DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 6/5/2026 for US Patent Application No. 18/517882 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 2-4, 8-16, 18 and 21 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections, the 35 U.S.C. 112(d) rejection, the 35 U.S.C. 102(a) rejections and the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections presented in the office action dated 2/5/2026 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 6/5/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102(a) rejections of claims 2, 3, 7, 17, 21, 22, and 28; and the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 4, 9-16, 19, 23-25 and 29-31 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the aforementioned rejections in the office action dated 2/5/2026 have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration and in view of Applicant’s amendments, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Katz et al. (US 6,200,704 B1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2-4, 8-16, 18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 2 has been amended to recite the cathode layer of the electrochemical cell having a weight ratio between the sulfur containing material and the iron containing material being “about 20:10”. Applicant’s specification [0104] has support for the weight ratio of the sulfur containing material and the iron containing material being 20:10, but Applicant’s specification does not provide adequate written description for a weight ratio of “about 20:10”. The term “about” would indicate the weight ratio could be less than or greater than 20:10 and the specification does not sufficiently describe the weight ratio being less than or greater than 20:10. Claims 3, 4, 8-16, 18 and 21 are concurrently rejected because they depend from rejected claim 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2, 3 and 21 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Katz et al. (US Patent 6,200,704 B1), herein referred to as Katz.
Regarding amended claim 2, Katz teaches (Column 3, Lines 46-59) a battery cell comprising a positive electrode (cathode layer), an electrolyte separator layer (electrolyte layer) and a negative electrode (anode layer). The positive electrode (Column 5, Lines 10-39) is comprised of a first electrochemically active material that includes an iron containing material, such as iron disulfide (FeS2), and a second electrochemically active material (Column 6, Lines 35-38) sulfur containing material, such as lithium sulfide (Li2S).
Katz does not appear to explicitly teach the limitations of amended claim 2 wherein the weight ratio between the sulfur containing material and the iron containing material is about 20:10. However, Katz does teach (Column 10, Lines 4-22) the weight percentages of the first and second electrochemically active materials can be adjusted to achieve desired discharge rate properties. Katz discloses the sulfur containing material may be incorporated in the positive electrode in an amount of 20 percent to 95 percent by weight and the iron containing material may be incorporated in the positive electrode in an amount of 5 to 80 percent by weight. In order to achieve a weight ratio of 20:10 between the sulfur containing material and the iron containing material, in view of Katz, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to select a weight percentage of the sulfur containing material, such as 20 weight percent, and a weight percentage of the iron containing material, such as 10 weight percent, to achieve the claimed weight ratio. Therefore, at the time of the filing date of the present application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to manufacture a battery cell comprising a positive electrode which includes a weight ratio between the sulfur containing material and the iron containing material, as taught by Katz, that can be adjusted to be 20:10 in order to optimize the discharge rate characteristics of the positive electrode and improve operation of the battery cell over many cycles.
Regarding claim 3, the iron containing material taught by Katz, iron disulfide (FeS2) also referred to as pyrite, is known to have a cubic crystal structure (PubChem, source: pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Pyrite).
Regarding claim 21, the sulfur present in the cathode is electrochemically active when combined with iron disulfide (FeS2) to constitute the active material of the cathode.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 4, 9-14 and 20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Katz et al. (US Patent 6,200,704 B1), herein referred to as Katz, in view of Ota et al. (US 2013/0059209 A1), herein referred to as Ota.
Katz teaches the electrochemical cell limitations of amended claim 2. Katz though does not appear to explicitly teach the limitations of claims 4, 9-14 and 20. However, from the same field of technology, Ota discloses a positive electrode for a non-aqueous electrolyte battery and a non-aqueous electrolyte battery.
In view of claims 9-11, Ota teaches [0030-0031] a positive electrode active material that may include an iron containing material, such as iron sulfide (FeS) or iron disulfide (FeS2), and a cover layer (coating the encases the positive electrode active material) comprising an amorphous oxide material. The amorphous oxide can include a lithium containing compound and therefore, the positive electrode active material with the cover layer (effectively a composite positive electrode active material) would contain a lithium, iron and sulfur.
In view of claims 12-14, the iron containing material taught by Ota having the amorphous oxide cover layer containing lithium would be expected to have a reversible phase based on cycling of the battery.
In view of claim 4, Ota teaches [0030] the positive electrode active materials can have an average particle size of 1 micron. This value is close to the recitation of less than 1 micron and therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP Chapter 2144.05, Section I, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985))
At the time of the filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrochemical cell teachings of Katz by including the teachings of Ota in order to form electrochemical cells with improved electron conductivity properties so that the electrochemical cell is able to have enhanced charging and discharging capability.
Claim 8 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Katz et al. (US Patent 6,200,704 B1), herein referred to as Katz, in view of Shembel et al. (US 2005/0102824 A1), herein referred to as Shembel.
Katz teaches the electrochemical cell limitations of amended claim 2. Katz though does not appear to explicitly teach the limitations of claim 8. However, from the same field of technology, Shembel discloses the production of cathode material films for the production of lithium batteries.
In view of claim 8, Shembel teaches [0054] forming a cathode material that comprises Fe7S8.
At the time of the filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrochemical cell teachings of Katz by including the cathode material taught by Shembel in order to form electrochemical cells with improved electron conductivity properties so that the electrochemical cell is able to have enhanced charging and discharging capability.
Claim 15 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Katz et al. (US Patent 6,200,704 B1), herein referred to as Katz, in view of Ota et al. (US 2013/0059209 A1), herein referred to as Ota, as applied to amended claim 2 and claim 11 above, and further in view of Marple et al. (US 2011/0008660 A1), herein referred to as Marple.
The combination of Katz and Ota teaches the electrochemical cell limitations of amended claim 2 and claim 11. The combination of Katz and Ota though does not appear to explicitly teach the limitations of claim 15. However, from the same field of technology, Marple discloses the production lithium iron disulfide electrochemical cells.
In view of claim 15, Marple teaches [0043] forming a battery cell that comprises LiFeS2 as a cathode active material.
At the time of the filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrochemical cell teachings of Katz and Ota, to further include the cathode active material taught by Marple in order to form electrochemical cells with improved electron conductivity properties so that the electrochemical cell is able to have enhanced charging and discharging capability.
Claim 16 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Katz et al. (US Patent 6,200,704 B1), herein referred to as Katz, in view of Ota et al. (US 2013/0059209 A1), herein referred to as Ota, as applied to amended claim 2 and claim 11 above, and further in view of Guidotti et al. (US 2003/0138695 A1), herein referred to as Guidotti.
The combination of Katz and Ota teaches the electrochemical cell limitations of amended claim 2 and claim 11. The combination of Takeshi and Ota though does not appear to explicitly teach the limitations of claim 16. However, from the same field of technology, Guidotti discloses the production of cathodes comprising pyrite for energy storage applications.
In view of claim 16, Guidotti teaches [0022] a cathode comprising Li3Fe2S4 as a cathode active material.
At the time of the filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrochemical cell teachings of Katz and Ota, to further include the cathode active material taught by Guidotti in order to form electrochemical cells with improved electron conductivity properties so that the electrochemical cell is able to have enhanced charging and discharging capability.
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 STEWART A FRASER whose telephone number is (571)270-5126. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7am-4pm, 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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. 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.
/STEWART A FRASER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights