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 63/435,805 (filed 12/29/22).
Amendment(s)
The Preliminary Amendment filed 06/15/26 is entered.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of nmc-622 species in the Reply filed 06/15/26 is acknowledged. Upon careful consideration, the species requirement is hereby withdrawn.
Drawings
The Drawings filed 12/29/23 are approved by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
No IDS has been filed in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], 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 2 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Specifically, independent claim 1 requires that the Li-NMC material is NMC-622 (stoichiometry). Dependent claim 2 recites that “any variant” may be processed (i.e. utilized). Such is outside the scope of the independent claim. Likewise, dependent claim 5 does not further limit independent claim 1.
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 6, 8, 10-20 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.
In dependent claim 6, it is unclear as to what is required by the terminology “in a post processing phase”. Clarification is required.
In dependent claim 8, the terminology “the chemical mixture” does not have antecedent basis in the independent claim.
In independent claim 10, line 9, it is unclear as to what is required by the terminology “a Lithium hydroxide (LiOH) of Li carbonate”. It appears such should require “or Li carbonate”. Clarification is required.
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 “high temperature sintering” to include any temperature(s) which form a solid mass without melting to the point of liquefication (instant PGPUB para 0026). Additionally, the instant claim terminology “Li-NMC” and “CAM” are both given their normal meaning in the art (i.e. Li/nickel/manganese/cobalt Oxide and cathode active material, respectively). Likewise, the examiner construes the claim term “X element” to include any element(s) doped into the cathode active material.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (Adv Sci 2021).
Lee et al (Adv Sci 2021) discloses Li excess layered cathode materials with V surface doping (Abstract). The reference discloses a process wherein Li/Ni/Mn acetates, Li hydroxide and urea are reacted to form a carbonate precursor material. The reference additionally teaches an embodiment wherein the carbonate precursor is subsequently reacted with vanadium ethoxide (0.5-5at%) and calcined (500°C for 6h, then 900°C for 12h) with LiOH to form a V coating material (Section 4). The references specifically states that vanadium is “doped into the surface layers” (page 3 of 11), which the examiner submits meets the instant requirement of “sintering to embed X-elements in the CAM matrix”. Additionally, the examiner submits that the reference meets both the instant “post processing” and “pre-processing” limitations of dependent claims 6-7 as the reference discloses both previous and subsequent steps relating to the claimed “X processing”.
With respect to instant claims 1-9, the reference differs from the instant claims in failing to specify the instant claimed NMC-622 stoichiometry (i.e. (Ni0.6Mn0.2Co0.2)). However, the examiner respectfully submits that the skilled artisan would have to utilize only routine testing in order to arrive at suitable known stoichiometries in order to tailor and optimize electrochemical performance of the resultant cathode material. With respect to instant claims 10-20, although the reference does not specify the claimed temperature ranges 20°-50°C for the mixing steps, it appears that Lee performs such at room temperature (e.g. 20°C), and the examiner submits that the skilled artisan would have to utilize only routine testing in order to arrive at suitable temperature ranges in order to control the precursor reactions. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
It is noted that dependent claims 19-20 are drawn to “intended use” of the material. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Grp., LLC, 962 F.3d 1362, 2020 USPQ2d 10701 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 112194195 A.
CN ‘195 discloses a method of making a doped and coated NCA (nickel cobalt aluminum) positive active material (Abstract). The disclosed method entails mixing Co, Al, and Ni soluble salts to form a precursor, adding said precursor, Li source (e.g. LiOH or L2iCO3), dopant (e.g. Mg, Ti, Sr, Zr, Si, 1-3:1000) and coating agent in ethyl alcohol, and sintering (O2, 800-1000°C) to form the final doped product (page 2-3 of translation).
With respect to instant claims 1-9, the reference fails to specify the claimed NMC-622 stoichiometry. However, the examiner respectfully submits that such would have been an obvious substitution for the skilled artisan. The reference specifically teaches that the disclosed process provides several advantages including uniformity, simplicity and cost, and improvement in capacity and stability (page 4 of translation), each of which the skilled artisan would recognize as beneficial to known cathode active materials such as NMC-622.
With respect to instant claims 10-20, although the reference does not specify the claimed temperature ranges 20°-50°C for the mixing steps, it appears that the reference performs such at room temperature (e.g. 20°C), and the examiner submits that the skilled artisan would have to utilize only routine testing in order to arrive at suitable temperature ranges in order to control the precursor reactions. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
It is noted that dependent claims 19-20 are drawn to “intended use” of the material. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Grp., LLC, 962 F.3d 1362, 2020 USPQ2d 10701 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
In view of the foregoing, the above claims have failed to patentably distinguish over the applied art.
The remaining references listed on form 892 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
August 26, 2026
Prosecution Insights