DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-3 and 6-10 are pending, of which claims 2 and 6-8 have been withdrawn.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/30/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 30, 2026 have been fully considered
On page 7 of the response, Applicant argues that, with the amendments to claim 1, the double patenting rejections are rendered moot. Examiner agrees, and the double patenting rejection has been withdrawn.
On pages 5-6 of the response, Applicant argues that the amendments to recite the container dimensions in claim 1 overcome the current rejections. Applicant argues that the container of JP 2018041657 (“Ryo”) is actually smaller than the claimed dimensions. Examiner agrees, and as such the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further search additional art has been found that meets these limitations.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR20190076767 (“Park”) in view of by Random Close Pack, published by WIKIPEDIA, the free encyclopedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/windex.php?title=Random_close_pack&oldid=528454367, dated December 17, 2012 (“Random close pack”, cited in IDS of 8/28/25) and US20200251733A1 (“Takano”).
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches a method of making a lithium nickel oxide material (see e.g. paragraphs [0039] and [0045]). Park teaches that the lithium and nickel are molded into a shape, such as a sphere (see e.g. paragraph [0030]). The molded bodies are then placed in a container and sintered (see e.g. paragraph [0032]).
Park does not explicitly teach that the fraction of space occupied by gaps within the apparent volume of the molded bodies is greater than 0.420, but does teach that the molded bodies can be spherical (see e.g. paragraph [0030]). However, as described by Random Pack, the fraction of space occupied by the gaps between spherical bodies randomly packed is about 0.375-0.44, depending on how fast the spheres are added to the container (see e.g. Random Pack, at page 2, table showing packing density and void fraction of spheres). As Park does not teach vibrating or shaking the container prior to sintering, the gaps between the spherical molded bodies of Park, when the molded bodies are placed in the container, would take up a fraction of about 0.375-0.44 of the apparent space, which overlaps with the claimed range. Particularly given the teaching in Park that the gaps between the molded bodies are important to allow for the smooth inflow of oxygen, a person of ordinary skill in the art would slowly add the molded bodies to the container in order to maximize these gaps at the higher end of the range listed in Random Pack (see e.g. paragraph [0072]). Accordingly, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to maximize the size of these gaps, increasing the flow of oxygen through the container. As taught by Random Pack, when using the spherical bodies as suggested by Park, the gaps can be maximized to a fraction of about 0.44 of the total apparent volume by gently adding the bodies to the container without vibrating, which would result in the fraction being within the claimed range (see e.g. Random Pack, at page 2, table showing packing density and void fraction of spheres).
Park teaches that the molded bodies are placed in a container for sintering, but does not teach the specific dimensions of the container (see e.g. paragraph [0062]). However, Takano teaches a similar method for forming a lithium nickel oxide material by sintering molded bodies in a container (see e.g. paragraph [0132]). Takano teaches that the container can have a depth of 100 mm, and length and width of 300 mm, each of which is within the claimed range (see e.g. Id.). Takano teaches that the method of sintering the molded bodies in such a container provides an active material having a large discharge capacity and high strength (see e.g. paragraph [0163]). Accordingly, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a container as taught by Takano in the method of Park because Takano teaches that such a container can provide an effective material for use in a battery.
Regarding claim 3, Park teaches that the molded bodies can have a longest length of between 40-60 mm, which is within the claimed range (see e.g. paragraph [0031]).
Regarding claim 10, As noted above, Park in view of Random Close Pack teach that the fraction of space occupied by the gaps between spherical bodies is about 0.375-0.44, which is within the claimed range (see e.g. Random Pack, at page 2, table showing packing density and void fraction of spheres).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Park in view of Random Close Pack teach that the fraction of space occupied by the gaps between spherical bodies is about 0.375-0.44, which is outside of the claimed range (see e.g. Random Pack, at page 2, table showing packing density and void fraction of spheres). Thus, in order to increase the fraction of space occupied by the gaps above 0.440 would require control beyond soft pouring of the material into the container, which is not taught or suggested by Park.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC S SHERMAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4784. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00 ET.
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at (571)270-3591. 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.
/E.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736