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 .
This action is responsive to applicant’s amendment/remarks filed 06/09/26.
Claims 1-20 are pending with claims 12-15 withdrawn from consideration.
The amendment to the specification (para 0074) is entered.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Withdrawn Rejection(s)
The previous 35 USC 112 rejections is/are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment and remarks.
Maintained Rejection(s)
Claim(s) 1, 6-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Park et al US 2020/0350555 A1.
This rejection is maintained for the reasons set forth in the Office Action mailed 03/09/26 (pages 6-7).
Applicant’s remarks regarding this rejection have been fully considered, but are not deemed to be persuasive.
Specifically, applicant argues that Park does not meet the instant claim requirement of “optimized to increase lithium in the interstitial sites” as the “diffusion” language appearing in the reference refers exclusively to diffusion of the doping element in the active material (pages 8-9 of remarks filed 06/09/26).
The examiner does not dispute applicant’s analysis of the “diffusion path” as it relates to doping element. However, the examiner respectively submits that the reference additionally teaches:
Also, since a wider and deeper lithium ion diffusion path is secured during initial crystallization, the surface roughened by a washing process to remove residual lithium by-products is effectively recrystallized, and thus, it has been confirmed that surface structural stability is improved and an effect of further reducing the residual lithium by-products is obtained because a portion of the residual lithium by-products, which have not been removed, re-enters into the positive electrode active material (para 0023, emphasis added)
The examiner respectively submits that Park clearly teaches that the recrystallization process describes the tailoring and movement of Li ions from the surface of the particle to re-enter the particles (see also para 0041), and that such meets the instant requirement of “fabrication process is optimized to increase lithium in the interstitial sites and decrease lithium at the surface”.
Accordingly the rejection is maintained.
Claim(s) 1-11 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).
This rejection is maintained for the reasons set forth in the Office Action mailed 03/09/26 (pages 7-8).
Applicant’s remarks regarding this rejection have been fully considered, but are not deemed persuasive.
Specifically, applicant argues that Baek does not meet the claim limitation of “the fabrication process is optimized to increase lithium in the interstitial sites” as the instant claims require “that the fabrication process-which expressly includes mixing, calcining, rinsing, and sintering-be optimized as whole to increase interstitial Li and decrease surface Li” (page 9 of remarks, emphasis added). The examiner respectfully submits that the above remarks do not reflect the scope of the instant claim language. Specifically, the instant claims never recite or require “…be optimized as a whole” as alluded by applicant. In fact, it appears that the language “as a whole” does not appear anywhere in the instant specification. The instant claims require “…wherein the fabrication process is optimized…”, wherein the fabrication process includes mixing, calcining, rinsing, and sintering the electrode materials. The examiner respectfully submits that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the instant claim language includes any process wherein any one of the steps (as opposed to each and every step) is tailored or optimized to decrease surface Li of the particles. During patent examination, the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." The Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Such is clearly disclosed in US ‘347 as the reference specifies that a two-stage temperature holding during sintering results in suppression of residual lithium impurities (Column 5, lines 1-17). The examiner submits that such meets the instant requirement of “fabrication process is optimized to increase lithium in the interstitial sites and decrease lithium at the surface”.
Accordingly the rejection is maintained.
Allowable Subject Matter
Instant claims 16-20 are allowed.
The prior art above does not fairly suggest or disclose with inherent certainty the claimed values of “low surface lithium” and “high structural lithium”.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
August 23, 2026
Prosecution Insights