Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/260,860

LITHIUM IRON PHOSPHATE POSITIVE ELECTRODE MATERIAL HAVING A HIGH TAP DENSITY, METHOD FOR PREPARING THE SAME

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Jul 10, 2023
Examiner
APICELLA, KARIE O
Art Unit
1725
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Hubei Wanrun New Energy Technology Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allow Rate
834 granted / 1040 resolved
+15.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+12.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
53 currently pending
Career history
1093
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
45.0%
+5.0% vs TC avg
§102
36.7%
-3.3% vs TC avg
§112
16.6%
-23.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1040 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 . 2. Claims 1-11 are pending in this office action. Priority 3. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), which papers have been placed of record in the file. Information Disclosure Statement 4. Information disclosure statements (IDS), submitted July 10, 2023, and May 8, 2025, have been received and considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 5. 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. 6. Claims 1-3 and 6 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. The phrase “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2173.05(d). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. Claims 1-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (CN114335478A) in view of Zhou et al. (CN107565111A). With regard to Claim 1, Wu et al. disclose a method for preparing a lithium iron phosphate positive electrode material having a high tap density, comprising: grinding and spraying in sequence a mixed solution of an iron source, a lithium source, a carbon source and an ion doping agent, including magnesium hydroxide, to obtain a precursor powder; and sintering the precursor powder at a high temperature to obtain the lithium iron phosphate positive electrode material having a high tap density (paragraphs 0007-0010, 0030-0033). Wu et al. do not specifically disclose the lithium iron phosphate positive electrode material has a spherical shape with a diameter of 3 µm to 10 µm, which is formed by aggregation of particles having a particle size of 200 nm to 300 nm. Zhou et al. disclose a method for preparing a lithium iron phosphate positive electrode material having a high tap density, comprising: grinding and spraying in sequence a mixed solution of a lithium iron phosphate raw material and an optional carbon source to obtain a precursor powder; and sintering the precursor powder at a high temperature to obtain the lithium iron phosphate positive electrode material having a high tap density (paragraph 0044). Zhou et al. disclose wherein the lithium iron phosphate positive electrode material has a spherical shape with a diameter of 3 µm to 10 µm, which is formed by aggregation of particles having a particle size of 100 nm to 200 nm (paragraph 0055). Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art o modify the method of Wu et al. to include the lithium iron phosphate positive electrode material to have a spherical shape with a diameter of 3 µm to 10 µm, which is formed by aggregation of particles having a particle size of 200 nm to 300 nm, because Zhou et al. teach that that method step allows for a shallow lithium ion insertion depth and a short diffusion path, and the electrode process has good kinetic properties which can effectively improve the conductivity of the material (paragraph 0069). With regard to Claim 2, Wu et al. disclose wherein a molar ratio of the iron source to the lithium source is 1:1.01 (paragraph 0008), which meets the claimed limitation of a molar ratio of 1:1-1.1. Wu et al. do not specifically disclose wherein the mixed solution has a solid content of 30% to 50%. The specific content of mixed solution in the lithium iron phosphate material is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. Stability and cost of manufacturing are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said content of mixed solution in the lithium iron phosphate material, with the stability and manufacturing cost both increasing as the amount of mixed solution is increased, the precise content of mixed solution in the lithium iron phosphate material would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the content of mixed solution in the lithium iron phosphate material of Wu et al. to obtain the desired balance between the stability and cost of manufacturing (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223). With regard to Claim 3, Wu et al. disclose wherein the iron source comprises anhydrous iron phosphate (paragraph 0012); and inherently the anhydrous iron phosphate has a tap density of 1.2 g/cm³ to 1.4 g/cm³, and a BET of 4m²/g to 6m²/g. With regard to Claim 4, Wu et al. disclose wherein the lithium source comprises lithium carbonate; the carbon source comprises glucose; and the ion dopant comprises magnesium hydroxide (paragraphs 0007-0012). With regard to Claim 5, Zhou et al. disclose wherein the mixed solution is ground to have a median particle diameter of 100 nm-200 nm (paragraph 0050), which meets the claimed limitation of ≤0.5 µm. With regard to Claim 6, Wu et al. disclose wherein the spraying is carried out using a spraying device with a feed rate of spray drying of 30 mL/min, a frequency of an atomizing disc at 300 Hz, and the spraying is carried out at an inlet air temperature of 220 °C and an exhaust air temperature of 90-100 °C to 110 °C (paragraph 0015). Wu et al. do not specifically disclose wherein the mixed solution is sprayed to have a median particle diameter of 3 µm to 10 µm, and wherein the spraying is carried out using a spraying device at a gas source pressure of 0.3 MPa to 0.6 MPa and a peristaltic pump at a feeding frequency of 15 Hz to 30 Hz, however, before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a spraying device at a gas source pressure of 0.3 MPa to 0.6 MPa and a peristaltic pump at a feeding frequency of 15 Hz to 30 Hz, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. Zhou et al. disclose wherein the mixed solution is sprayed to have a median particle diameter of 3 µm to 10 µm (paragraph 0055). Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Wu et al. to include the mixed solution sprayed to have a median particle diameter of 3 µm to 10 µm, because Zhou et al. teach that that method step allows for a shallow lithium ion insertion depth and a short diffusion path, and the electrode process has good kinetic properties which can effectively improve the conductivity of the material (paragraph 0069). With regard to Claim 7, Wu et al. disclose wherein the sintering is carried out at a high temperature of 700 °C to 790 °C for a period of 8-10 hours (paragraph 0016). With regard to Claim 8, Wu et al. disclose a lithium iron phosphate positive electrode material prepared by the method noted above (paragraph 0040). With regard to Claim 10, Wu et al. disclose a lithium ion battery, comprising: a positive electrode made of the lithium iron phosphate positive electrode material noted above, a negative electrode, a separator and an electrolyte (paragraphs 0020, 0025, 0040). 11. Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (CN114335478A) and Zhou et al. (CN107565111A), as applied to Claims 1-8 and 10 above, and in further view of Hou et al. (CN106992297A). With regard to Claim 9, Wu et al. and Zhou et al. disclose a lithium iron phosphate positive electrode material prepared by the method in paragraph 10 above, but do not specifically disclose a ternary material-lithium iron phosphate mixed positive electrode material, comprising a ternary material, the lithium iron phosphate positive electrode material in paragraph 10 above, and a binder; and wherein, a mass ratio of the ternary material to the lithium iron phosphate positive electrode material is 0.5-1:1. Hou et al. disclose a method for preparing a composite cathode material for ternary batteries, including mixing together a ternary material and lithium iron phosphate to form a mixture in a ratio of 8:2, and a binder (paragraphs 0009-0017, 0055, 0064). Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the lithium iron phosphate positive electrode material of Wu et al. and Zhou et al. to include a ternary material-lithium iron phosphate mixed positive electrode material comprising a ternary material, the lithium iron phosphate positive electrode material, and a binder, because Hou et al. teach that these materials have good particle uniformity, uniform dispersion, batch stability, good electrochemical performance, and excellent safety performance (paragraph 0023). Hou et al. do not specifically disclose wherein the mass ratio of the ternary material to the lithium iron phosphate positive electrode material is 0.5-1:1, however, before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the ternary material to the lithium iron phosphate positive electrode material in a mass ratio of 0.5:1.1, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. With regard to Claim 11, Wu et al. and Zhou et al. disclose a lithium iron phosphate positive electrode material prepared by the method in paragraph 10 above, but do not specifically disclose a lithium ion battery, comprising: a positive electrode made of the ternary material-lithium iron phosphate mixed positive electrode material noted above, a negative electrode, a separator and an electrolyte. Hou et al. disclose a ternary lithium battery comprising: a positive electrode made of the ternary material-lithium iron phosphate mixed positive electrode material noted above, a negative electrode, a separator and an electrolyte (paragraphs 0017-0018). Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the lithium iron phosphate positive electrode material of Wu et al. and Zhou et al. to a lithium ion battery, comprising: a positive electrode made of the ternary material-lithium iron phosphate mixed positive electrode material noted above, a negative electrode, a separator and an electrolyte, because Hou et al. teach that these materials have good particle uniformity, uniform dispersion, batch stability, good electrochemical performance, and excellent safety performance (paragraph 0023). Conclusion 12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARIE O APICELLA whose telephone number is (571)272-8614. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 8:00AM to 5:00PM 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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at 571-270-3879. 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. /KARIE O'NEILL APICELLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 10, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 25, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603364
Battery Cell, Battery, Electrical Device, and Manufacturing Method and Device for Battery Cell
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603325
ELECTROLYTE SOLUTION FOR ELECTROCHEMICAL DEVICES, PLASTIC COMPOSITION, USE AND PRODUCTION METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603349
BATTERY MODULE AND BATTERY PACK INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603404
BATTERY MODULE, METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING BATTERY MODULE, ELECTRONIC DEVICE, AND ELECTRIC VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603283
POSITIVE ELECTRODE SLURRY, SECONDARY BATTERY, BATTERY MODULE, BATTERY PACK AND POWER CONSUMING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
80%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+12.4%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1040 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow 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