, [0039]) for Li-S battery comprising a current collector (see carbon-coated aluminum current collector, [0052]); a cathode composite layer (100) disposed on the current collector (see first slurry, [0052]; see second slurry, [0054]), wherein the cathode composite layer (100) comprises (i) a porous carbon layer (110), (ii) a first binder (120) that is at least partially in contact with the porous carbon layer and (iii) elemental sulfur (see first slurry, [0052]; see second slurry, [0054]); and a second binder (110) that is at least partially disposed between the current collector and the cathode composite layer (100, [0056]); wherein the current collector is a metal current collector coated with carbon (see carbon-coated aluminum current collector, [0052]); wherein the first binder is localized across the porous carbon layer (see polyethylene oxide, [0054]), and the second binder is localized over the boundary region between the current collector and the cathode composite layer (see PVDF, [0053]); wherein the first binder (see polyethylene oxide, [0054]) has greater swelling in an ether-based solvent than the second binder (see PVDF, [0053]); and wherein the first binder comprises polyethylene oxide (see polyethylene oxide, [0054]) and the second binder comprises poly (vinylidene difluoride) (see PVDF, [0053]) to improve the electrical characteristics of the cathode (see electrical characteristics, [0006]). to improve the electrical characteristics of the cathode (see electrical characteristics, [0006]). Manthiram and Jung are analogous because they are directed to cathodes for Li-S batteries. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to make the cathode of Manthiram with the current collector and first and second binders of Jung in order to improve the electrical characteristics of the cathode.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manthiram (US 2017/0092954 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kolosnitsyn et al. (US 2006/0024579 A1, hereinafter Kolosnitsyn).
Regarding claim 5, Manthiram discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, but does not explicitly disclose a cathode for Li-S battery:
wherein each of the first binder and the second binder contains a water-soluble polymer.
Kolosnitsyn discloses a cathode (FIG. 2, [0075]) for Li-S battery comprising a current collector (1, [0075]); a cathode composite layer (3) disposed on the current collector (1, [0075]), wherein the cathode composite layer (3) comprises (i) a porous carbon layer (see carbon black; [0077], [0081], [0083], [0085], [0087], [0089], [0093]), (ii) a first binder that is at least partially in contact with the porous carbon layer (see PEO; [0077], [0081], [0083], [0085], [0087], [0089], [0093]) and (iii) elemental sulfur (see sulfur; [0077], [0081], [0083], [0085], [0087], [0089], [0093]); and a second binder that is at least partially disposed between the current collector (1) and the cathode composite layer (3; [0081], [0083], [0085], [0087], [0089], [0093]); and wherein each of the first binder and the second binder contains a water-soluble polymer (see PEO; [0077], [0081], [0083], [0085], [0087], [0089], [0093]) to improve electrical conductivity, mechanical strength, cohesive strength, and adhesion (see cathodes, [0019]). Manthiram and Kolosnitsyn are analogous because they are directed to cathodes for Li-S batteries. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to make the cathode of Manthiram with the first and second binders of Kolosnitsyn in order to improve electrical conductivity, mechanical strength, cohesive strength, and adhesion.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manthiram (US 2017/0092954 A1) in view of Jung (KR 2019-0016991 A).
Regarding claim 11, Manthiram discloses a method of fabricating a cathode for Li-S batteries, the method comprising:
applying onto a porous carbon layer, provided in the form of a porous carbon sheet (see buckypaper, [0123]), an aqueous slurry which comprises elemental sulfur and a first binder, and optionally, one or more conductive additive(s), thereby obtaining sulfur-loaded porous carbon layer (see mixture, [0122]);
drying the sulfur-loaded porous carbon layer, to obtain a cathode composite layer (see dried, [0122]); and
joining the cathode composite layer and a current collector with the aid of a second binder, wherein the cathode composite layer is affixed to the current collector before the second binder is dried, to form a sulfur cathode (see B/S/B, [0122]).
Manthiram does not explicitly disclose:
an aqueous slurry which comprises elemental sulfur and a first binder
a metal current collector;
wherein the first binder has greater swelling in an ether-based solvent than the second binder.
Jung discloses a method of fabricating a cathode (100, [0039]) for Li-S battery comprising applying onto a porous carbon layer, a slurry which comprises elemental sulfur and a first binder (see second slurry, [0054]); drying the sulfur-loaded porous carbon layer, to obtain a cathode composite layer (see drying, [0056]); and joining the cathode composite layer and a metal current collector with the aid of a second binder, to form a sulfur cathode (see first slurry, [0052]); wherein the first binder (see polyethylene oxide, [0054]) has greater swelling in an ether-based solvent than the second binder (see PVDF, [0053]) to improve the electrical characteristics of the cathode (see electrical characteristics, [0006]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to make the cathode of Manthiram the current collector and first and second binders of Jung in order to improve the electrical characteristics of the cathode.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manthiram (US 2017/0092954 A1) in view of Jung (KR 2019-0016991 A) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (CN 103943821 A, hereinafter Chen).
Regarding claim 15, modified Manthiram discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a cathode for a Li-S battery:
wherein the porous carbon sheet is a nonwoven carbon paper (see non-woven, [0091]).
Although Manthiram does not explicitly disclose the carbon paper has a total porosity of at least 60%, "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Manthiram discloses the carbon paper is a 20 GSM commercial buckypaper manufactured by NanoTechLabs (see cathode, [0122]) NanoTechLabs discloses the 20 GSM buckypaper has a total porosity of 85 to 90% (see Porosity, TYPICAL PHYSICAL PROPERTIES).
Modified Manthiram does not explicitly disclose:
the porous carbon layer has an average pore diameter more than 25 μm.
Chen discloses a porous carbon layer (see carbon-based, [0038]) having an average pore diameter more than 25 μm (see pore size, [0037]) to improve adhesion and electrochemical performance (see current collector, [0039]). Manthiram and Chen are analogous because they are directed to batteries. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to make the porous carbon layer of modified Manthiram with the pore size of Chen in order to improve adhesion and electrochemical performance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to Wang have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments with respect to Kolosnitsyn and Jung have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue Kolosnitsyn and Jung do not disclose a porous carbon sheet (P14/¶1–P16/¶3). Note that while Kolosnitsyn and Jung do not disclose all the features of the present claimed invention, Kolosnitsyn and Jung are used as teaching references, and therefore, it is not necessary for these secondary references to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather these references teach certain concepts and in combination with the primary reference, discloses the presently claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Xiao (US 2015/0263379 A1) discloses a porous carbon layer (14) has an average pore diameter more than 25 μm (see pore size, [0023]).
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 Sean P Cullen, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-1251. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 6:00 am to 4:00 pm CT, Friday 6:00 am to 12:00 pm CT.
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 A 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.
/Sean P Cullen, Ph.D./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights