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 claims priority to US 63/363,094 (filed 04/15/22).
Amendment(s)
The Preliminary Amendment filed 12/01/25 is entered.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Drawings
The Drawings filed 04/14/23 are approved by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-11) in the reply filed on 12/01/25 is acknowledged.
Initially, note that Group III (method claims 16-20) have been rejoined and examined.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that the distinct groups cannot be produced by a materially different process. This is not found persuasive because, as stated in the Requirement, distinct group II may be made by a materially different process.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS statements filed 01/25/24 and 12/09/25 have been considered. Initialed copies accompany this action.
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 1-11 and 16-20 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.
With respect to independent claim 1, the examiner submits that the instant preamble language “…method for fabricating an electrode” is indefinite as such is open to multiple interpretations of what is required in the claimed process. Specifically, it appears from the instantly recited method steps (i.e. mixing, calcining, rinsing, sintering) that the claimed method is actually directed to a method of making an electrode material, and not the subsequently formed article (i.e. electrode), which requires subsequent processing (e.g. mixing, casting, calendaring) of the electrode material (para 0064 of instant PGPUB). Additionally, it appears that the recited properties relating to ”surface lithium” are directed to the Li present at the surface of the electrode material, and does not refer to the surface of the subsequently formed electrode (para 0057-0058 and 0065). The preamble of independent claim 16 (method for a li-ion battery) is similarly rejected for the same rationale. Applicant is suggested to amend each preamble to specify the “electrode material” or “electrode powder”.
With respect to independent claim 16, The terms “high surface lithium” and “low surface lithium” are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and/or 103
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.
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 Construction
Note that the examiner construes the claim terminology “lithium at the surface of the electrode” to include li present in compound form (such as Li2CO3 and LiOH). Such appears consistent with the instant specification (Table 1).
Claim(s) 1, 6-11, 16, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Park et al US 2020/0350555 A1.
Park et al US 2020/0350555 A1 discloses a method of preparing a positive electrode material (Abstract). The method comprises mixing and reacting precursors, followed by a two-step sintering (600-800°C and 300-700° in oxidizing atmosphere), and washing to remove residual Li on the surface (para 0014; 0023; 0030-0040). The reference specifically states that such results in improved and uniform diffusion inside the particles (0008; 0022-23; 0041). Such inherently meets the instant claim requirement of ”…adjusting the distribution of lithium” and “optimized to increase lithium in the interstitial…surface of the electrode” (independent claim 1) and “a calcination profile to increase structural lithium relative to surface lithium” (independent claim 16).
The reference anticipates each of the above listed claims.
Claim(s) 1-11 and 16-0 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek US 11,764,347 B2 in view of Su et al (Chin J Chem 2021).
Baek US 11,764,347 B2 discloses a method of preparing a positive electrode active material, which includes preparing a mixture by mixing a lithium compound, a transition metal precursor, and a metal oxide additive, and sintering the mixture to form a lithium transition metal oxide, wherein the sintering is performed through two-stage temperature holding sections, a temperature of a first temperature holding section is in a range of 400°C to 650°C, and a temperature of a second temperature holding section is in a range of 700°C to 900°C (Abstract). The disclosed method directly addresses suppressing residual lithium impurities on the surface of the particles via the disclosed heat treatment (Column 5, lines 1-10). Such inherently meets the instant claim requirement of “adjusting the distribution of lithium” and “optimized to increase lithium in the interstitial…surface of the electrode” (independent claim 1) and “a calcination profile to increase structural lithium relative to surface lithium” (independent claim 16).
The reference differs from the above instant claims in failing to specify “rinsing the calcined material” as claimed. However, the examiner submits that such is known in the art to assist in removal of harmful LiOH and Li2CO3 from the surface of the powder/p-articles, and therefore would have been obvious to the skill artisan. Su et al (Chin J Chem 2021) is cited as evidence of such (see Abstract; sections 4 and 5.1).
With respect to dependent claims 2-5, 17 and 19, the examiner submits that optimization of stoichiometry of the resultant particles is a known result effective variable (to tailor electrochemical properties), and would have been obvious to the skilled artisan.
In view of the foregoing, the above claims have failed to patentably distinguish over the applied art.
The remaining references listed on forms 892 and 1449 have been reviewed by the examiner and are considered to be cumulative to or less material than the prior art references relied upon in the rejection 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
March 5, 2026