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 .
Response to Arguments
With respect to the rejection of Claims 1-8 and 10-13 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lee et al as evidenced by Yoshitomo et al., as understood the traversal relies on amendments. Applicant has amended Claim 1 to include the limitations of “a reactor including a baffle” and “the particle size of the prepared lithium peroxide is in the range of 5 µm to 50 µm”. Applicant argues “Lee discloses only an RPM range and is entirely silent as to the size of the reactor and the radius of the stirrer blade. Accordingly, the disclosure of Lee alone does not make it possible to determine whether the stirring conditions of Lee fall within the tip velocity range of the present invention.” [Remarks, Page 8, Paragraph 1]. This is unpersuasive. The Office Action dated 3/10/2026 presented a rejection that showed the tip velocity of Lee et al. would have been approximately 4.9 m/sec in order to form the 20 µm Li2O2 particles. The present remarks do not address this portion of the rejection and therefore the analysis is presumed correct.
Applicant further argues “Specifically, the present invention employs a reactor equipped with a baffle. Accordingly, the particle size of lithium peroxide can be controlled by adjusting the collision energy between particles induced by the baffle and the tip velocity of the stirrer. In contrast, Lee merely performs stirring in a flask and neither discloses nor suggests any internal structure such as a baffle.” [Remarks, Page 8, Paragraph 3]. While this is persuasive, as Lee et al. is silent towards a baffle, new rejections appear below, necessitated by applicant’s 6/23/2026 amendments.
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 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, 3-8, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20180074071 A Lee et al., in view of US 20130334122 A1 Keyser et al. Claim 1 requires “A method of controlling a particle size of lithium peroxide, wherein the lithium peroxide is produced by reacting lithium hydroxide hydrate with hydrogen peroxide in a reactor including a baffle to prepare lithium peroxide”. Lee et al. discloses in Example 1 (“100 ml of 35 wt.% hydrogen peroxide was added to a flask under controlled atmosphere at room temperature … Then, 125 g of lithium hydroxide hydrate was injected … the material remaining on the filter was dried in a vacuum oven at 75°C for 7 hours to obtain lithium peroxide.” Paragraph 68-71). Lee et al. further discloses controlling the particle size (“a uniform particle size is achieved in the step of producing lithium peroxide” Paragraph 8). However Lee et al. is silent towards a baffled reactor.
Keyser et al. is directed toward controlling the particle size of synthesized zirconium silicate. Although Keyser et al. is not in the same art as Lee et al. it would have nonetheless been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teachings of Keyser et al. and Lee et al. together because they both relate to solutions for the same problem, namely controlling the particle size of a precipitate formed from the aqueous reaction of precursor solutions. MPEP 2141.01(a). Regarding a baffled reactor Keyser et al. discloses “The following examples demonstrate that through careful control of the agitation rate in a reactor having baffles an end-sized absorber can be obtained without the use of screening steps.” [0034]. It is also noted that one further difference in the method of Lee et al. and Keyser et al. is the scale, Lee et al. performs reactions at a small scale, or “lab bench” scale (≈ 100 mL and/or ≈ 100 g) while Keyser et al. discloses performing reactions on a large scale or industrial sized scale (≈50 L or ≈10 kg). One with ordinary skill in the art would know that uniform mixing is more difficult at larger scales and that while the method of Lee et al. as disclosed does not require a baffled reactor as the scale of the reaction increases a known solution to mixing, such as a baffle, would have benefits to uniformity, which Lee et al. teaches is advantageous (“However, these technologies [prior art] based on the precipitation of lithium hydroxide have the disadvantages of not being able to control the particle distribution (particle size) of the solid precipitate, … One embodiment of the present invention provides a method for producing lithium oxide, which is a precursor of lithium nickel oxide (Li2NiO2), in which a uniform particle size is achieved in the step of producing lithium peroxide” [0008-0009]).
The motivation to have used the baffled reactor taught by Keyser et al. in the method of Lee et al. is therefore to maintain the precise control of particle size while being able to scale up the process (which has the obvious benefit of increased revenue while maintaining quality).
Claim 1 further requires “a shape of the lithium peroxide is spherical”. Lee et al. does not disclose particle morphology; however the particle shape is determined by the synthesis method and because the synthesis method of forming solid Li2O2 from aqueous LiOH and aqueous H2O2 under stirring is the same in Lee et al. as in the instant application, the Li2O2 particles formed by Lee et al. would have inherently been spherical or approximately spherical whether disclosed or not. As the USPTO does not have the resources required to synthesize Li2O2 and measure particle shape, in accordance with MPEP 2112.V, the burden of proving that the particles of Lee et al. would not have been spherical has shifted to the applicant.
Or, alternatively, whatever differences there are in particle shape, to the extent that there are any, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the particles’ shape (e.g. by grinding, agglomeration, etc.) to achieve any desired shape, such as that claimed- changes in size and shape are not patently distinct over the prior art absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention is significant. See MPEP 2144.04 IVA-B, citing In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459 (CCPA 1955), In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048 (CCPA 1976), Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830 (1984), and In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669 (CCPA 1966).
Claim 1 further requires “the particle size is controlled by adjusting a tip velocity of a stirrer in the reactor”. Lee et al. discloses a range of stirring RPM that one may adjust the stirrer to (“The step of adding lithium (Li) raw material to the pH-controlled aqueous peroxide solution to precipitate lithium peroxide can be performed under stirring at a stirring speed of 100 rpm or more and 1000 rpm or less.” Paragraph 17), but does not teach that this affects particle size. However it is known in the art that stirring speed affects particle size as evidenced by Keyser et al. (“The following examples demonstrate that through careful control of the agitation rate in a reactor having baffles an end-sized absorber can be obtained without the use of screening steps.” [0034]). “end-sized” simply refers to a particle that does not need further processing (grinding, sieving, crushing, etc.) to be the size desired. Therefore as Lee et al. varies the stirring speed from 100 to 1,000 RPM (and thus necessarily the tip velocity varies as well) the particle size would have inherently been determined, at least in part, by the stirring speed. Because the USPTO does not have the resources required to synthesize Li2O2 at various stirring speeds and measure particle size, in accordance with MPEP 2112 V, the burden of proving that the particles of Lee et al. would not have changed size as tip velocity was changed has shifted to applicant.
Claim 1 further requires “the tip velocity of the stirrer in the reactor is in the range of 0.981747704 m/sec. to 10 m/sec., and … the tip velocity is calculated by the equation: V_tip = 2pi x R_impellor * (RPM)/(60 sec/min) wherein, in the above equation, V-tip is a tip velocity, Pi is a circumference, R-impellor is a radius of the stirrer blade, and RPM is the number of revolutions per minute of the stirrer blade.” Lee et al. does not explicitly disclose tip velocity, or provide the dimensions of the reactor such that a tip velocity could be calculated. However, given that the claimed range is large (1 order of magnitude) and the disclosed stirring speed range of Lee et al. is similarly large (“The step of adding lithium (Li) raw material to the pH-controlled aqueous peroxide solution to precipitate lithium peroxide can be performed under stirring at a stirring speed of 100 rpm or more and 1000 rpm or less.” Paragraph 17) it would not be reasonable to expect that there is no overlap. Furthermore the range of RPM disclosed by Lee et al. (100-1,000) covers the range of RPM of the instant application (150-750) which further suggests it would not be reasonable to expect no overlap in tip velocity.
The Applicant has attested that “an analysis of the data from Examples 1 to 3 clearly demonstrates, through Table 4 and Figure 5 in paragraphs [0073] to [0075], that regardless of the reactor size, the tip velocity and the average particle size (D50) of Li2O2 exhibit the following relationship [and reproduces both Table 4 and Figure 5]” [Remarks dated 10/17/2025, Page 4, Paragraph 4]. Table 4 shows that a V_tip of about 4.9 m/sec produces Li2O2 particles of about 20 µm. Lee et al. discloses Li2O2 particles of about 20 µm (see Figure 1) and therefore it is understood that regardless of reactor size the V_tip used by Lee et al. must have been about 4.9 m/sec, which is within the range claimed.
Claim 1 further requires “the particle size of the prepared lithium peroxide is in the range of 5 µm to 50 µm”. Lee et al. discloses Li2O2 particles of about 20 µm (see Figure 1).
It has been held that where claimed and prior art products are produced by identical or substantially similar methods, a prima facie case of anticipation or obviousness has been established. MPEP 2112.01, citing In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977). In other words, if the prior art teaches or at least suggests the claims' positive method steps, it matters not whether the prior art also teaches or suggests the features of the intended result of performing said steps — it would not be reasonable to expect different results when performing identical or at least substantially similar steps. In this case the prior art shows an identical or sustainably similar method for all steps performed except the determination of V_tip and the end result is an identical or sustainably similar product (Li2O/Li2O2 particles of a specific size). Therefore it would not be reasonable to expect that the V_tip of Lee et al. could have been anything other than what is claimed, otherwise two distinct processes would have to produce the same product. As the USPTO does not have the resources required to synthesize Li2O2 at various stirring speeds and measure particle size, in accordance with MPEP 2112.V, the burden of proving that the particles of Lee et al. would not have had a tip velocity of between 0.981747704 m/sec to 10 m/sec has shifted to the applicant.
Claim 3 requires “an equivalent molar ratio of lithium hydroxide hydrate to hydrogen peroxide is 4:1 to 1:1.” In Example 1 Lee et al. discloses a molar ratio of 2.57:1 (“100 ml of 35 wt.% hydrogen peroxide was added to a flask under controlled atmosphere at room temperature … Then, 125 g of lithium hydroxide hydrate was injected” Paragraph 68-69). Example 1 uses 2.98 mol LiOH-H2O (125 g LiOH-H2O / (41.9615 g LiOH-H2O / 1 mol LiOH-H2O) = 2.98 mol LiOH-H2O) and 1.16 mol H2O2 (100 mL * 1.13 g/mL * 0.35 = 39.55 g H2O2, and 39.55 g H2O2 / 34.0146 g/mol H2O2 = 1.16 mol H2O2). Therefore the ratio is 2.98:1.16 or 2.57:1 and within the range claimed.
Claim 4 requires “a reaction temperature is in the range of 30 °C to 60 °C”, Lee et al. discloses 45 °C (“adjusting the temperature of the hydrogen peroxide to 45°C.” Paragraph 68). Claim 4 further requires “a reaction time is 30 minutes to 90 minutes.”, Lee et al. discloses 60 minutes (“the reaction was carried out for 1 hour” Paragraph 70).
Claim 5 requires ” A method of preparing a lithium peroxide having a controlled particle size, comprising (1) reacting lithium hydroxide hydrate with hydrogen peroxide to prepare lithium peroxide”. Lee et al. discloses in Example 1 (“100 ml of 35 wt.% hydrogen peroxide was added to a flask under controlled atmosphere at room temperature … Then, 125 g of lithium hydroxide hydrate was injected … the material remaining on the filter was dried in a vacuum oven at 75°C for 7 hours to obtain lithium peroxide.” Paragraph 68-71). Lee et al. further discloses controlling the particle size (“a uniform particle size is achieved in the step of producing lithium peroxide” Paragraph 8).
Claim 5 further requires “(2) decomposing the lithium peroxide at a high temperature under an inert atmosphere to prepare lithium oxide”. Lee et al. discloses (“After rapidly crushing the obtained lithium peroxide, 10 g was transferred to an alumina crucible. After placing this crucible in the kiln, an inert atmosphere was created. After the atmosphere was completely established, heat treatment was started, and the temperature was increased at a rate of 5°C per minute to 425°C for 3 hours, then increased to 950°C for 2 hours to produce lithium oxide” Paragraph 7).
Claim 5 further requires “wherein in the (1) process, the particle size of lithium peroxide is controlled by adjusting a tip velocity of a stirrer in a reactor including a baffle”. See Claim 1 (above) for why Lee et al. inherently meets determining the particle size by adjusting the stirring RPM and for why it would have been obvious to have included a baffle when considering Lee et al. in view of Keyser et al.
Claim 5 further requires “the tip velocity of the stirrer in the reactor is in the range of 0.981747704 m/sec. to 10 m/sec., and … the tip velocity is calculated by the equation: V_tip = 2pi x R_impellor * (RPM)/(60 sec/min) wherein, in the above equation, V-tip is a tip velocity, Pi is a circumference, R-impellor is a radius of the stirrer blade, and RPM is the number of revolutions per minute of the stirrer blade.”. See Claim 1 (above) for why Lee et al. inherently meets the tip velocity claimed.
Claim 5 further requires “the particle size of the prepared lithium peroxide is in the range of 5 µm to 50 µm”. Lee et al. discloses Li2O2 particles of about 20 µm (see Figure 1).
Claim 6 requires “a particle size of lithium oxide prepared in the (2) process is determined by the following equation: (lithium oxide particle size) = a x exp(b x V-tip), wherein a and b are process constants wherein, in the above equation, a and b are engineering constant values, 20<a<60 with units of µm, and -0.3<b<-0.1 with units of sec/m”. Lee et al. does not disclose an equation that relates particle size to V_tip, however since Lee et al. discloses similar RPMs of stirring (“The step of adding lithium (Li) raw material to the pH-controlled aqueous peroxide solution to precipitate lithium peroxide can be performed under stirring at a stirring speed of 100 rpm or more and 1000 rpm or less.” Paragraph 17) compared to the instant invention (150-750 RPM, Table 3 pages 17-20) and the particle size of Li2O2 achieved is similar (Figure 1 and Figure 2 show about 3 µm to about 50 µm) to the particle size of Li2O2 given in the instant application (14.9 µm to 48.5 µm) it is believed that the particle size of the calcined Li2O particles of Lee et al. would inherently satisfy the equation given by Claim 6. Because the USPTO does not have the resources required to synthesize Li2O and measure how tip velocity influences particle size, in accordance with MPEP 2112.V, the burden of proving that the particles of Lee et al. would not have satisfied the equation set forth in Claim 6 has shifted to the applicant.
Claims 7 and 8 require “the particle size of lithium oxide prepared in the (2) process is 50 to 80%, of the particle size of lithium peroxide prepared in the (1) process.” or in the case of Claim 8 the range 60 to 70% is required instead of 50 to 80%. Lee et al. does not disclose the size of synthesized Li2O particles (to compare with the Li2O2 particle size given by Figure 1 and Figure 2), however it is believed that the Li2O2 particles of Lee et al. would have undergone similar shrinkage to the Li2O2 particles of the instant invention because the heat treatment step (2) in the instant application (Specification page 21 lines 9-11) is identical to the heat treatment step of Lee et al. given in Claim 5 (see Claim 12).
Claim 10 requires “the particle size of lithium oxide is in the range of 1 µm to 100 µm.”. Lee et al. does not disclose the particle size of Li2O, however they do disclose that Li2O2 particle sizes range from about 3 µm to about 50 µm (Figure 1 and Figure 2). While some shrinkage is expected shrinking by a factor of 3-50 (such that all particles were less than 1 µm) would be extreme and unexpected. Furthermore particle growth (such that all particles were greater than 100 µm) would be unexpected as no physical mechanism for this is currently known. See Claim 7 and 8 for why particles are expected to shrink by about 50 to 80%.
Claim 11 requires “the faster the tip velocity, the smaller the size of the produced particles.”. Lee et al. does not disclose that a faster tip velocity leads to smaller particles sizes, however this is believed to be inherent to the synthesis of Li2O2 from LiOH and H2O2. Because the USPTO does not have the resources required to synthesize Li2O2 and measure how tip velocity influences particle size, in accordance with MPEP 2112.V, the burden of proving that the particles of Lee et al. would not have remained the same size or grown larger when tip velocity increases has shifted to the applicant.
Claim 12 requires “in the (2) process, a reaction temperature is greater than or equal to 300 °C”, Lee et al. discloses 950 °C (“After the atmosphere was completely established, heat treatment was started, and the temperature was increased at a rate of 5°C per minute to 425°C for 3 hours, then increased to 950°C for 2 hours to produce lithium oxide” Paragraph 7).
Claim 13 requires “a reaction time of the (2) process is greater than or equal to 30 minutes to 3 hours.”. Lee et al. discloses between 2-10 hours (“The above first heat treatment step may be performed for a time period of 1 hour or more and 5 hours or less, and the above second heat treatment step may be performed for a time period of 1 hour or more and 5 hours or less.” Paragraph 59). Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the/any 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 JOSHUA MAXWELL SPEER whose telephone number is (703)756-5471. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm 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, 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.
/JOSHUA MAXWELL SPEER/
Examiner
Art Unit 1736
/DANIEL BERNS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights