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
Applicant’s election with traverse of Species 1b (Mp+/M differs in both the secondary particle and the primary particle), 2a (ion pair of Mp+/M is Ni2+/Ni3+), 3a (active material contains Co), 4a (oxidation-state gradient in secondary particle), and 5a (concentration gradient in secondary particle) in the reply filed on 01/05/2026 is acknowledged. Although Applicant asserts that all pending claims read on all elected species, Examiner notes that claim 3 pertains to an Mp+/M that differs in the core versus shell of the crystallite and, thus, pertains to unelected Species 1c and 1d, and claims 9–12 pertain to the ion pair of Mn3+/Mn4+ and, thus, pertain to unelected Species 2b. Thus, claims 3 and 9–12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Additionally, upon further search and consideration, the portion of the restriction requirement dated 11/03/2025 involving the location of the oxidation-state gradient portion (represented by Species 4) has been reconsidered such that Species 4a–4d (oxidation-state gradient portion in 1) secondary particle, 2) primary particle, 3) crystallite, or 4) secondary particle, primary particle, and/or crystallite, respectively) are being fully examined together for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. In view of the withdrawal of the portion of the restriction requirement as to the rejoined inventions, 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. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP 804.01.
Applicant traverses on the ground that, in light of amended claim 1, Wang fails to disclose an Mp+/M differing in both the secondary particle and at least one primary particle and, thus, that this combined feature represents a special technical feature. However, such is unpersuasive because claim 1’s combined feature fails to constitute a special technical feature by failing to contribute over Gunji, as set forth below. Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new prior art; the restriction requirement is still deemed proper and is made FINAL.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informality: Table 1’s data (¶ 211) are too faint to be legible. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objection
It is recommended that Applicant amend the claims as follows:
In claim 1, line 7 (i.e., first recitation), “the surface of the core” should read “[[the]] a surface of the core” for proper antecedence.
In claim 1, lines 8 and 9, “selected from the group consisting nickel” should read “selected from the group consisting of nickel” for proper grammar.
In claims 1 and 4–8, each Markush group including “at least one selected from the secondary particle, the primary particle, and the crystallite” is suggested to read “at least one selected from the secondary particle, the primary particle, [[and]] or the crystallite” to conform to proper Markush formatting (see MPEP 2117 (I)).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4–8, 13, and 14 is/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 secondary particle includes at least one primary particle, and the primary particle includes at least one crystallite” in lines 4 and 5. 1) As a secondary particle, by definition, is an agglomerate of multiple primary particles, it is unclear structurally that a secondary particle could be formed of only one primary particle (if “one” were selected from “at least one”), absent special definition of “secondary particle”.
The specification appears devoid of a special definition, meaning “secondary particle” is afforded its plain meaning in light of the specification. ¶ 78 details that the secondary particle may include one primary particle and may be formed by aggregation of two or more primary particles, though such is exemplary (see “As an example” in ¶ 78) and, thus, non-limiting to the number of primary particles. Thus, under the claim’s broadest reasonable interpretation, in light of the specification, claim 1 will be interpreted to require a secondary particle including at least two primary particles, consistent with ¶ 78 and the plain meaning of “secondary particle”.
Claim 1 further recites “at least one selected from the secondary particle, the primary particles, and the crystallites comprises a core and a shell” in lines 6 and 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the primary particles and the crystallites” because claim 1 previously recites “at least one primary particle” and “at least one crystallite”, meaning that if one primary particle or crystallite were selected, it is unclear which other particle(s)/crystallite(s) “the primary particles” or “the crystallites” would reference, respectively.
¶ 13 details that the secondary particle includes at least one primary particle, and the primary particle includes at least one crystallite, though such is exemplary by describing an “aspect” of the disclosure (¶ 13) and, thus, non-limiting to the quantity of primary particles or crystallites. Thus, under the claim’s broadest reasonable interpretation, claim 1 will be interpreted to require that at least one selected from the secondary particle, at least one primary particle, or at least one crystallite comprises a core and shell, consistent with ¶ 13.
Claim 1 further 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, making it unclear which core “the core” references.
¶ 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.
Additionally, there is insufficient basis for the above recitation of “the primary particle” because with both “at least one primary particle” and “the primary particles” previously recited, it is unclear which particle “the primary particle” references. Similar to the above discussion, for this Office Action claim 1 will be interpreted to require an Mp+/M in the core different than in the shell of at least one primary particle, consistent with at least ¶ 100.
Claims 4–8 each recites “the primary particle, and the crystallite”. Because parent claim 1 recites “at least one primary particle” and “the primary particles”, as well as “at least one crystallite” and “the crystallites” (lines 5 and 6), it is unclear which particle/crystallite “the primary particle” or “the crystallite” would reference, respectively. For this Office Action claims 4, 6, and 7 will each be interpreted to require the recited oxidation state gradient portion in at least one secondary particle, at least one primary particle, and/or at least one crystallite (as in withdrawn restriction of Species 4 above); and claims 5 and 8 will be interpreted to require the recited Ni2+/Ni3+ in at least one secondary particle, at least one primary particle, and/or at least one crystallite (as in elected Species 2a), consistent with the elected species and at least claim 1’s discussion.
Claim 5 further recites “in at least selected from the secondary particle, the primary particle, and the crystallite, the Ni2+/Ni3+ is higher in the shell than in the core” (lines 2 and 3). Similarly, claim 8 further recites “in at least one selected from the secondary particle, the primary particle, and the crystallite, the Ni2+/Ni3+ is higher than 1 in the shell” (lines 2 and 3). There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the Ni2+/Ni3+” in each claim because claim 1 never requires an Ni2+/Ni3+ ratio, making it unclear which ratio “the Ni2+/Ni3+” references. Further, as claim 1 recites Mp+/M, where “M” in the denominator is non-ionized, it is unclear whether “Ni2+/Ni3” requires a molar ratio of Ni2+ to Ni3+ (equivalent to selecting Ni2+ as “Mp+”) or some other quantity or concentration.
¶ 119, 131, and 143 appear to detail a molar ratio of Ni2+/Ni3+ higher in the shell than in the core of the secondary particle, primary particle, and crystallite, respectively, though such are embodiments and, thus, non-limiting to the type of ratio or quantity. Thus, under broadest reasonable interpretation, for this Office Action—and consistent with the elected species above—claim 5 will be interpreted to require an ion pair of Ni2+ and Ni3+ in the core/shell of at least one of the secondary particle, at least one primary particle, or at least one crystallite, where any quantity or concentration of Ni2+ is greater than any corresponding quantity or concentration of Ni3+ in the respective shell than in the core. Likewise, claim 8 will be interpreted to require an ion pair of Ni2+ and Ni3+ in the core/shell of at least one of the secondary particle, at least one primary particle, or at least one crystallite, where any quantity or concentration of Ni2+ relative to any corresponding quantity or concentration of Ni3+ is > 1 in the respective shell, consistent with the specification and at least claim 1’s discussion.
Claim 6 recites “at least one selected from the secondary particle, the primary particle, and 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”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the Ni2+/M” because claim 1 never requires an Ni2+/M ratio, making it unclear which ratio “the Ni2+/M ” references.
¶ 113 describes an oxidation state gradient portion of Ni2+/M. Thus, consistent with ¶ 113 and claim 6—as well as elected species 4a—for this Office Action claim 6 will be interpreted to require an oxidation state gradient portion of Ni2+/M decreasing toward the center from the surface of the secondary particle (where Ni2+ = Mp+).
The remaining dependent claims fail to correct these deficiencies and are rejected likewise. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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) 1, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gunji et al. (US 20160276664 A1, from 02/10/25 IDS) (Gunji).
Regarding claims 1, 13, and 14, Gunji discloses a secondary battery (Title) comprising a cathode active material (positive active material, e.g., Abstract and fig. 3-3) comprising a lithium composite oxide represented by instant Formula 1 and containing a layered structure of overlithiated oxide (Li-rich material of Li1.33Mn0.67O2—i.e., Li2MnO3—plus layered NCM811 compound, e.g., Ex. 4, Table 2 and ¶ 0112–0115), where 0 < r < 1 (necessarily by including both compounds or phases), a = 1, falling within 0 < a ≤ 1, and M2 is Ni, Mn, and Co (from NCM811, i.e., LiNi0.81Co0.1Mn0.1O2), and M1 is Mn (from Li2MnO3),
wherein the lithium composite oxide includes a secondary particle including at least one primary particle (note primary particles aggregated into secondary particles, ¶ 0112 and fig. 3-3(B)), and the primary particle includes at least one crystallite (necessarily because such are what define primary particles, as implied in primary particles’ crystal structures in figs. 3-2 and 3-3 and ¶ 0032, 0033), at least the secondary particle and at least one primary particle comprise a core and a shell occupying at least a part of the surface of the core (other-material coating 2 on each outermost primary particle in fig. 3-3(B), which would satisfy 1) a cumulative “shell” about the secondary particle, as well as 2) individual “shells” around these primary particles), and
when the number of moles of Ni or Mn in a predetermined oxidation state to the total number of moles of M1 and M2 in Formula 1 is Mp+/M, the Mp+/M in the core is different than in the shell of each of the secondary particle and at least one primary particle (per fig. 3-3(B), ¶ 0046, 0047, 0049, 0051, and Ex. 4 (¶ 0112, Table 2), the Ni content—necessarily in some cationic state given the oxide—relative to the full, mixed compound, continuously varies from the surface to core of the secondary particle and at least one primary particle so that Mp+/M would differ in each).
It is submitted that the above disclosure further reads on claim 13; i.e., the cathode active material contains Co (via NCM811).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunji et al. (US 20160276664 A1) (Gunji), as applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Gunji discloses the cathode active material for a secondary battery of claim 1.
Similar to claim 1’s discussion, Gunji discloses that the content of Ni—necessarily ionized—may continuously vary from surface to core in at least one primary particle to suppress the difference in the crystal-lattice constant resulting from a difference in composition or a difference in expansion/compression caused by (dis)charge (e.g., ¶ 0046, 0049), which otherwise affects cycling (¶ 0005). As the instant disclosure appears to characterize claim 4’s “oxidation state gradient portion” not as a continuously varying oxidation state per se but just a continuously varying Mp+/M (spec., e.g., ¶ 110), Gunji’s embodiment would appear to meet claim 4.
Although Gunji appears to fail to explicitly embody such a gradient alongside Ex. 3 above, considering that Gunji is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely cathode active material involving overlithiated oxides, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure Gunji’s Ni content to continuously vary from the core to surface of at least one primary particle—achieving claim 4’s Mp+/M gradient—with the reasonable expectation of preserving cycle characteristics by reducing the difference in the crystal-lattice constant, as suggested by Gunji.
Regarding claim 7, Gunji discloses the cathode active material for a secondary battery of claim 1.
As noted above, Gunji exemplifies NCM811 as the core/inner material in Ex. 4 but more broadly discloses that the inner material is preferably LiMO2, where, in view of capacity and resistance, M is Ni, Co, or Mn (¶ 0042, 0043). Additionally, similar to claim 1’s discussion, Gunji discloses that the content of Ni—which would seemingly assume a 3+ oxidation state in a solid solution of LiNiO2 (inner material) and claim 1’s Li2MnO3—may continuously vary from surface to core in at least one primary particle to suppress the difference in the crystal-lattice constant resulting from a difference in composition or a difference in expansion/compression caused by (dis)charge (e.g., ¶ 0046, 0049), which otherwise affects cycling (¶ 0005). As the instant disclosure appears to characterize claim 7’s “oxidation state gradient portion” not as a continuously varying oxidation state per se but just a Ni3+/M increasing toward the center (spec., e.g., ¶ 114 and 122), an embodiment with a content of Ni3+ continuously increasing toward the center of at least one primary particle would appear to meet claim 7.
Although Gunji fails to explicitly embody this combination, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to routinely employ LiNiO2 as the inner material—forming a solid solution of LiNiO2 and Li2MnO3, similar to Gunji’s Ex. 4—with the reasonable expectation of achieving suitable capacity and resistance, as suggested by Gunji. It would have been further obvious to configure Gunji’s Ni content to continuously vary from the core to surface of at least one primary particle—achieving claim 7’s Ni3+/M gradient—with the reasonable expectation of preserving cycle characteristics by reducing the difference in the crystal-lattice constant, as suggested by Gunji.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 5, 6, and 8 would 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:
The present invention relates to, inter alia, a cathode active material comprising a layered, overlithiated lithium composite oxide represented by Formula 1, wherein the number of moles of Ni, Co, and/or Mn, in a predetermined oxidation state, varies between the core and shell of each of a secondary particle and at least one primary particle, wherein
(claim 5) in at least one selected from the secondary particle, the primary particle, and the crystallite, the Ni2+/Ni3+ is higher in the shell than in the core;
(claim 6) at least one selected from the secondary particle, the primary particle, and 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;
(claim 8) in at least one selected from the secondary particle, the primary particle, and the crystallite, the Ni2+/Ni3+ is higher than 1 in the shell.
Gunji et al. (US 20160276664 A1) (Gunji), in disclosing most of the limitations as set forth above, is considered the closest prior art to claims 5, 6, and 8.
However, Gunji fails to disclose or suggest the above-noted limitation(s). At best, Gunji merely alters the Ni content at a given oxidation state (as discussed above) but nowhere suggests any transition between or gradient of Ni oxidation states (claims 5 and 8). Likewise, Gunji fails to suggest any transition/altered concentration of Ni2+ or even the ability to form an oxide with Ni in the 2+ state (as Ni in LiNiO2-Li2MnO3 would assume a 3+ state, as discussed above) or any desire to pursue such. In fact, Gunji appears to suggest the near opposite of claim 6 by rendering obvious an Ni3+ content gradually increasing toward the center (see rejection of claim 7 above). Thus, Gunji fails to render obvious claim 6’s Ni2+/M that gradually decreases toward the center.
Additionally, Applicant’s oxidation-state gradient/differing Ni content forms by an intricate production process, where a) a NCM hydroxide precursor is formed, b) fired under first thermal treatment at 300–1000°C, c) wet-coated with a compound containing Co, Ni, and/or Mn, d) mixed with a first lithium compound and fired under second thermal treatment at 800–1000°C, e) wet-coated with an additional compound containing Co, Ni, and/or Mn, and f) mixed with a second lithium compound and fired under third thermal treatment at 300–1000°C (spec., ¶ 177–183), where comparative examples omitting the wet-coating step appear to have failed to achieve this gradient and performed relatively poorly (e.g., spec.’s ¶ 206/207, Tables 1 and 2). As Gunji’s process simply separately synthesizes the inner and outer materials, ball-mills them together, and fires the mixture (e.g., ¶ 0112–0114), there appears to be no reason for the skilled artisan to pursue or expect to necessarily achieve the instant oxidation-state gradients.
Thackerary et al. (US 20170047587 A1) (Thackeray) is prior art also relevant to claims 5, 6, and 8. Thackeray discloses an integrated composite cathode material of y[xLi2MO3•(1–x)LiM’O2]•(1–y)Li1+dM’’2–dO4 (¶ 0009), where the composition is inhomogeneous, with the concentration of non-Li metal ions able to vary across primary or secondary particles (¶ 0006).
However, even ignoring that Thackeray discloses the integrated tetroxide/spinel structure above and, thus, fails to reasonably suggest a material represented by Formula 1, Thackeray fails to suggest the instant oxidation-state gradient/differing Ni content. At best, similar to Gunji, Thackeray merely discloses varying the metals and/or molar ratios within the composite (e.g., Abstract, ¶ 0006), and, while preferring M or M’—corresponding to the position of Ni in instant Formula 1—to include a cumulative, average oxidation state of 4+ or 3+, respectively (¶ 0006), Thackeray never suggests any transition between or gradient of Ni oxidation states (claims 5 and 8) or continuously decreasing Ni2+/M toward the center of any primary and/or secondary particle.
Moreover, like Gunji, Thackeray’s production method appears to fail to necessarily achieve this gradient. Although Thackeray contemplates forming gradients within the particles by successively layering the LiMO2 and Li2MO3 compounds (e.g., ¶ 0047), Thackeray simply prepares the materials separately and then deposits one atop the other (¶ 0045–0047), and, thus, the skilled artisan could not reasonably expect to necessarily achieve the instant oxidation-state gradient via Thackeray’s simpler process.
In contrast, Applicant has found that such oxidation-state gradients 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 configurations.
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.”
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, 4, 13, and 14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 4, 8–10, 12, and 14 of copending Application No. 18/246523 (reference application, published as US 20230369571 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as follows:
Ref. claims 1 and 3, with the NCM/M ratio’s (where NCM is total number of moles of Ni, Co, and Mn, which would necessarily be in some predetermined oxidation state given the oxide and, thus, equivalent to Mp+) differing between the secondary particle’s core and shell and between the primary particle’s, encompasses instant claim 1. Further, because NCM is equivalent to Mp+, ref. claims 4 and 8–10, in reciting a gradient, encompass instant claim 4. Further, refs. claims 12 and 14 are identical to instant claims 13 and 14, respectively.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not been patented.
Conclusion
The cited art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20190006669 A1: similar, overlithiated oxide with secondary core-shell structure (with core’s including primary particles) including gradients.
US 20210221702 A1: similar, Li-rich, layered oxide with a phase gradient, where Li2MnO3 gradually reduces from the center, and LiMO2 gradually increases from the center.
Gradient Li-Rich Oxide Cathode Particles Immunized against Oxygen Release by a Molten Salt Treatment: overlithiated oxide with Li gradient.
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 and 8:00–12:00 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 571-270-192. 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 2/25/2026