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 of Group I, Species A, and Species E with traverse in the reply filed on 08/21/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Applicant states Group I is directed to claims 1-19 and 40.
Applicant states Species A is directed to claim 5.
In view of Species A-D and the claims, the Examiner has found:
Species A is directed to claim 5.
Species B is directed to claim 6.
Species D is directed to claim 7.
Applicant states Species E is directed to claim 16.
Claims 6-7 and 20-39 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group and Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/21/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 40 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 40, “a cathode” should be “the cathode”.
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 2, 5, 8-9, and 17-18 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 claim 2, the claim recites “a first active material layer comprising a conversion active material; and a second active material layer comprising a lithium ion intercalation active material”.
However, claim 2 depends from claim 1 which already recites “at least one of a first active material layer comprising a conversion active material; and at least one of a second active material layer comprising a lithium ion intercalation active material”.
It is unclear if the “first active material layer” of claim 2 is one of the layer(s) of the “at least one of a first active material layer” recited in claim 1 in which the conversion active materials are the same, or if the “first active material layer” of claim 2 is a new and different layer having a new and different conversion active material than the “at least one of a first active material layer” recited in claim 1. Similarly, it is unclear if the “second active material layer” of claim 2 is one of the layer(s) of the “at least one of a second active material layer” recited in claim 1 in which the lithium ion intercalation active material are the same, or if the “second active material layer” of claim 2 is a new and different layer having a new and different lithium ion intercalation active material than the “at least one of a second active material layer” recited in claim 1.
In order to advance prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting claim 2 such that the first active material layer and second active material layers recited in claim 2 are the same at least one of a first active material layer and at least one of a second active material layer as recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites “wherein a discharge voltage range of the conversion active material and a discharge voltage range of the lithium ion intercalation active material substantially overlap”.
The term “substantially” in the claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” 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.
Applicant’s specification at P12 states “Substantially: As used herein, the term “substantially” refers to the qualitative condition of exhibiting total or near-total extent or degree of a characteristic or property of interest”.
However, this definition itself is also unclear. The phrase “near-total” is indefinite as “near” is also a relative term that gives no boundary. Does the phrase “near-total” mean 90%, 95%, or 99%?
Without being given a clear bound of what range is provided by “substantially” or “near-total”, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to reasonably recognize when the discharge voltage ranges of the conversion active material and lithium ion intercalation active material are considered “substantially” overlapping.
Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claims 5 and 8, claim 5 recites the limitation “…wherein a discharge voltage range of the conversion active material and a discharge voltage range of the lithium ion intercalation active material substantially overlap” and claim 8 recites the limitation “…wherein the conversion active material and the lithium ion intercalation active material both have discharge voltages in the range of 1.8 to 2.8 V”.
As noted in MPEP 2173.05(g), Examiners should consider three factors when examining claims that contain functional language to determine whether the language is ambiguous: (1) whether there is a clear cut indication of the scope of the subject matter covered by the claim, (2) whether the language sets forth well-defined boundaries of the invention or only states a problem solved or a result obtained, and (3) whether one of ordinary skill in the art would know from the claim terms what structure or steps are encompassed by the claim. The above functional features do not define well-defined boundaries as there is not a clear cut indication of the scope of the subject matter covered by the claim, the functional claim language only states a result obtained, and one or ordinary skill in the art would not know from the claim terms what structure(s) is/are encompassed by the claim.
For example, it is not clear from the claim terms or the instant application specification what is required in terms of chemical composition, processing, additional components, etc. that provides for a conversion active material and lithium ion intercalation active material exhibiting the results claimed of substantially overlapping discharge voltages or discharge voltages in the range of 1.8 to 2.8 V. Further, it is not clear what parameters by which the discharge voltages of the materials are measured in order to achieve the results obtained (e.g. are the discharge voltages measured by pairing the cathode against a standard reference electrode having a specific composition?).
The Examiner cannot assume that any conversion active material and lithium ion intercalation active material simply provided in two separate layers in a cathode paired against any standard reference electrode having any composition would intrinsically achieve the result obtained. Looking to the specification as to when this property is obtained is not illuminating: there is no guidance, no examples, and no parameters whatsoever set forth for how to configure the conversion active material and lithium ion intercalation active material to achieve the results obtained.
An applicant may resolve the ambiguities of a function limitation by demonstrating that "specification provide[s] a formula for calculating a property along with examples that meet the claim limitation and examples that do not" (see Halliburton Energy Servs., 514 F.3d at 1255-56, 85 USPQ2d at 1663 citing Oakley, Inc. v. Sunglass Hut Int’l, 316 F.3d 1331, 1341, 65 USPQ2d 1321, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). Alternatively, applicant could demonstrate that the specification provides a general guideline and examples sufficient to teach a person skilled in the art when the claim limitation was satisfied (see Marosi, 710 F.2d at 803, 218 USPQ at 292), or applicant could amend the claims to recite the particular structure that accomplishes the function. The Examiner has reviewed the specification for formulas, a general guideline, examples, specific structure, etc. and none of these exists in the instant application for the result obtained recited in the claim. Accordingly, the feature is considered indefinite.
Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites the limitation "the discharge capacity". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In order to advance prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting “the discharge capacity” to be “a discharge capacity”.
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites the limitations "the first active layer" and “the second active layer”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
In order to advance prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting "the first active layer" and “the second active layer” to be "the first active material layer" and “the second active material layer”.
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites the limitation "the current collector". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In order to advance prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting claim 18 to be dependent upon claim 2.
Prior Art Evaluation
Per MPEP § 2143.03:
“"All words in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of that claim against the prior art." In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385, 165 USPQ 494, 496 (CCPA 1970). (The Board erred because it ignored claim language that it considered to be indefinite, and reached a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious based only on the rest of the claim.). However, an examiner should not simply speculate about the meaning of the claim language and then enter an obviousness rejection in view of that speculative interpretation. In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859,134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962) (The "considerable speculation" by the examiner and the Board as to the scope of the claims did not provide a proper basis for an obviousness rejection.)
When evaluating claims for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103, all the limitations of the claims must be considered and given weight, including limitations which do not find support in the specification as originally filed (i.e., new matter). Ex parte Grasselli, 231 USPQ 393 (Bd. App. 1983) aff’d mem. 738 F.2d 453 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
MPEP § 2173.06 further notes that when there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
For the above reasons, claims 5 and 8 are considered highly indefinite in view of applicable sections above under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/second paragraph to the point that it would be improper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As in In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385, 165 USPQ 494, 496 (CCPA 1970), it would be improper to ignore claim language that it considered to be indefinite, and reached a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious based only on the rest of the claim.
In the interest of compact prosecution, the indefinite limitations of claims 5 and 8 with respect to the discharge voltages are addressed as best as possible in terms of a general teaching that it is known to chose cathode materials with optimized discharge voltages.
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.
Claims 1-4, 10-14, 19, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Farmer et al (US 20220190324 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Farmer discloses a cathode for a lithium battery (see entire disclosure and especially P9, 13), the cathode comprising:
at least one of a first active material layer comprising a conversion active material (layered nanostructured material in Fig. 2C including one or more layers of sulfur-based core 312; the sulfur-based material can be elemental sulfur, lithium sulfide, polythionate, a sulfur-containing polymer, or as a sulfur composite with graphite or graphene (sulfur-containing carbon composition); these materials are all noted as being conversion active materials by Applicant’s filed specification at P40 and Applicant’s dependent claim 4; see entire disclosure and especially P14, 51, 59-62); and
at least one of a second active material layer comprising a lithium ion intercalation active material (layered nanostructured material in Fig. 2C including one or more layers of shell 314; the shell can include metal sulfides such as titanium disulfide or molybdenum disulfide; these materials are both noted to be lithium ion intercalation active materials in Applicant’s specification at P38 and Applicant dependent claims 12-13; see entire disclosure and especially P16, 51).
Regarding claim 2, Farmer discloses the cathode comprising: a current collector (“a prepared composition is coated on a current collector and dried to form a positive electrode”, P75), a first active material layer comprising a conversion active material; and a second active material layer comprising a lithium ion intercalation active material (the layered nanostructured material of Fig. 2C (see the rejection of claim 1) can be utilized in the composition that is coated on the current collector; see entire disclosure and especially P74-75); wherein the second active material layer is situated between the current collector and the first active material layer (a plurality of the nanostructured material (materials as recited in P74) is mixed with a binder and conducting material to a liquid to prepare a slurry, see entire disclosure and especially P66, 74; the slurry is then coated onto a current collector and dried, see entire disclosure and especially P75; given, in the nanostructured materials, the shell layers 314 (at least one second active material layer) sandwich the core 312 (at least one first active material layer), and given the plurality of nanostructured materials in the slurry would be oriented in a plurality of different fashions, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that at least a portion of at least one of the shell layers 314 (at least one second active material) of at least one of the nanostructured materials would be situated between the current collector and the core 312 (at least one first active material)).
Regarding claims 3-4, Farmer discloses wherein the conversion active material comprises an electroactive sulfur composition (claim 3), wherein the electroactive sulfur composition is selected from: elemental sulfur, lithium sulfide, lithium polysulfide, polythionate, a sulfur-containing organic molecule, a sulfur-containing polymer, a sulfur-containing carbon composition, and a combination of any two or more of these (claim 4; elemental sulfur, lithium sulfide, polythionate, a sulfur-containing polymer, or as a sulfur composite with graphite or graphene (sulfur-containing carbon composition); see entire disclosure and especially P14, 59-62).
Regarding claims 10-13, Farmer discloses wherein the lithium ion intercalation active material is selected from: metal oxides, metal sulfides, metal phosphates, metal selenides, and mixtures of any two or of these (claim 10), wherein the lithium ion intercalation active material comprises a metal sulfide (claim 11), wherein the metal sulfide is selected from vanadium sulfide, molybdenum sulfide, and titanium sulfide (claim 12), wherein the metal sulfide is selected from: VS2, MoS2, Mo6 and TiS2 (claim 13; metal sulfides such as titanium disulfide or molybdenum disulfide; see entire disclosure and especially P16).
Regarding claim 14, Farmer discloses wherein the metal sulfide comprises TiS2 (metal sulfides can be titanium disulfide; see entire disclosure and especially P16).
Regarding claim 19, Farmer discloses wherein the current collector comprises a component selected from the group consisting of a metal foil, a metallized polymer film, and a carbon composition (aluminum foil, copper foil, nickel foil, stainless steel foil, titanium foil, zirconium foil, molybdenum foil, conductive carbon paper/sheet/fabric, polymer substrates coated with conductive metal; see entire disclosure and especially P76).
Regarding claim 40, Farmer discloses a lithium battery comprising the cathode (see entire disclosure and especially P12, 42, 46, 74, 81).
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.
Claims 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farmer et al (US 20220190324 A1) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Goodenough et al (US 20070082267 A1).
Regarding claims 5 and 8, Farmer is silent to “…wherein a discharge voltage range of the conversion active material and a discharge voltage range of the lithium ion intercalation active material substantially overlap” (claim 5) and “…wherein the conversion active material and the lithium ion intercalation active material both have discharge voltages in the range of 1.8 to 2.8 V” (claim 8), as claimed, wherein it is not clear under what critical method conditions that this feature is observed (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/second paragraph). In the interest of compact prosecution, the limitation is addressed as best as possible.
In a similar field of endeavor, Goodenough teaches secondary cell performance is greatly affected by the composition of the cathode; and as a result, the cathode composition has been the subject of intensive research and development to examine electrode materials that optimize the discharge capacity, charge-discharge voltage, cycle life characteristics and storage characteristics (P6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to determine the optimum or workable discharge voltages/discharge voltage ranges of the conversion active material and the lithium ion intercalation active material possible for the cathode of Farmer in order to provide the desired cell performance of the cell the cathode is used within. With respect to the specific range claimed, the court has held that “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farmer et al (US 20220190324 A1) as applied to claim 1, further evidenced by Chen et al (Recent advances in lithium-sulfur batteries) and He et al (Molybdenum disulfide synthesized by molybdenum-based metal organic framework with high activity for sodium ion battery).
Regarding claim 9, Farmer discloses that the conversion active material can be selected to be a sulfur-based material such as elemental sulfur, lithium sulfide, polythionate, a sulfur-containing polymer, or as a sulfur composite with graphite or graphene (sulfur-containing carbon composition) (these materials are all noted as being conversion active materials by Applicant’s filed specification at P40 and Applicant’s dependent claim 4; see entire disclosure and especially P14, 51, 59-62). Farmer further discloses wherein the lithium ion intercalation active material can be selected to be titanium disulfide or molybdenum disulfide (see entire disclosure and especially P16).
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 selected the conversion active material to be elemental sulfur and the lithium ion intercalation active material to be molybdenum disulfide 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).
As evidenced by Chen, elemental sulfur has a theoretical capacity of 1673 mAh/g (Page 770, Left Column). As evidenced by He, molybdenum sulfide has a high theoretical specific capacity of 670 mAh/g (Page 1, right Column).
Therefore, given modified Farmer includes a conversion active material of elemental sulfur and a lithium ion intercalation active material of molybdenum disulfide, modified Farmer meets the limitation wherein a total theoretical discharge capacity of the conversion active material is between 2 times and 5 times greater than the discharge capacity of the lithium ion intercalation active material (1673 / 670 = 2.497).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farmer et al (US 20220190324 A1) as applied to claim 2, further in view of Son et al (US 20130101902 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Farmer teaches the current collector can be made from aluminum (P76). Farmer does not disclose a conductive carbon coating between the current collector and the second active material layer.
In a similar field of endeavor, Son teaches a current collector formed of an aluminum material can have a alumina film formed thereon (P45). Son teaches a carbon layer formed on the surface of the alumina film improves the electrical conductivity of the current collector, prevents the aluminum current collector from being damaged by an electrolyte of the electrical energy storage device, and improves adhesion with a cathode material (P46).
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 Son and provided a conductive carbon coating to the current collector of Farmer, given Son teaches a carbon layer formed on the surface of a current collector can improve the electrical conductivity of the current collector, prevents the aluminum current collector from being damaged by an electrolyte of an electrical energy storage device, and improves adhesion with a cathode material.
Alternatively, 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 Son and substituted the current collector of Farmer with the carbon-coated aluminum current collector of Son, given Son teaches their current collector with a carbon layer formed thereon has improved electrical conductivity, damage prevention from an electrolyte of an electrical energy storage device, and improved adhesion with a cathode material, and the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Therefore, modified Farmer would meet the limitation a conductive carbon coating between the current collector and the second active material layer.
Claims 1-4, 10-13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ota et al (US 20190363351 A1) in view of Adachi et al (US 20040009402 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 3-4, and 10-13, Ota teaches a cathode (electrode 100 in Fig. 1 which can be a cathode; see entire disclosure and especially P36-37) for a lithium battery (the electrode can include electrode materials that can include any materials used as a cathode in a lithium ion battery; see entire disclosure and especially P73), the cathode comprising:
at least one of a first active material layer (second electrode material 130 in Fig. 1; see entire disclosure and especially P36, 73); and
at least one of a second active material layer (first electrode material 120 in Fig. 1; see entire disclosure and especially P36, 73).
Ota discloses the first active material layer and second active material layer can include any material that can be used as a cathode in a lithium-ion battery (P73).
In a similar field of endeavor, Adachi teaches a secondary battery that can include a cathode having a cathode active material layer (P17-18). Adachi teaches the cathode active material layer can include a cathode active material capable of inserting and extracting lithium such as TiS2, MoS2, and lithium sulfides (P19).
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 Adachi and selected the material of the first active material layer to be a lithium sulfide and selected the material of the second active material layer to be TiS2 or MoS2, given Ota discloses the first active material layer and second active material layer can include any material that can be used as a cathode in a lithium-ion battery, Adachi teaches these are known materials for a cathode that are capable of inserting and extracting lithium, and 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).
Modified Ota meets the limitation at least one of a first active material layer comprising a conversion active material; and at least one of a second active material layer comprising a lithium ion intercalation active material (given lithium sulfide is noted as being a conversion active material by Applicant’s filed specification at P40 and Applicant’s dependent claim 4 and TiS2 or MoS2 are both noted to be lithium ion intercalation active materials in Applicant’s specification at P38 and Applicant dependent claims 12-13).
Regarding claim 2, Ota discloses the cathode comprising: a current collector (current collector 110 in Fig. 1; see entire disclosure and especially P36), a first active material layer comprising a conversion active material; and a second active material layer comprising a lithium ion intercalation active material (see the rejection of claim 1 above); wherein the second active material layer is situated between the current collector and the first active material layer (as seen in Fig. 1, the first electrode material 120 drawn to the second active material layer is situated between the current collector 110 and the second electrode material 130 drawn to the first active material layer).
Regarding claim 15, Ota discloses wherein both the first and second active material layers are porous (see entire disclosure and especially P57-59)
Regarding claim 16, Ota discloses wherein the second active material layer has a lower porosity than the first active material layer (“In some embodiments, the first electrode material 120 can have a first porosity and the second electrode material 130 can have a second porosity less than the first porosity. In some embodiments, the second porosity can be greater than the first porosity”, P57)
Regarding claim 18, Ota discloses wherein a conductive carbon coating is between the current collector and the second active material layer (“Typically, the current collector 110 in a cathode used in lithium-ion batteries is made from aluminum coated with conductive carbon”, P74).
Claims 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ota et al (US 20190363351 A1) in view of Adachi et al (US 20040009402 A1) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Chiang et al (US 20110070489 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Ota discloses wherein the first active material layer and second active material layer are porous (see entire disclosure and especially P57-59).
However, modified Ota does not meet the limitation wherein there is a porosity gradient in the first active layer, and wherein the first active layer has a lower porosity toward its interface with the second active layer.
In a similar field of endeavor, Chiang teaches grading the porosity or porosity density of an electrode structure can provide improve transport rates (P57). Chiang teaches an electrode can have a linearly varying porosity such that a porosity of 0.4 can be at the front of the electrode near an electrolyte or separator while a porosity of 0.2 can be at the back of the electrode near the current collector (P58).
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 Chiang and provided wherein, over the whole cathode including both the first active material layer and second active material layer, the porosity of the layers is graded such that the porosity at the front of the cathode near the electrolyte/separator is higher than the porosity at the back of the cathode near the current collector, given Chiang teaches grading the porosity or porosity density of an electrode structure can provide improve transport rates.
Given the first active material layer of modified Ota is drawn to the second electrode material 130 in Fig. 1 of Ota, the second active material layer of modified Ota is drawn to the first electrode material 120 in Fig. 1 of Ota, the first electrode material 120 in Fig. 1 of Ota is adjacent to the current collector 110 in Fig. 1 of Ota, and the porosity of the entire cathode structure is graded to have a high-to-low porosity change from the front of the cathode to the current collector, the first active material layer would have a porosity gradient such that it would include a lower porosity toward its interface with the second active layer.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mane et al (US 20190341618 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Mane discloses a cathode for a lithium battery (electrode 100 in Fig. 1; see entire disclosure and especially P19-20, 35-36, 40), the cathode comprising:
at least one of a first active material layer comprising a conversion active material (first layer 104 in Fig. 1; first layer can include a metal sulfide; the metal sulfide can be lithium sulfide; see entire disclosure and especially P22); and
at least one of a second active material layer comprising a lithium ion intercalation active material (second layer 106 in Fig. 1; the second layer can include a metal sulfide or metal oxide; see entire disclosure and especially P22).
at least one of a second active material layer comprising a lithium ion intercalation active material (second layer 106 in Fig. 1; the second layer can include a metal sulfide or metal oxide; see entire disclosure and especially P22).
Mukherjee et al (US 20020055040 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Mukherjee discloses a cathode for a lithium battery, the cathode comprising:
at least one of a first active material layer comprising a conversion active material (prismatic sulfur-containing cathode structure 8 in Fig. 3; the sulfur-containing cathode structure can comprise elemental sulfur, a carbon-sulfur composition, a carbon-sulfur polymer composition; these materials are all noted as being conversion active materials by Applicant’s filed specification at P40 and Applicant’s dependent claim 4; see entire disclosure and especially P32-33, 136-137, 148, 168); and
at least one of a second active material layer comprising a lithium ion intercalation active material (electroactive transition metal chalcogenide 9 in Fig. 3; the electroactive transition metal chalcogenide can be titanium sulfide (TiS2), molybdenum sulfide (MoS2), and vanadium sulfide (VS2); these materials are both noted to be lithium ion intercalation active materials in Applicant’s specification at P38 and Applicant dependent claims 12-13; see entire disclosure and especially P128, 168).
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