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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/12/25 (amendment filed 11/06/25) has been entered.
Claims 1-6 are pending.
Withdrawn Rejection(s)
The previous 112(a) or 112, first paragraph, rejection (new matter) of instant claims 1-6 is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment and remarks.
New Grounds of Rejection
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Interpretation
As stated in previous office actions, as no special definition appears in the instant specification, the examiner construes the claim terminology “compressing” to possess it’s normal meaning in the art (i.e. any process by which the volume of a material is reduced). Likewise, examiner construes the claim terminology “molding” to possess it’s normal meaning in the art (i.e. any process by which a material is shaped into a desired form). Additionally, the claim terminology “dry process” is interpretated as a process without the presence of a dispersion medium)(para 0017 of instant PGPUB).
Claim(s) 1, 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102)a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2001-143706A.
JP 2001-143706A discloses lithium-nickel composite oxides for positive battery electrode active materials (Abstract). The reference specifies a process wherein transition metal compounds (NiO) and lithium hydroxide are mixed (dry), and compression molded into tablets and 650°C (steps listed in reference as 626 and 629). The examiner submits that the step of compression molding the mixed powder into tablets meet both the instant steps relating to “obtaining a compressed body” and “obtaining a molded body” as the reference describes a single method step which includes both claimed processes. During patent examination, the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." The Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Because applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims during prosecution, giving a claim its broadest reasonable interpretation will reduce the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ("During patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow."); In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969). The subsequent heat-treatment and compression molding steps disclosed in the reference are not precluded by any claim terminology.
The reference is anticipatory.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2001-143706A.
JP ‘706A is relied upon as set forth above.
With respect to dependent claim 2, the examiner submits that the skilled artisan would have to utilize only routine testing in order to determine the suitable ranges of density for the compressed and molded bodies. KR ‘746 (of record) is evidence of that the densities are known result-effective variable. "[W]here 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).
In view of the foregoing, the above claims have failed to patentably distinguish over the applied art.
Allowable Subject Matter
In order to overcome the above rejection, applicant is suggested to amend the instant independent claim to recite -–wherein flakes of the compressed first mixture are granulated into course particles prior to molding the compressed body--.
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
February 2, 2026