CTNF 18/024,846 CTNF 100177 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Election/Restrictions 08-25-01 AIA Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1: Claims 1-3 in the reply filed on 1/21/2026 is acknowledged. Specification 07-29 AIA The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The use of the terms: Filmix in Para. 55 Primix in Para. 55 Jeol in Para. 58 Thermo Fisher Scientific in Para. 58 ADF in Para. 58 Igor Pro in Para. 58 Hulink in Para. 58 VGCF in Para. 60 Toyo in Para. 62 are trade name(s) or mark(s) used in commerce, have been noted in this application. The term(s) should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term(s) should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term. Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks. The “Detailed Description” of Fig. 1 appears to be missing. 37 C.F.R. 1.74 recites: When there are drawings, there shall be a brief description of the several views of the drawings and the detailed description of the invention shall refer to the different views by specifying the numbers of the figures, and to the different parts by use of reference letters or numerals (preferably the latter) . Appropriate correction is required. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA 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. 08-34 AIA Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,374,682 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent recites all limitations except a property that the material would be reasonably expected to display . Regarding claim 1 of the instant application and claim 1 of U.S Patent No. 12,374,682, they have substantially the same subject matter because U.S. Patent No. 12,374,682 identically claims the common limitations of: An active material comprising: a core portion made of an active material base material; and a coating portion located on a surface of the core portion, wherein the coating portion contains an element A comprising at least one selected from the group consisting of titanium (Ti), zirconium (Zr), tantalum (Ta), niobium (Nb), and aluminum (Al), and While U.S. Patent No. 12,374,682 fails to explicitly teach the recitation of “the active material has two or more inflection points in a first-order derivative obtained with respect to a peak attributed to the element A, the first-order derivative being obtained based on a constituent element average intensity profile measured for the coating portion with use of an energy dispersive X-ray spectrometer,” given that the prior art, U.S Patent No. 12,374,682, discloses the same structure and composition as recited thus far by the claimed invention, a person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect it to have the claimed property of “the active material has two or more inflection points in a first-order derivative obtained with respect to a peak attributed to the element A, the first-order derivative being obtained based on a constituent element average intensity profile measured for the coating portion with use of an energy dispersive X-ray spectrometer” lacking any distinction or anything to the contrary. Thus, they would be capable of adding the property as a recitation. See MPEP 2112.01. This is further supported that the coating layer of U.S Patent No. 12,374,682 may be made of lithium, Nb, and oxygen in column 11: lines 23-31 and claim 1 as also noted in Para. 2 of page 22 of the instant specification that the coating portion contains an oxide containing lithium and niobium in Example 1. Additionally, the particle may comprise a spinel lithium-transition metal complex oxide comprising Li, Mn, Ni, and O by the spinel-type lithium-manganese-nickel-containing complex oxide in Column 13: lines 39-44 of U.S Patent No. 12,374,682, similar to the spinel-type lithium-transition metal complex oxide LMNO of Example 1 as noted in Para. 3 of page 21 of the instant specification. Additionally, the patented claim 1 recites the limitation “a half width of a peak of the element A…”. This implies that there might by two or more inflection points in the peak for element A. Peak separation is a routine technique in order to analyze peak profile and obtain relative peak intensities and widths. This means half-width and intensity peaks may be manually fitted. Because the half width of a peak has been attributed to a peak of element A. Additionally, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply routine techniques such as X-ray spectrometry to analyze peak profiles and arrive at the claimed subject matter regarding the peak derivative inflection points of element A of the claimed active material. Determining analytical parameter amounts via quantification of properties of a known composition does not render the claimed composition patentable) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miki (US 2018/0219229 A1) . Regarding claim 1, Miki teaches an active material (see e.g. composite active material particle 10 in Para. 33 and Fig. 1) comprising: a core portion made of an active material base material (see e.g. active material particle 1 of composite active material particle 10 in Para. 33 and Fig. 1); and a coating portion located on a surface of the core portion (see e.g. lithium ion conducting oxide 2 as a coating layer for the composite active material particle 10 in Para. 35 and Fig. 1), wherein the coating portion contains an element A comprising at least one selected from the group consisting of titanium (Ti), zirconium (Zr), tantalum (Ta), niobium (Nb), and aluminum (Al) (see e.g. coating layer 3 may contain Nb by the lithium niobate in Para. 35), and the active material has two or more inflection points in a first-order derivative obtained with respect to a peak attributed to the element A, the first-order derivative being obtained based on a constituent element average intensity profile measured for the coating portion with use of an energy dispersive X-ray spectrometer (see e.g. given that the prior art, Miki, discloses the same structure and composition as recited thus far by the claimed invention, a person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect it to have the claimed property of “the active material has two or more inflection points in a first-order derivative obtained with respect to a peak attributed to the element A, the first-order derivative being obtained based on a constituent element average intensity profile measured for the coating portion with use of an energy dispersive X-ray spectrometer” lacking any distinction or anything to the contrary. See MPEP 2112.01. This is further supported that the coating layer of Miki may be made of lithium niobate in Para. 35 as also noted in Para. 2 of page 22 of the instant specification that the coating portion contains an oxide containing lithium and niobium in Example 1. Additionally, the particle may comprise a spinel lithium-transition metal complex oxide comprising Li, Mn, Ni, and O by the spinel LiMn 1.5 Ni 0.5 O 4 in Para. 33 of Miki, similar to the spinel-type lithium-transition metal complex oxide LMNO of Example 1 as noted in Para. 3 of page 21 of the instant specification. Additionally, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply routine techniques such as X-ray spectrometry to analyze peak profiles and arrive at the claimed subject matter regarding the peak derivative inflection points of element A of the claimed active material. Determining analytical parameter amounts via quantification of properties of a known composition does not render the claimed composition patentable.). Regarding claim 2, Miki teaches the active material according to claim 1, wherein, when an interface between the core portion and the coating portion is defined as an origin, and at least inflection points P1 and P2 are present as the inflection points in an order from the origin in a thickness direction of the coating portion, the inflection point P1 is observed within 10 nm from the origin in the thickness direction of the coating portion (see e.g. given that the prior art, Miki, discloses the same structure and composition as recited thus far by the claimed invention, a person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect it to have the claimed property of “when an interface between the core portion and the coating portion is defined as an origin, and at least inflection points P1 and P2 are present as the inflection points in an order from the origin in a thickness direction of the coating portion, the inflection point P1 is observed within 10 nm from the origin in the thickness direction of the coating portion” lacking any distinction or anything to the contrary. See MPEP 2112.01. This is further supported that the coating layer of Miki may be made of lithium niobate in Para. 35 as also noted in Para. 2 of page 22 of the instant specification that the coating portion contains an oxide containing lithium and niobium in Example 1. Additionally, the particle may comprise a spinel lithium-transition metal complex oxide comprising Li, Mn, Ni, and O by the spinel LiMn 1.5 Ni 0.5 O 4 in Para. 33 of Miki, similar to the spinel-type lithium-transition metal complex oxide LMNO of Example 1 as noted in Para. 3 of page 21 of the instant specification. Additionally, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply routine techniques such as X-ray spectrometry to analyze peak profiles and arrive at the claimed subject matter regarding the peak derivative inflection points of element A of the claimed active material. Determining analytical parameter amounts via quantification of properties of a known composition does not render the claimed composition patentable.) Regarding claim 3, Miki teaches the active material according to claim 1, wherein the coating portion contains lithium (Li) element, the element A, and oxygen (O) element (see e.g. coating layer 3 may contain Li, Nb, and O by the lithium niobate in Para. 35) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2019/0181420 A1 teaches a spinel lithium metal nickel oxide and LiNbO 3 coating. US 2019/0260018 A1 teaches spinel-type composite oxide containing Li, Mn, O, and two or more other elements is coated with LiNbO 3 . US 2019/0221843 A1 teaches Li, Ni, Mn, O containing active core with LNbO 3 coating. US 2019/0148719 A1 teaches Li, Ni, Mn, O containing active core with LNbO 3 coating. US 2013/0209890 A1 teaches lithium-transition metal oxide particle with a part or the whole part of a surface coated with a coating layer containing lithium niobate. This was cited in the IDS filed 5/11/2023. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE J METZGER whose telephone number is (571)272-0170. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday (1st week) or Monday - Friday (2nd week) 7:30am-5:00am - 9-day biweekly schedule. 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, Tong Guo can be reached at 571-272-3066. 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. /KATHERINE J METZGER/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /CHRISTIAN ROLDAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723 April 1, 2026 Application/Control Number: 18/024,846 Page 2 Art Unit: 1723 Application/Control Number: 18/024,846 Page 3 Art Unit: 1723 Application/Control Number: 18/024,846 Page 4 Art Unit: 1723 Application/Control Number: 18/024,846 Page 5 Art Unit: 1723 Application/Control Number: 18/024,846 Page 6 Art Unit: 1723 Application/Control Number: 18/024,846 Page 7 Art Unit: 1723 Application/Control Number: 18/024,846 Page 9 Art Unit: 1723 Application/Control Number: 18/024,846 Page 10 Art Unit: 1723