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 amendment filed on April 15th 2026 is acknowledged. Claim 1 remains pending in the application. Claims 2-17 remain withdrawn due to the election requirement as mentioned in the previous office action. Claims 18-20 were added by the Applicant. Applicant’s arguments to the previous rejection of the claim were fully considered and are persuasive, thus the rejection of the claim is withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new rejection is made in view of Takimoto et al. US 2013/0084500 A1 in view of Liu et al. US 2016/0013474 A1. New rejections follow.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-17 are withdrawn in the application after being withdrawn due to the election requirement filed December 23rd 2025 and after the restriction was made final in the office action mailed January 23rd 2026. The claims however fail to contain the correct claim modifier “withdrawn”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 & 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takimoto et al. US 2013/0084500 A1 in view of Liu et al. US 2016/0013474 A1.
Regarding Claim 1, Takimoto discloses a lithium vanadium phosphate coated with carbon used for a positive electrode material [Abstract] wherein the lithium vanadium phosphate further comprises a metal such as zirconium [0021, 0123]. Takimoto discloses that the material comprises the general formula LixV2-yMy(PO4)z wherein 1≤x≤3, 0≤y<2, and 2≤z≤3 [0021, 0123]. Thus Takimoto discloses a lithium zirconium phosphate with the general formula LiaZrbMc(PO4)d where M is vanadium, and the subscripts are as follows:
1≤a≤3, which falls within the claimed range
0≤b<2, which overlaps with the claimed range
0<c≤2, which falls within the claimed range
2≤d≤3, which falls within the claimed range
Takimoto discloses that the lithium zirconium phosphate comprises secondary particles comprising primary particles [0027-0031], thus Takimoto discloses that the lithium zirconium phosphate is in the form of aggregated primary particles. Nakajima discloses that the average particle size is 0.5-25µm [0031], which overlaps with the claimed range.
Takimoto is silent as to the specific BET surface area and the specific tamped density of the material.
Liu discloses a lithium manganese phosphate-carbon composite material [Abstract], wherein the lithium manganese phosphate has the general formula LiMnxM1-xPO4 wherein M can be Zr and 0.6≤x≤1.0 [0021-0023], thus Liu discloses a lithium zirconium phosphate similar to that of Takimoto. Liu discloses that the material can be used as a cathode material [0079], similar to that of Takimoto as mentioned above, and further discloses that the material is coated with a conductive carbon [0022], similar to that of Takimoto [Abstract].
Liu discloses that the lithium zirconium phosphate has a BET [0054] specific surface area of 9-100 m2/g [0015], which falls within the claimed range. Liu discloses that the lithium zirconium phosphate has a mean particle diameter of 0.1-150 µm [0014], which overlaps with the claimed range, as well as overlaps with the range of particle size disclosed by Takimoto. Liu discloses that the composite material has a tamped density (tapped density) of 0.1-10 g/cm3 [0016], or 100-10,000 g/L, which overlaps with the claimed range. Further, in the embodiments, Liu discloses that primary particles are agglomerated together, thus forming secondary particles that are aggregated primary particles [0092].
Liu discloses that the characteristics such as particle size, surface area, and tamped density contribute to improving the electrical properties and volumetric energy density of the material [0017]. Liu more specifically discloses that the size of the particles influences the transmission distance of ions and electrodes in the active substance which can improve the rate performance [0017]. Liu discloses that the density of the material influences the volumetric energy density in that a higher tap density leads to a higher volumetric energy density [0017].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the lithium zirconium phosphate of Takimoto to have the properties as suggested by Liu for the disclosed benefits of improving electrical properties and volumetric energy density of the material. Examiner notes that Takimoto similarly focuses on energy density as an important factor for their invention [0013], and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would be further motivated to seek optimization of properties, such as those disclosed by Liu, in an effort to improve energy density. Thus, modified Takimoto discloses the lithium zirconium phosphate that reads on the formula of Claim 1, as well as the claimed properties such as particle size, BET surface area, and tamped density, as modified by Liu.
In regards to the mean particle diameter and the tamped density, the Examiner directs Applicant to MPEP 2144.05 I. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the overlapping ranged disclosed by Liu because selection of the overlapping portion or ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
With regards to the limitation “as determined by static light scattering (SLS)”, Examiner notes that the measurement method does not further limit the structure of the product and thus is not given undue weight.
Regarding Claim 18, modified Takimoto discloses the lithium containing zirconium phosphate as mentioned in Claim 1. Takimoto discloses that the amount of zirconium, represented in Takimoto’s formula by “y”, is 0-2 [0021, 0123], which overlaps with the claimed range for the amount of zirconium in the claimed formula, represented by “b”, in Claim 18.
Regarding Claim 19, modified Takimoto discloses the lithium containing zirconium phosphate as mentioned in Claim 1. Takimoto discloses that the amount of zirconium, represented in Takimoto’s formula by “y”, is 0-2 [0021, 0123], which overlaps with the claimed range for the amount of zirconium in the claimed formula, represented by “b”, in Claim 19.
Regarding Claim 20, modified Takimoto discloses the lithium containing zirconium phosphate as mentioned in Claim 1. Takimoto discloses that the amount of zirconium, represented in Takimoto’s formula by “y”, is 0-2 [0021, 0123], which overlaps with the claimed range for the amount of zirconium in the claimed formula, represented by “b”, in Claim 20.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA G NEWELL whose telephone number is (571)270-1088. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Jeffrey T. Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
/A.G.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/JEFFREY T BARTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1726 18 June 2026
Prosecution Insights