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/Restriction
Claim 1 would be allowable, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues below notwithstanding. Claims 3 and 9–12, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of a restriction requirement, require all the limitations of an allowable claim. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(a), the restriction requirement among Species 1–5, as set forth in the Office action mailed on 11/03/25, is hereby withdrawn and claims 3 and 9–12 hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment and arguments, filed 05/27/26, have been fully considered. Claim(s) 1 and 4–8 is/are amended; claim(s) 13 and 14 stand(s) as originally or previously presented; claim(s) 2 is/are canceled; and claim(s) 3 and 9–12 are rejoined, with claims 9–12 amended; no new matter has been added. Examiner affirms that the original disclosure provides adequate support for the amendment.
Upon considering said amendment and arguments, the previous specification and claim objections as well as 35 U.S.C. 102, and 103 rejections set forth in the Office Action mailed 02/27/26 has/have been withdrawn. Additionally, although Applicant requests to hold the pending provisional, non-statutory double-patenting rejection in abeyance—which, per MPEP 804 (I)(B)(1), is prohibited—Examiner considers Applicant’s amendment a bona fide attempt to patentably distinguish the claims. Thus, the response is deemed complete, and the pending double-patenting rejection is also withdrawn. Moreover, some of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn, though some (specifically rejection of claim 1 due to “the core”) have been maintained and altered as necessitated by amendment. Applicant’s amendment further necessitated the new grounds of rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text forming the basis for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) may be found in a prior Office Action.
Claims 1 and 3–14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the Mp+/M in the core is different than in the shell of the secondary particle, and the Mp+/M in the core is different than in the shell of the primary particle” in lines 11–13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for either recitation of “the core” because multiple cores are implicitly previously recited by allowing the secondary particle, at least one primary particle, and/or at least one crystallite to include a core and shell. Each of these cores carries a different meaning and, thus, interpretation based on the specification (e.g., ¶ 13 and throughout specification). Specifically, one skilled in the art would understand the core of a secondary particle to entail the interior of aggregated primary particles—implied from claim 1’s “secondary particle [that] includes at least two primary particles”—the core of a primary particle to entail the interior of the primary particle and including at least one crystallite—implied from claim 1’s “each primary particle includes at least one crystallite”—and the core of a crystallite to be the interior of the crystallite. Thus, because it is unclear which core “the core” references within the cited limitation, the intended scope is unclear.
The specification’s ¶ 99 and 100 describe controlling Mp+/M to differ in the respective core/shell of the secondary particle or primary particle. Thus, for this Office Action claim 1 will be interpreted to require a “core” associated with its respective “shell” in the secondary particle and primary particle, consistent with ¶ 99 and 100.
Claim 3 recites “the Mp+/M in the core is different than in the shell of the crystallite” (lines 1 and 2). Besides encountering the same issue with “the core” as above, as claim 1 implicitly recites at least two crystallites (see “the secondary particle includes at least two primary particles, and each primary particle includes at least one crystallite” in lines 4–6, as well as “at least one of the secondary particle, the primary particles, or the crystallites comprises a core and a shell” in lines 7 and 8), it is unclear which crystallite “the crystallite” references.
The spec.’s ¶ 79 describes that a given primary particle may include one crystallite or at least two crystallites, while claim 1 requires “each primary particle includes at least one crystallite”. Further, ¶ 102 and 103 appear to describe controlling Mp+/M to differ in the respective core/shell of a given crystallite. Thus, for this Office Action claim 3 will be interpreted to reference “at least one of the crystallites” and include a “core” associated with its respective “shell” in a given crystallite, consistent with ¶ 79, 102, and 103 as well as claim 1.
Claim 4 recites “at least one of the secondary particle, the primary particles, or the crystallite includes an oxidation state gradient portion in which the Mp+/M has a gradient toward the center from the surface of the selected at least one” (lines 2–4). As claim 1 implicitly recites at least two crystallites (see above), it is unclear which crystallite “the crystallite” references.
The spec.’s ¶ 112 appears to describe that a given crystallite may include an oxidation state gradient portion in which Mp+/M has a gradient toward the center from the surface of the crystallite. Thus, for this Office Action claim 4 will be interpreted to reference “at least one of the crystallites”, consistent with ¶ 112 and claim 1.
Claim 5 recites “in at least one of the primary particles, or the crystallite, the Ni2+/Ni3+ is higher in the shell than in the core” (lines 2 and 3). As claim 1 implicitly recites at least two crystallites (see above), it is unclear which crystallite “the crystallite” references.
The spec.’s ¶ 143 appears to describe that, in a given crystallite, the Ni2+/Ni3+ may be higher in the shell than in the core. Thus, for this Office Action claim 5 will be interpreted to reference “at least one of the crystallites”, consistent with ¶ 143 and claim 1.
Claims 6 and 7 respectively recite “at least one of the secondary particle, the primary particles, or the crystallite includes an oxidation state gradient portion in which the Ni2+/M decreases toward the center from the surface of the selected at least one” (lines 2–4) and “at least one of the secondary particle, the primary particles, or the crystallite includes an oxidation state gradient portion in which the Ni3+/M increases toward the center from the surface of the selected at least one” (lines 2–4). As claim 1 implicitly recites at least two crystallites (see above), it is unclear which crystallite “the crystallite” references.
The spec.’s ¶ 144 and 145 appear to describe that a given crystallite can possess the Ni2+/M and Ni3+/M gradient portions. Thus, for this Office Action claims 6 and 7 will each be interpreted to reference “at least one of the crystallites”, consistent with ¶ 144 and 145 and claim 1.
Claim 8 recites “in at least one of the secondary particle, the primary particles, or the crystallite, the Ni2+/Ni3+ is higher than 1 in the shell” (lines 2–4). As claim 1 implicitly recites at least two crystallites (see above), it is unclear which crystallite “the crystallite” references.
The spec.’s ¶ 147 appears to describe that, in a given crystallite, Ni2+/Ni3+ may be higher than 1 in the shell. Thus, for this Office Action claim 8 will be interpreted to reference “at least one of the crystallites”, consistent with ¶ 147 and claim 1.
Claim 9 recites “in at least one of the secondary particle, the primary particles, or the crystallite, the Mn3+/Mn4+ is higher in the shell than in the core” (lines 2 and 3). As claim 1 implicitly recites at least two crystallites (see above), it is unclear which crystallite “the crystallite” references.
The spec.’s ¶ 149 appears to describe that, in a given crystallite, Mn3+/Mn4+ may be higher in the shell than in the core. Thus, for this Office Action claims 9 will be interpreted to reference “at least one of the crystallites”, consistent with ¶ 149 and claim 1.
Claims 10 and 11 respectively recite “at least one of the secondary particle, the primary particles, or the crystallite includes an oxidation state gradient portion in which the Mn3+/M decreases toward the center from the surface of the selected at least one” (lines 2–4), and “at least one of the secondary particle, the primary particles, or the crystallite includes an oxidation state gradient portion in which the Mn4+/M increases toward the center from the surface of the selected at least one” (lines 2–4). As claim 1 implicitly recites at least two crystallites (see above), it is unclear which crystallite “the crystallite” references.
The spec.’s ¶ 151 and 152 appear to describe that a given crystallite can possess the Mn3+/M and Mn4+/M gradient portions. Thus, for this Office Action claims 10 and 11 will each be interpreted to reference “at least one of the crystallites”, consistent with ¶ 151 and 152 and claim 1.
Claim 12 recites “in at least one of the secondary particle, the primary particles, or the crystallite, the Mn3+/Mn4+ is higher than 1 in the shell” (lines 2 and 3). As claim 1 implicitly recites at least two crystallites (see above), it is unclear which crystallite “the crystallite” references.
The spec.’s ¶ 153 appears to describe that, in a given crystallite, Mn3+/Mn4+ may be higher than 1 in the shell. Thus, for this Office Action claims 9 will be interpreted to reference “at least one of the crystallites”, consistent with ¶ 149 and claim 1.
The remaining dependent claims fail to correct at least claim 1’s deficiency and are rejected likewise. Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. Claim(s) 3–14 be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter: full reasons for indicating allowable subject matter are set forth in the O.A. dated 02/27/26. In sum, the closet prior art of record, Gunji et al. (US 20160276664 A1) and Thackeray et al. (US 20170047587 A1), whether alone or together, fails to disclose or suggest that, in the secondary particle, the Ni2+/Ni3+ is higher in the shell than in the core, and it would be non-obvious to arrive at such from Gunji or Thackeray’s disclosure without undue experimentation and without completely altering either reference’s structure and/or preparation method given that each is directed to compositional variation versus oxidation-state changes.
In contrast, Applicant has found that oxidation-state gradients—such as implied from content of Ni2+ > content of Ni3+ in shell of secondary particle—improve life-cycle characteristics by preventing cycling deterioration and voltage decay resulting from phase transition when cycling the overlithiated oxide (spec., e.g., ¶ 230). The prior art of record simply failed to predict this result from the recited configuration.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment and arguments against some of the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections as well as the 102, 103, and double-patenting rejections are persuasive, and, thus, these rejections are withdrawn. However, as noted above, some of the pending 112(b) rejections have been maintained (with additional 112(b) rejections instituted as necessitated by amendment), and Applicant is yet to persuasively rebut or amend to correct these deficiencies.
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 JOHN S MEDLEY whose telephone number is (703)756-4600. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 EST M-Th, 9:00-1:00 EST F.
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, Jonathan Leong, can be reached on 571-270-1292. 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.
/J.S.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 08/14/2026
Prosecution Insights