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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 13, 14, 16, 18-28, 30-33 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/21/25.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
Claim(s) 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 30, 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Muramatsu (WO 2019/117281), EPO translation.
The Examiner has provided a machine translation of Muramatsu (WO 2019/117281). The citation of the prior art in this rejection refers to the machine translation.
Muramatsu describes a positive electrode (para. 1) that comprises a combination of metal hydroxide precursors (para. 1, 35, 77, para. 2) using a solvent, such as water (para. 56, 62, 77). The product is then processed and then combined with a lithium precursor, such as lithium hydroxide (para. 78). The combined product is then placed into a mold using a pellet molding machine and compressed to the desired shape and size (para. 78). Since the product made can be in the form of a pellet (para. 78), this can be considered a self-standing precursor element. The pellet is then heated at high temperature, such as 800 degrees C (para. 78, para. 2). This can be considered a calcination temperature.
As to Claim 14, Muramatsu teaches that the reagent can include lithium (para. 78).
As to Claim 16, Muramatsu teaches that the lithium hydroxide is mixed with another metal precursor in the form of a hydroxide (para. 78).
As to Claims 18 and 19, Muramtsu teaches that the mixture is mixed in water (para. 77).
As to Claim 21 and 22, Muramtsu teaches inclusion of a binder (para. 55), which can include PTFE (para. 59).
As to Claim 30, Muramtsu teaches that the heating step is performed using an air atmosphere (para. 78, para. 2).
As to Claim 31, Muramtsu teaches that the temperature of the heating step is performed at 800 degrees C (para. 78, para 2). It is noted that a specific example in the prior art which is within a claimed range anticipates the range. See MPEP 2131.03.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muramtsu.
As to Claim 1, Muramatsu teaches that the amount of cathode active material used in the pellet mould is based on the desired mass of the expected final product (para. 78, para. 2). In their process, Muramatsu does not describe inclusion of a binder. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the amount of cathode active material used is approximately 100%.
As to Claim 33, Muramatsu teaches heating that includes a preheating step (see para. 78), followed by cooling (para. 78). The reference does not describe an additional heating step.
Claim(s) 10, 25, 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muramtsu as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Randell (WO 01/99214).
Muramtsu does not describe forming the product into the shapes described in Claims 10, 25 and 26.
Randell explains that their cathode material for use in an alkaline electrochemical cell (abstract). The material contains a cathode that is formed into pellets made by compressing them (page 17, lines 10-15). The cathode pellets may have gaps between the pellets formed using layers of separator between the pellets (page 17, lines 20-24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the product by compressing them into pellets and then combining them with gaps between them and use of layers separating the pellets, as taught by Randell for use with the cathode material of Muramtsu because this structure is known to be effective in making a cathode-containing for use in an alkaline electrochemical cell.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muramatsu as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Senda (JP 2016/201209).
Senda teaches a lithium battery for use in positive electrodes (title). The material is adjusted to have a density of 1.6-2.0 g/cm3 (abstract, “description, para. 1).
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 density of the positive electrode to a range of 1.6-2.0 g/cm3, as taught by Senda for use with the process of Muramatsu because this density is known to be effective for use in a cathode material.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muramtsu as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Durkot (CN 1947281).
The reference does not describe use of a solvent in an amount of 0.1-20weight %.
Durkot describes a cathode battery composition (title). The composition includes a mixture of transition metal oxides combined with water in an amount of 1.6wt% (see pag 20, #5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a solvent in an amount of 1.6%, as taught by Durkot for use with the electrode making solution of Muramtsu because this amount is known to effectively combine and blend the transition metal precursors for use in forming the desired cathode product.
Claim(s) 23, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muramtsu.
Muramtsu teaches that the binder can be in the mixture in an amount of 1-50wt% (para. 59). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges overlap or are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 I.”
As to Claim 24, Muramtsu teaches that when the transition metal precursor used is heated to calcination temperature, the electrode active material generates many pores (para. 41, para 2). Therefore, since the product includes transition metal precursors that are heated to calcination temperature, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the same process used with the same compounds would produce the same results.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muramtsu as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of He (US Pub.: 2017/0282134).
The reference does not describe that the cathode has a density of 1.9-2.3 g/cm3.
He describes a method of making a lithium battery composition (para. 2, 3). The material can be adjusted to have different densities (para. 4). A density can be from 2.3 g/cm3 (para. 4).
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 density of the product to have a value of 2.3 g/cm3, as taught by He for use with the cathode material of Muramtsu because this density is known to be effective for use in a cathode composition and therefore lead to predictable and expected results.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muramatsu as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Delmas (NO 322407).
The reference does not describe use of a substrate while heating.
Delmas describes a method of making a cathode material (title). The method comprises use of a substrate and then coating that substrate with a cathode material (abstract). In their process, Delmas explains that the substrate may be in the form of a solid plate (page 3, lines 19-20). The solid plate is coated with the cathode solution where it is placed into an oven and calcined (see page 4, lines 8-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a substrate in the form of a solid plate, as taught by Delmas for use with the process of making the cathode in Muramatsu because this product used this way is known to effectively support the cathode material when dip coating the solution for application on a substrate.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muramatsu as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Proshkin (CN 107709624).
The reference does not describe use of a substrate while heating.
Proshkin describes a cathode assembly production means (title) that employs a carbon block that fills the bottom space of the furnace (see description of Fig. 1). The reference explains that this method is a known mounting method for use when heating (see Background, para. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a carbon block in the heating furnace, as taught by Proshkin for use with the process of Muramatsu because Proshkin explains that this is known to be used as an effective mounting method.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHENG HAN DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5823. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Fung Coris can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/SHENG H DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 February 20, 2026