DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status [001] The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority [002] Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. FILLIN "Insert series code and serial no. of parent." JP 2021 - 029069 , filed on FILLIN "Enter the date filing of the parent application." 02/25/2021 . Drawings [003] The drawings are objected to because Drawing 1 has two scales for 30 μ m, which differ in length . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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. Claim Objections [00 4 ] Claim FILLIN "Enter claim indentification information" \* MERGEFORMAT 13 objected to because of the following informalities: the claim reads, "...wherein the carbon material has a pore volume of pores having a pore size of not more than 0.2 μ m of 1.5 cm3/g to 3 cm3/g." The recitation of the pore volume and pore size should be split, to aid in the clarity of the claim , as was written in the cancelled claim 3 . A proposed alternative could read "...wherein the carbon material has a pore of 1.5 cm3/g to 3 cm3/g, with a pore size of not more than 0.2 μ m." Appropriate correction is required. [00 5 ] Claim FILLIN "Enter claim indentification information" \* MERGEFORMAT 18 objected to because of the following informalities: the claim reads "... a coefficient of variation of ratios between a detected amounts" ; the examiner believes this statement should read “detected amounts”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Interpretation [00 6 ] For the purposes of claim interpretation, the definition of “hollow particles”, as written in claim 1 6 , is read from the special definition listed on page 10, paragraph 28 of the instant specification. [00 7 ] For the purposes of claim interpretation, the definition of “ a mass ratio ”, as written in claim 17, is read from the special definition listed on page s 16-17 , paragraph 48 of the instant specification. [00 8 ] For the purposes of claim interpretation, the definition of “coefficient of variation”, as written in claim 18, is read from the special definition listed on page 17, paragraph 49 of the instant specification. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 [0 09 ] 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. [01 0 ] 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. [01 1 ] 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. [01 2] 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. [01 3 ] Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 4 ]" Sato et al. (JP 2013143298 A; Henceforth, Sato ) . [014] Regar d ing Claim 11 , the instant claim is drawn to a positive electrode active substance for a lithium-sulfur battery comprising a carbon material h aving a circularity of more than 0.83 and a specific surface area of not less than 400 m2/g, and sulfur element attached to the carbon materia l. The instant specification motivates the specific surface area range by stating that large specific surface areas provide more reaction sites per mass, a desired effect may be sufficiently achieved even with a small amount of the component (page 4, paragraph 10). [01 5 ] Sato teaches a positive electrode active material for an all-solid-state lithium ion secondary battery ( pages 2 and 6 , paragraphs 7 and 22 ) . Sato teaches the positive electrode active material may be elemental sulfur ( page 6 , paragraph 27 ) and lithium metal can be used as the negative electrode material ( page 2 0, paragraph 7 8 ), which the examiner notes meet the definition of a lithium-sulfide battery . Sato teaches that the conductive active material substance includes carbon materials ( page 4, paragraph 30 ) having a circularity of between 0.90 or more and 0.99 or less ( page 8, paragraph 6 3 ) , which anticipates the claimed range of 0.83 or more. Sato teaches the carbon conductive active material h a s BET specific surface area between 200 m2/g or more and 4500 m2/g or less , where a large specific surface area is desirable to ensure sufficient contact area with the electrolyte, without making the pore diameter too small to incorporate the sulfur into the composite ( page 8 , paragraph 3 2 ) . Sato further teaches that a n active material such as sulfur can be contained in the pores of the conductive substance , including carbon materials ( page 7 , paragraph 29 -30 ). [016] Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to create a lithium sulfur battery with a positive electrode active material made of porous carbon infused with sulfur with a circularity greater than 0.83, and a specific surface area greater than 400 m2/g. The examiner notes the prior art range for the specific surface area overlap or encompass the claimed range for the same parameter. It has been held that 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. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the claimed range from the broader range because the prior art teaches the same utility over the entire range. [01 7 ] Regarding Claim 1 2 , the instant claim teaches the positive electrode active substance of claim 11, wherein the carbon material has a volume average particle size of 1 μm to 30 μm. The motivation for this is, i n cases where the volume average particle size of the carbon material is within this range, favorable fluidity is likely to be achieved. Therefore, for example, uneven distribution of the particles tends to be suppressed during the production of an electrode for a secondary battery, and this may enable production of a homogeneous electrode, resulting in improved durability and output characteristics. (page 8, paragraph 19). [018] Sato teaches the positive electrode active substance for a lithium-sulfur battery according to claim 11 . Sato further teaches that the particle diameter of the carbon-sulfur composite material is preferably 0.1 μm or more and 100 μm or less ( page 8 , paragraph 6 1 ). Sato teaches that, when using particles of size within that range, there is an optimal particle size distribution that improves the batteries performance ( page 26, paragraph 101 ; for an example distribution, see Figure 9, reproduced below ). Figure 9, reproduced from Sato . This shows the particle distribution from Example 4 ( page 25, paragraphs 96-97 ), with a low variance of the log-normal distribution of particle size of the carbon-sulfur composite. [019] Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to create a lithium sulfur battery where the positive electrode active material substance has a volume average particle size of 1 μm to 30 μm. The examiner notes the prior art range for the particle diameter overlap or encompass the claimed range for the same parameter. It has been held that 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. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the claimed range from the broader range because the prior art teaches the same utility over the entire range. [0 20 ] Regarding Claim 1 3 , the instant claim is drawn to the positive electrode active substance for a lithium-sulfur battery according to claim 11, wherein the carbon material has a pore volume of pores having a pore size not more than 0.2 μm of 1.5 cm3/g to 3 cm3/g. The motivation for this is, when the pore volume is within this range, the amount of the functional component given per carbon weight may be increased (page 6, paragraph 14). [021] Sato teaches the positive electrode active substance for a lithium-sulfur battery according to claim 11 . Sato further teaches the carbon material has a mean pore size equal to or less than the 100 nm ( page 7 , paragraph 31 ), which anticipates the claimed range of 0.2 μm or less. Additionally, Sato teaches the carbon material having a pore volume of 0.5 cc/g or more and 4.0 cc/g or less ( pages 7 , paragraph 31 ). The examiner notes “cc” used in this context is the abbreviation for a cubic centimeter. Sato further teaches that , if the pore capacity of the conductive material is less than 0.5 cc/g, the amount of active material inside the conductive material may decrease, which may make it difficult to obtain a lithium-ion battery with high electrical capacity ; o n the other hand, if the pore capacity of the conductive material exceeds 4.0 cc/g, there is a risk that sufficient electronic conductivity cannot be ensured even when compounded with the active material ( page 8, paragraph 31 ). [022] Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to create a lithium sulfur battery where the positive electrode active material substance has a pore volume of pores having a pore size not more than 0.2 μm of 1.5 cm3/g to 3 cm3/g. The examiner notes the prior art range for the pore volume overlap or encompass the claimed range for the same parameter. It has been held that 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. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the claimed range from the broader range because the prior art teaches the same utility over the entire range. Furthermore, there would have been a motivation, as taught by Sato , to use a carbon conductive material with pore volumes between 0.5 g/cc and 4.0 cc/g to maintain a battery with a high electrical capacity, while ensuring sufficient electronic conductivity. [02 3 ] Claims FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato as applied to claim 11 above , in further view of Ghezelbash et al. ( US 20180248175 A1 ; Henceforth Ghezelbash ) . [02 4 ] Regarding claim 14, the instant claim is drawn to the positive electrode active substance of claim 11, wherein the carbon material comprises secondary particles formed by an aggregation of a plurality of primary particles comprising carbon. The motivation for this is by allowing the first carbon particles having a predetermined s pecific surface area to aggregate using a water-soluble binder to form granular bodies, and then subjecting the granular bodies to heat treatment, a carbon material having a predetermined circularity and a predetermined specific surface area may be efficiently produced as second carbon particles that are aggregates of the first carbon particles (pages 9-10, paragraph 24). [02 5 ] Sato teaches the positive electrode material of claim 11, but does not teach that the carbon material comprises secondary particles formed by an aggregation of primary particles comprising carbon. [02 6 ] Ghezelbash teaches a carbon fiber mat, for use as an electrode material a lithium-sulfur battery ( page 8 , column 1, paragraph 75 ) composed of a plurality of highly ordered carbon aggregates, which are further comprised of multi-walled spherical fullerenes ( pages 1, column 1 , paragraph 4 ) or carbon nanoparticles comprising graphene ( pages 1 , column 1, paragraph 5 ) that each can be doped with sulfur ( page 5, column 2, paragraph 54 ). Ghezelbash further teaches that the incorporation of the improved highly ordered carbon aggregates with high electrical conductivity and high surface area provides higher electrical conductivity and higher porosity than conventional particulate carbon films. The improved electrical conductivity and porosity can be beneficial in numerous applications, including for example, within battery electrodes where electrical conductivity and porosity are important parameters ( page 7, column 1, paragraph 65 ) . [02 7 ] Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to create a lithium sulfur battery with a positive electrode active material made of porous carbon infused with sulfur with a specific surface area greater than 400 m2/g and a circularity greater than 0.83, as taught by Sato that is capable of forming aggregates composed of primary particles composed of carbon, as taught by Ghezelbash in the same field of endeavor . There is a motivation, as outlined by Ghezelbash , for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize highly ordered carbon aggregates that would have improved electrical conductivity and higher porosity, compared to conventional materials. The substitution of this material for the one taught by Sato , in the same field of endeavor, would have the predictable effect of improving the electrical conductivity and porosity of the positive electrode active material in the lithium-sulfur battery of Sato . [02 8 ] Regarding claim 16, the instant claim is drawn to the positive electrode active substance of claim 14, wherein the primary particles are hollow particles. The motivation for this is that, in the case where the primary particles are hollow particles, the specific surface area of the carbon material tends to be increased ( pages 7-8, paragraph 18). [0 29 ] Sato and Ghezelbash teach the positive electrode active material of claim 14, as described above. [0 30 ] Ghezelbash defines fullerene s as a molecule of carbon in the form of a hollow sphere, ellipsoid, tube, or other shapes ( page 4 , column 2, paragraph 42 ) , and m ulti-walled spherical fullerenes (MWSFs) contain multiple concentric spheres of fullerenes ( page 4, column 2, paragraph 43 ) . Ghezelbash teaches the use of highly ordered allotropes of carbon, including improved graphene . with a high degree of atomic order, high surface area, high purity and/or high electrical conductivity , and improved fullerenes and/or connected fullerene s, with a high degree of atomic order, high surface area, high purity and/or high electrical conductivity , over conventional carbon materials ( page 2, column 1, paragraph 24 ). [0 31 ] Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to create a lithium sulfur battery with a positive electrode active material made of porous carbon infused with sulfur with a specific surface area greater than 400 m2/g and a circularity greater than 0.83, as taught by Sato that is capable of forming aggregates composed of primary particles composed of carbon, as taught by Ghezelbash in the same field of endeavor , that are hollow . There is a motivation, as outlined by Ghezelbash , for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize a hollow carbon material that could aggregate, resulting in improved electrical conductivity, higher purity, and increased surface area, compared to conventional materials . The substitution of this material for the one taught by Sato , in the same field of endeavor, would have the predictable effect of improving the electrical conductivity of the positive electrode active material in the lithium-sulfur battery of Sato . [0 32 ] Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" Sato and Ghezelbash as applied to claim 14 above, in further view of Iwamura and Kinoshita (US 65994 9 2 B2; Henceforth, Iwamura ) . [0 3 3 ] Regarding claim 15, the instant claim is drawn to the positive electrode active substance of claim 14, wherein the primary particles have an average particle size of 1 nm to 200 nm. The motivation for this is that, in cases where the average particle size of the primary particles is within this range, it may be possible to easily form a carbon material in which pores having smaller pore sizes are formed (p age 6, p aragraph 16) . [0 34 ] FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" Sato and Ghezelbash teach the positive electrode active material of claim 14. Ghezelbash teaches carbon fiber mats spun of carbon fibers with average diameters of 100n nm to 10 microns ( page 10, paragraph 36 ). Ghezelbash further teaches that multi-walled fullerenes, graphite, and carbon nanotubes are all potential allotropes of carbon usable in the carbon fiber mats ( page 11, paragraph 38 ), but does not teach the specific dimensions of these particles . Ghezelbash teaches the small diameter fibers produced via electrospinning provide increased porosity compared to conventional carbon fiber mats, which can be beneficial for carbon fiber mats used in Li/S battery cathodes ( page 10, paragraph 37 ). [0 3 5 ] Iwamura teaches an onion-like carbon thin films composed of giant fullerene clusters having onion-like structures ( page 1, column 2, paragraph 9 ). Iwamura defines onions-like carbon as onion-like fullerene, whereby fullerenes with higher molecular weights are concentrically stacked on top of each other, as shown in Figure 2, annotated below ( page 1, column 1, paragraph 3 ). Iwamura further teaches that these fullerenes each have a diameter of 4 nm or more ( page 1, column 2, paragraph 10 ) , and the distance in between the fullerene layers can be tuned depending on which element is intercalated between the layers ( page 3, column 5, paragraph 19 ) . Figure 2 from Iwamura , annotated . [0 3 6 ] Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to create a lithium sulfur battery with a positive electrode active material made of porous carbon infused with sulfur with a specific surface area greater than 400 m2/g and a circularity greater than 0.83, as taught by Sato , wherein the carbon material is made of aggregations of primary particles comprised of carbon, as taught by Ghezelbash in the same field of endeavor, using the fullerenes with diameters greater than 4 nm, as taught by Iwamura . , and with diameters greater than 100 nm, as taught by Ghezelbash. The examiner notes the prior art range for the average size of the primary particle overlap or encompass the claimed range for the same parameter. It has been held that 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. The claimed range is an optimization of a result-effective variable ( In re Antonie , 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977) , where the range of the average size of the primary particle would have been discoverable through routine experimentation, based on the range taught by Ghezelbash . Ghezelbash teaches the small diameter fibers produced via electrospinning provide increased porosity compared to conventional carbon fiber mats, which can be beneficial for carbon fiber mats used in Li/S battery cathodes ( page 10, paragraph 37 ) . This would motivate those wishing to increase the sulfur loading into the carbon particles, as does the instant application (“large specific surface areas provide more reaction sites per mass, a desired effect may be sufficiently achieved even with a small amount of the component ”, page 4, paragraph 10) , to utilize smaller diameter primary particles. Since having particle sizes too small results in small surface areas which inhibi t sulfur binding ( Sato, page 8, paragraph 32 ) , the range the instant application is drawn to needs to be the result of routine optimization to balance the porosity of the carbon particles while ensuring sufficient sulfur binding to be effective as a battery . A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation of success, based on the success the smaller diameter particles taught by Ghezelbash had in their improved carbon fiber mats, in addition to the success of the even-smaller multi-walled fullerenes, taught by Iwamura, have in the intercalation of different elements. The range taught by Iwamura is sufficiently close to the range the instant application is drawn to , where a person of ordinary skill in the art would expect the multi-walled fullerenes taught by Iwamura to have the same properties as those of the instant application over the entire range ( Titanium Metal Corp. V. Banner , 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 ( Fed Cir. 1985 ). [0 37 ] Claim FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato , in further view of FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" Guo et al. (US 20140342233 A1; Henceforth, Guo ) . [0 38 ] Regarding claim 17, the instant claim is drawn to the positive electrode active substance according to claim 11, wherein a mass ratio of sulfur element to a total mass of carbon material and sulfur element is 67% by mass to 80% by mass. The motivation for this range is that, in cases where the content of the material containing sulfur element is within these ranges, capacity degradation of the sulfur-carbon composite may be reduced (paragraph 48, specification amendment dated 8/25/2023). [0 3 9 ] Sato teaches the positive electrode active substance for a lithium-sulfur battery according to claim 11. Sato does not teach the mass ratio of sulfur to total mass of the carbon-sulfur composite. [040] Guo teaches a carbon-sulfur composite, comprising a pyrolysis microporous carbon sphere with sulfur loaded into the substrate ( page 1, column 1, paragraph 5 ) to be used as an electrode material ( page 1, column 1, paragraph 9 ) of a lithium sulfur battery ( page 1, column 1, paragraph 10 ). Guo teaches that the pyrolysis microporous carbon sphere has a BET specific area of 400-1000 m 2 /g, a pore volume of 0.3-3 cm 3 /g, an average pore diameter of 0.4-1.0 nm, and an average diameter of 200-800 nm ( page 1, column 2, paragraphs 22-23 ). Guo further teaches the sulfur-carbon composite has a mass ratio (m s /m c ) in the range of 1:4 to 9:1, corresponding to a sulfur load of 20-90 wt% ( page 3, column 2, paragraph 60 ). Guo further teaches that the appropriate mass ratio between sulfur and the pyrolysis microporous sphere substrate can be easily determined by a person skilled in the art based on the sulfur load amount expected ( page 3, column 2, paragraph 60 ). [04 1 ] Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to create a lithium sulfur battery with a positive electrode active material made of porous carbon infused with sulfur , as taught by Guo and Sato , with a mass ratio of sulfur to the total mass of carbon and sulfur to be 67-80%, as taught by Guo , in the same field of endeavor . The examiner notes the prior art range for the mass percent of sulfur in the carbon-sulfur composite overlap or encompass the claimed range for the same parameter. It has been held that 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. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the claimed range from the broader range because the prior art teaches the same utility over the entire range. [0 4 2 ] Claim 18 i s rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Joo and Lee (US 20190027793 A1, Henceforth Joo ). [0 4 3 ] Regarding claim 18, the instant claim is drawn to the positive electrode active substance according to claim 11, wherein a coefficient of variation of ratios between a detected amounts of sulfur element and carbon element is less than 0.64. The coefficient of variation (CV) of the ratios between the detected amounts of sulfur element and carbon element is the value (σ1/t1) obtained by dividing the standard deviation σ1 of the ratios between the detected amounts of sulfur element and carbon element in 50 discretionary particles of the sulfur-carbon composite, by the average t1 of the ratios between the detected amounts . The motivation for this is when the coefficient of variation of the ratios between the detected amounts of sulfur element and carbon element is within the range described above, the variation of the sulfur content is considered to be small among the particles of the sulfur-carbon composite, indicating the sulfur-carbon composite being homogeneous (page 17, paragraph 49) . [0 4 4 ] Sato teaches the positive electrode active substance according to claim 11, but does not teach a coefficient of variation of the sulfur and carbon elements. [0 4 5 ] Joo teaches a substrate made out of three dimensional porous carbon for a lithium-sulfur battery ( page 3, paragraph 7 ) wherein sulfur is infused into at least a portion of the porous carbon ( page 3, paragraph 7 ) . T he standard deviation of the concentration of the sulfur on the surface of the porous carbon is less than 100% (e.g., less than 70%, less than 50%, less than 40%, less than 30%, less than 20%, less than 10%, or the like) of the average concentration (e.g., of a standard measurement, such as a square centimeter) ( page 30, paragraph 90 ) . Joo also teaches that the uniformity of deposition of sulfur onto the surface facilitates uniform loading of the sulfur into the electrode, which results, in some instances, in improved quality control from batch to batch, improved performance of the overall cell, and other benefits ( page 30, paragraph 90 ). [0 4 6 ] Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to create a lithium sulfur battery with a positive electrode active material made of porous carbon infused with sulfur, as taught by Sato and Joo with a coefficient of variation of the ratios of sulfur to carbon to be less than 0.64, with the express intent of having improved quality control batch to batch and improved cell performance, as taught by Joo , in the same field of endeavor . There is a strong motivation, as outlined by Joo , for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the ratio of the standard deviation of sulfur over the concentration of sulfur with respect to carbon, to be less than 100%, to improve the performance and quality control of a battery using infused sulfur in a porous carbon positive electrode active material. The measurement and control of this ratio additionally would have been an obvious improvement to the positive electrode active material of Sato , yielding the predictable result of improving the quality control and performance of the resulting battery , as taught by Joo . Conclusion [04 7 ] The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : Anzelmo et al. (US 9997334 B1; Henceforth Anzelmo ) [04 8 ] Anzelmo teaches a carbon material compris ing a plurality of carbon aggregates, each carbon aggregate having a plurality of carbon nanoparticles, each carbon nanoparticle including graphene and multi-walled spherical fullerenes ( page 1, columns 1-2, paragraph 6 ). The carbon material is intended to be mixed with a liquid to form a conductive ink, which can used as a component for battery electrodes ( page 9, columns 17-18, paragraph 84 ). Anzelmo defines the term "nanoparticle" as a particle that has a size from 1 nm to 900 nm ( page 1, columns 2, paragraph 7 ). [04 9 ] Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT RYAN P MURPHY whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-9321 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:30 pm . [0 50 ] 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. [0 51 ] If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Nicholas A Smith can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-8760 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. [05 2 ] 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. /RPM/ Examiner, Art Unit 1752 /NICHOLAS A SMITH/ Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752