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 .
Priority
This application is a 371 of PCT/IN2021/051138 (filed 12/06/21), which application claims priority to India 202011056608 (filed 12/28/20).
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The Drawings filed 05/26/23 are approved by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS statement filed 08/24/23 has been considered. An initialed copy accompanies this action.
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892 or by applicant on form PTO-1449, they have not been considered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-7) in the Reply filed 03/27/26 is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 1-7 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.
In independent claim 1, step “a)”, the terminology “the lithium carbonate…” has no antecedent basis. Also, in step “b)” it is unclear of the dihydrogen orthophosphate and the citric acid are ground into a single two-component powder, or if the powders are ground individually (i.e. two separate powders). Clarification is required. In step “c)”, it is unclear of the claim terminology “acetone/isopropanol” requires both solvents, or only one of the two. In step “e)”, applicant should clarify if the referred dihydrogen orthophosphate is the resultant powder from step “b)”. Likewise, in step “f)”, applicant should clarify if the referred citric acid is the resultant powder from step “b)”.
In each of dependent claims 2 and 3, applicant should specify to which of the claimed steps (a-n) the further limitations refer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim Construction
As no special definition appears in the instant specification, the examiner construes the claim terminology “nano sized” to require it’s normal meaning in the art (i.e. any submicron sized powder). Likewise, the claim terminology “a fine powder” is not construed a limited by particle size, but encompasses any flowable powder.
With respect to the prior art, CN 102468479A (IDS) discloses a manufacturing method of lithium iron phosphate positive electrode material (Abstract). The reference teaches ferrous oxalate and ammonium dihydrogen phosphate and precursor materials, and further teaches the addition of carbon precursor to coat the particles (para 0006; 0010). The reference additional teaches that the water-soluble and insoluble components are mixed separately, prior to combining the two mixtures (0014-0015; 0022).
The reference, however, does not disclose or fairly suggest the instantly required sequential addition of Li2CO3 into solution, followed by specific mole ratio of dihydrogen orthophosphate and ferrous oxalate (steps c-e), followed by subsequent addition of process control agent and carbon precursor (f-g). Additionally, the prior art, either alone or in any fair combination, does not suggest the instantly required horizontal/vertical attrition milling or pelletizing the milled powders, each which require specific parameters (e.g. ball:powder ratio, mixing speed, die pressure).
The remaining references cited on forms PTO-1449 and PTO-892 are considered cumulative to the prior art above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK T KOPEC whose telephone number is (571)272-1319. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00a-5:00p EST.
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, Robert Jones can be reached at 5712707733. 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.
/MARK KOPEC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762
MK
June 3, 2026
Prosecution Insights