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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/5/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the rejection of Claims 1-8 and 10-13 is/are rejected 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 and arguments. Claim 1 has been amended to replace the range of V-_tip from 0.2-20 m/sec with the range of 0.981747704-10 m/sec.
Applicant argues “the tip velocity of the impeller in the reactor is controlled within a highly specific range of 0.981747704 m/sec. to 10 m/sec., and the variation in the particle size of lithium peroxide depending on the impeller tip velocity is disclosed in Tables 1 to 3. In contrast, Lee does not contain any information regarding a tip speed of a stirrer in a reactor, and only discloses a wide range of RPMs regarding a stirring speed of the step of precipitating lithium peroxide, and an example in which stirring is performed at 100 to 200 RPM as a specific example. In addition, there is no correlation between a stirring speed and a particle size of lithium peroxide, and no specific example of the same.” [Remarks, Page 7, Paragraph 4-5]. This is unpersuasive. It is noted that Tables 1 to 3 disclose particles sizes of 10-50 µm, while Lee et al. discloses particle sizes of about 20 µm. Therefore if particle size is determined by V-_tip then Lee et al. must have necessarily had a V-_tip within the claimed range.
Furthermore, the Office Action dated 11/05/2025 stated “it is understood from Figure 5 that the V_tip would have had to have been approximately 4.7 m/sec regardless of the size of the reactor used in Lee et al., which is within the range claimed” [Page 4, Paragraph 2]. Applicant presents no arguments that the V_tip of Lee et al. would have been anything other than approximately 4.7 m/sec in Example 1 which is still within the narrower range presented by amended Claim 1.
Applicant further argues “the specific tip velocity range of the present invention cannot be reasonably derived from Lee.”. This is unpersuasive. Although the above analysis to approximate the V_tip of Lee et al. uses the instant application as a reference the rejections presented do not allege that Lee et al. allows one of ordinary skill in the art to have derived the V_tip, but merely that one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the same V_tip when making Li2O2 particles, whether or not they were aware of the V_tip during the reaction.
Applicant further argues “Yoshitomo relates to a method for preparing a cathode active material capable of constituting a high energy density non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery, and thus, its purpose and effects are entirely different not only from those of the present invention, but also from those of Lee. Moreover, Yoshitomo does not disclose any information regarding the tip velocity.
Therefore, there is no motivation to combine Lee and Yoshitomo, and even if they were combined, it would still be impossible to derive the characteristic tip velocity range of the present invention” [Remarks, Page 8, Paragraph 3-4]. This is unpersuasive. Firstly it is noted that the rejections presented do not rely on one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the method steps performed by Lee et al. with the method steps performed by Yoshitomo et al. Yoshitomo et al. is brought into the rejection as an evidentiary reference to show that one of ordinary skill in the art would know that particle size and stirring speed are related as a results effective variable. In other words, one of ordinary skill in the art would know that by changing stirring speed (and thus necessarily V_tip as well) one could change the particle size to whatever size was desired. Secondly it is not required that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to recognize that the tip velocity was within the range claimed for one of ordinary skill in the art to have used a tip velocity within the range claimed to have precipitated Li2O2 particles. The rejections are MAINTAINED.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over KR 20180074071 A Lee et al as evidenced by JP2021044093 A Yoshitomo 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 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 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, it 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 Yoshitomo et al. (“The particle size of the precipitate can be controlled by adjusting the temperature, pH, stirring speed, etc. of the reaction space ... Furthermore, it is possible to control the particle size of the precipitate by adjusting the aging time after the start of precipitation of the precipitate, the stirring speed, and the like.” Paragraph 20). It is worth noting that although Yoshitomo et al. is not directed to the crystallization of Li2O2 from an aqueous solution it is directed at the crystallization of mixed lithium oxides from an aqueous solution and the effects of temperature, pH, stirring speed, and aging time are reasonably expected to be similar if not the same. 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 the 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.
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 2 requires “the particle size of the prepared lithium peroxide is in the range of 1 µm to 130 µm.”. Lee et al. discloses particle sizes of prepared Li2O2 in Figure 1 and Figure 2 which range from about 3 µm to about 50 µm.
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”. See Claim 1 (above) for why Lee et al. inherently meets determining the particle size by adjusting the stirring RPM.
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 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
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