DETAILED ACTION
The following Office action concerns Patent Application Number 18/338,551. Claims 1-10 are pending in the application.
Claims 1-5 and 7-9 have been withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to non-elected inventions or species.
The applicant’s amendment filed December 18, 2025 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
A restriction requirement was sent to the Applicant on October 21, 2025. The Applicant was required to elect among several groups of inventions and several species of compound. The Applicant responded to the restriction requirement on December 18, 2025 and elected Group II, claims 6-10, with traverse. The applicant also elected a species of fructose. The applicant did not provide a reason for traversing the restriction requirement. Therefore, the election is treated as being made without traverse.
Accordingly, claims 1-5 and 7-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to non-elected inventions or species.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 112 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
(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.
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) because the term “synthesizing an iron metal in a phosphoric acid solution” is indefinite. It is unclear what is required by the term ““synthesizing an iron metal.” For the purpose of examination, the limitation is construed to mean adding iron metal to a phosphoric acid solution.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al (US 2015/0030517) in view of Lin et al (US 2015/0021517).
Yu et al teaches a battery composite material for a battery (abstract; par. 39). The composite material is made by combining iron powder, phosphoric acid, V2O-5, and a carbon source to produce a lithium iron phosphate composite material containing vanadium oxide and carbon (par. 26-27). The carbon source includes fructose (par. 24). The process includes grinding and dispersing the product material (par. 38).
Yu et al does not teach that the battery material is used in the positive electrode.
However, Lin et al teaches a lithium iron phosphate material which is a cathode or positive electrode of a lithium battery (par. 2, 3, 22). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the positive electrode of Lin et al with the battery and battery material of Yu et al because Lin et al teaches that lithium iron phosphate is known to be a positive electrode material.
Claims 6 and 10 are product by process claims. The patentability of a product by process claim is based upon the structure of the claimed product, not upon the steps in the process to make the product. MPEP § 2113. Since the electrode material of Yu et al in view of Lin et al has the same structure and composition as the claimed electrode material, the product by process limitations are satisfied.
Examiner’s Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to William Young whose telephone number is (571) 270-5078. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 8:30 AM to 5 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Brown-Pettigrew, can be reached at 571-272-2817. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000./WILLIAM D YOUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761 February 3, 2026
Prosecution Insights