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 .
Priority
This application is a 371 of PCT/JP2023/010990 (filed 03/20/23), which application claims priority to JP 2022-061324 (filed 03/31/22).
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Amendment(s)
The specification filed 05/06/25 is entered.
The Preliminary Amendment filed 09/27/04 is entered.
Claims 1-14 are pending.
Drawings
The Drawing filed 09/27/24 is objected to:
37 CFR 1.84(u)(1) states (emphasis added):
The different views must be numbered in consecutive Arabic numerals, starting with 1, independent of the numbering of the sheets and, if possible, in the order in which they appear on the drawing sheet(s). Partial views intended to form one complete view, on one or several sheets, must be identified by the same number followed by a capital letter. View numbers must be preceded by the abbreviation "FIG." Where only a single view is used in an application to illustrate the claimed invention, it must not be numbered and the abbreviation "FIG." must not appear.
Accordingly, applicant should submit a corrected Drawing without “Figure 1” and amend the specification to –-the Drawing-—(each occurrence).
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS statements filed 09/27/24, 02/06/25, and 03/06/26 have been considered. Initialed copies accompany this action.
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 13 and 14 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.
In each dependent claim above, the terminology “producing…by a conventional method” is considered indefinite in that the metes and bounds of the claimed invention cannot be precisely determined as to what step(s) is/are required by such terminology. Clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The 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 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.
Foreign Priority
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Claim Construction
As no special technical definition of the claim terminology “baking” appears in the instant specification, the examiner construes the term to possess it’s normal meaning in the art (i.e. heating). Additionally, the examiner notes applicant’s definition of the claim limitation “wherein the heating history…is subjected to once” at para 0087 of instant PGPUB 2026/0005240 A1 (i.e. the raw material is not subject to any heating history other than the baking of step (2)).
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chujo et al US 2021/0328224 A1 in view of either KR 2021-0088025 or 2023/0043533 A1.
Chujo discloses an organic sulfur modified acrylic resin (Abstract) useful as a composite sulfur electrode (0006). The materials are produced by mixing of acrylic resin and sulfur material under non-oxidizing conditions, and subsequently calcining the materials (once)(e.g. 200° for 4h) (0016; 0023; 0053-0061; 0076; 0083; 0133). The reference discloses or renders obvious each of the instantly claimed species of acrylic resin and sulfur compound, and the heating temperature/times instantly recited (para above).
While the reference teaches that additional known materials may be added to the composition (para 0080), the reference does not specify the addition of an iron compound as claimed.
KR 2021-0088025 discloses a sulfur/carbon complex positive electrode material (Abstract; 0019), wherein said material is produced by carbonization of precursor carbon material and sulfur (0054-0058). The reference specifically teaches that the addition of iron compound (iron oxide 1-10 wt%) assists in capacity loss and side reactions by preventing deterioration of reactivity (0077-0079).
US 2023/0043533 discloses a Li-S positive electrode material comprising a metal-ferrocyanide (Abstract), wherein said material is produced by carbonization of precursor carbon material and sulfur (0052-0054). The reference specifically teaches that the addition of iron compound (iron ferrocyanide 1-10 wt%) assists in capacity and cycle life (0062-63).
Accordingly, it would have been an obvious addition to the skilled artisan to add the Fe compound(s) disclosed in either KR ‘025 or US ‘533 as each teaches that such an addition improves properties of C-S electrodes. The skilled artisan would have recognized the apparent reason to combine the elements as described above, and would have the knowledge to do so. With respect to dependent claims 9-11, the examiner respectfully submits that the selection of known Fe compound/complex species would require only routine experimentation to the skilled artisan.
In view of the foregoing, the above claims have failed to patentably distinguish over the applied art.
The remaining references listed on forms 892 and 1449 have been reviewed by the examiner and are considered to be cumulative to or less material than the prior art references relied upon in the rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK T KOPEC whose telephone number is (571)272-1319. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00a-5:00p 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, Robert Jones can be reached at 5712707733. 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.
/MARK KOPEC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762
MK
July 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights