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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to applicant’s amendment filed 2/17/2026.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11-13 are pending. Claims 8, 9, 11-13 are withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
The previous rejection of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment.
The previous rejection of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wen et al (Int. J. Electrochem. Sci., 9 (2014) 1 – 11) is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/17/2026 has been considered by the examiner. Initialed copies accompany this action.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 1, 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wen et al (Int. J. Electrochem. Sci., 9 (2014) 1 – 11) in view of Hess Sulfur Safety Data Sheet.
Regarding claims 1, 3, and 7, Wen discloses a method for producing a secondary battery, comprising: performing a first heat treatment on a spherical phenol resin particle (PF-127 and figure 3). The carbon matrix possesses visible and smooth spherical shape although some of the carbon balls were interconnected with each other on the boundaries, seen in figure 3a) at a temperature higher 5 than or equal to 500 °C in an inert atmosphere to perform surface modification (carbon matrix with microporous structure. See 2.1. The preparation of carbon matrix); mixing the spherical particle comprising at least a part of a surface carbonized, and sulfur powder (Fig. 2) to form a mixture; and performing a second heat treatment on the mixture at 164 °C without being exposed to outside air to form a positive electrode active material (2.2. The preparation of sulfur/carbon composite). Wen discloses that the second heat treatment was carried out at 164oC, which is 4 degree higher than the claimed temperature than of higher than or equal to 150oC and lower than or equal to 160oC. The law held that 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). The small different is close that the difference between the claimed ranges and the prior art was virtually negligible absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality. Moreover, Wen discloses the temperature at which the treatment is taken place is to make sulfur fully imbibed in to the micropores of carbon matrix (2.2. The preparation of sulfur/carbon composite), enhancing the utilization efficiency and electrochemical reversibility of sulfur active center. The capacity of sulfur active center could achieve up to 90% of its theoretical capacity. The cyclability of the structured sulfur/carbon composite was enhanced dramatically, showing 91% and 99% capacity retention after 100 cycles, comparing to its first and second discharging capacity, respectively (Conclusion).
Wen does not expressly disclose the mixture is placed in a container with lid when the second heat treatment is performed. However, Wen discloses the preparation processing including heating-up and cooling down was protected by Argon gas (inert atmosphere) all the time to avoid the oxidation of samples. It is also known that sulfur powder is a flammable solid and harmful to health and environment (see the Hess MSDS). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that storing the mixture in a container with lid when the second heat treatment is performed is inherently disclosed by Wen when the preparation processing is performed under Ar gas to avoid the oxidation of sulfur/carbon matrix mixture.
Regarding claim 4, Wen discloses the spherical particle is a phenol resin (carbon matrix with microporous structure produced from pyrolyzed phenol resin, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 5, Wen discloses a BET specific surface area of the spherical particle after the first heat treatment is larger than a BET specific surface area of the spherical particle before the first heat treatment due to the closely spaced micropores and interconnected inner structure of the carbon matrix. The surface area for one Pluronic F127 molecule is 38.7 nm2, the specific area of the carbon balls was 377.3m2/g, See page 5).
Regarding claim 6, Wen discloses before the second heat treatment, a weight proportion of the sulfur powder is higher than a weight proportion of the spherical particle (The ratio of sulfur and as prepared microporous carbon was 4:1, 2.2. The preparation of sulfur/carbon composite).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Wen does not describe or suggest performing a second heat treatment on the mixture in a covered container and one of ordinary skill would not have sought to suppress the leakage of sulfur gas in Wen, at least because Wen discloses removing sulfur at a temperature above which volatilization or sublimation occurs. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (motivation question arises in the context of the general problem confronting the inventor rather than the specific problem solved by the invention); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d 1662, 1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("One of ordinary skill in the art need not see the identical problem addressed in a prior art reference to be motivated to apply its teachings."); In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972) (discussed below); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991) (discussed below). Wen discloses the preparation processing including heating-up and cooling down was protected by Argon gas (inert atmosphere) all the time to avoid the oxidation of samples. It is also known that sulfur powder is a flammable solid and harmful to health and environment (see the Hess MSDS). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that storing the mixture in a container with lid when the second heat treatment is performed is inherently disclosed by Wen when the preparation processing is performed under Ar gas and to avoid the oxidation of sulfur/carbon matrix mixture.
Claims 1, 3-7 remain unpatentable for the reasons of record.
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 HAIDUNG D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5455. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 10a-3p.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at 571-272-2817. 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.
/HAIDUNG D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
3/28/2026