Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 29, 2026
Application No. 18/087,064

TERNARY POSITIVE ELECTRODE MATERIAL WITH LOW GAS GENERATION AND HIGH CAPACITY

Non-Final OA §DOUBLEPATENT
Filed
Dec 22, 2022
Priority
Jun 28, 2019 — CN 201910578176.8 +2 more
Examiner
BARCENA, CARLOS
Art Unit
1723
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
CONTEMPORARY AMPEREX TECHNOLOGY (HONG KONG) LIMITED
OA Round
2 (Non-Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
2-3
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allowance Rate
895 granted / 1115 resolved
+15.3% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+12.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
26 currently pending
Career history
1143
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.7%
-39.3% vs TC avg
§103
70.7%
+30.7% vs TC avg
§102
10.0%
-30.0% vs TC avg
§112
10.0%
-30.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1115 resolved cases

Office Action

§DOUBLEPATENT
DETAILED ACTION Status of Claims The amendment filed 09/29/2025 has been entered. Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The previous double patenting rejection is maintained. See Response to Arguments. Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-16 remain pending. 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. Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,569,510. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the same subject matter with overlapping ranges is recited. Response to Arguments Applicant argues (1), the molecular ratios y, z, and k are different, B is excluded from the coating list, and (3) instant claim further adds limitations on the specific surface area, coating element content per unit volume, and residual lithium on a surface of the positive electrode material. With respect to (1), Applicant has amended instant claim 1 to recite the same values for x, y, z, k, p, r, and m as in conflicting claim 1. With respect to (2), despite Applicant excluding boron from the list, conflicting claim 1 still reads on the remaining 11 elements. With respect to (3), conflicting claim 1 recites the same coating element content per unit volume Mv, and residual lithium on a surface of the positive electrode material. Values of 0.3 to 5.5 for (BET2-BET1)/BET1 in the conflicting claim 1 overlap instant claim values 3.3 to 5.5. For these reasons the double patenting rejection is maintained. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 16 is allowable. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CARLOS BARCENA whose telephone number is (571)270-5780. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8-5 pm. 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, Milton I Cano can be reached at (313)446-4937. 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. /CARLOS BARCENA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 22, 2022
Application Filed
Jul 30, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DOUBLEPATENT
Sep 29, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 10, 2025
Final Rejection mailed — §DOUBLEPATENT
Dec 09, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12640397
IONIC LIQUID, ELECTROLYTE FOR SECONDARY BATTERY INCLUDING IONIC LIQUID, AND SECONDARY BATTERY INCLUDING ELECTROLYTE
3y 7m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12640398
LITHIUM-ION BATTERY AND BATTERY MODULE, BATTERY PACK, AND ELECTRIC APPARATUS CONTAINING SAME
3y 4m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12633573
NONAQUEOUS ELECTROLYTE ENERGY STORAGE DEVICE AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING THE SAME
3y 5m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12633516
PROCESS FOR MAKING A DOPED CATHODE ACTIVE MATERIAL
3y 1m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12626963
POWER STORAGE CELL
4y 2m to grant Granted May 12, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

2-3
Expected OA Rounds
80%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+12.5%)
2y 9m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1115 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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