Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/006,510

MANUFACTURING METHOD OF ANODE ACTIVE MATERIAL AND SECONDARY BATTERY COMPRISING THE SAME

Final Rejection §DP
Filed
Jan 23, 2023
Examiner
OTERO, KENNETH MAX
Art Unit
1725
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Fic Advanced Materials Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
50%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
50%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 50% of resolved cases
50%
Career Allow Rate
4 granted / 8 resolved
-15.0% vs TC avg
Minimal +0% lift
Without
With
+0.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
66 currently pending
Career history
74
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
53.7%
+13.7% vs TC avg
§102
18.4%
-21.6% vs TC avg
§112
13.4%
-26.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 8 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
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 Amendment The amendments filed on 11/19/2025 have been entered. Claim 1 is amended and Claims 1-3 are pending. The claims 1-3 would be in condition for allowance if the double patenting rejection is overcome. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. The previous nonstatuatory double patenting rejections of record from the Office Action filed 08/21/2025 are withdrawn in view of the amendments to Claim 1 of the current application. Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/358315 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because amended Claim 1 recites a method for preparing an anode active material comprising the steps of: preparing intermediate-stage particles by pulverizing and spheroidizing flaky graphite particles; immersing the intermediate-stage particles in hexane and then drying the intermediate-stage particles to prepare the intermediate-stage particles having a surface treated with hexane; preparing coated particles by mixing the hexane-treated intermediate-stage particles with composite particles having a smaller size than the intermediate-stage particles, and performing a mechanochemical reaction thereon under a dry condition to coat the surface of the intermediate-stage particles with the composite particles; and spheroidizing the coated particles and coating the surface thereof with amorphous carbon to prepare spherical graphite. Claim 1 of the reference application recites a lithium secondary battery comprising an anode including spherical graphite particles as an anode active material, wherein the spherical graphite particles are manufactured by the steps of: Obtaining graphite byproduct particles having a particle size of 3 to 6 μm in a step of pulverizing and spheroidizing flaky graphite particles having a particle size of 30 to 200 μm; immersing the graphite byproduct particles in hexane for 10 to 30 seconds followed by drying thereby preparing the byproduct particles whose surface is subjected to surface treatment with hexane; preparing coated particles by mixing the graphite byproduct particles surface-treated with hexane, and composite particles having a particle size of 10 to 200 nm, and performing a mechanochemical reaction under a dry condition thereon to coat the surface of the graphite byproduct particles with the composite particles; and spheroidizing the coated particles and coating the surface thereof with amorphous carbon to prepare spherical graphite particles. This is substantially the same method resulting in a substantially similar product. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, filed 11/19/2025, with respect to amended claim 1, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C 102 (a)(1) rejection of Claims 1-3 has been withdrawn. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the 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 KENNETH MAX OTERO whose telephone number is (571)272-2559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F Generally 7:30-430. 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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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. /K.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1725 /NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 23, 2023
Application Filed
Aug 18, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §DP
Nov 19, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 13, 2026
Final Rejection — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12555864
BATTERY COVER
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12548780
BATTERY AND LAMINATED BATTERY
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12494505
SOLID ELECTROLYTE MATERIAL AND BATTERY IN WHICH SAME IS USED
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 09, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 3 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
50%
Grant Probability
50%
With Interview (+0.0%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 8 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month