Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/420,371

METHOD OF MANUFACTURING POSITIVE ELECTRODE ACTIVE MATERIAL

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
Jan 23, 2024
Examiner
KOPEC, MARK T
Art Unit
1762
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
84%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 84% — above average
84%
Career Allow Rate
913 granted / 1082 resolved
+19.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+12.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
20 currently pending
Career history
1102
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
48.7%
+8.7% vs TC avg
§102
18.3%
-21.7% vs TC avg
§112
10.4%
-29.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1082 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 JP 2023-010972 (filed 01/27/23). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Claims 1-4 are pending. Drawings The Drawings filed 01/23/24 are approved by the examiner. Information Disclosure Statement The IDS statements filed 01/23/24, and 06/06/25 have been considered. Initialed copies accompany this action. The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892 or by applicant on form PTO-1449, they have not been considered. 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(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Komaba et al (Journ Phys Chem C 2013) in view of US 2002/0098146 A1 (cited on form PTO-1449). Komaba et al (Journ Phys Chem C 2013) discloses thermal Behavior of the Layered Oxide Li2/3Co2/3Mn1/3O2 Obtained by Ion Exchange from the P2-Type Na2/3Co2/3Mn1/3O2 Phase (Abstract). The LiCoMnO2 materials are produced by ion exchange reaction, and subsequent air quench at the exit of the furnace into alumina crucible (Experimental Section). The term “quench” as known in the art, and usually measured in °C/second, inherently possess heating rates as claimed (i.e. greater than 20°C/m). US 2002/0098146 A1 is cited as evidence that such is known in the art (see para 0039). "To serve as an anticipation when the reference is silent about the asserted inherent characteristic, such gap in the reference may be filled with recourse to extrinsic evidence. Such evidence must make clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference, and that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill." Continental Can Co. USA v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1268, 20 USPQ2d 1746, 1749-50 (Fed. Cir. 1991). With respect to independent claim 1, the examiner notes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference(s). However, the reference(s) teaches all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts made by a substantially similar process. The original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed components in the claimed amount. In fact, applicant states that the claimed water content is the result of fast cooling wherein it is difficult for moisture to enter between the layers of the P2 structure (para 0045 if instant PGPUB). Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. “water content” would naturally arise and be achieved by a composition with all the claimed ingredients. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP § 2112.01. If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients. The reference is anticipatory. 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 February 10, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 23, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102
Apr 16, 2026
Interview Requested

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600815
STRETCHABLE RESIN COMPOSITION, AND RESIN SHEET MATERIAL, METAL FOIL WITH RESIN, METAL-CLAD LAMINATE, AND WIRING BOARD EACH INCLUDING OR OBTAINED USING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12584025
HIGH LOADINGS OF SILVER NANOWIRES: DISPERSIONS AND PASTES; CONDUCTIVE MATERIALS; AND CORRESPONDING METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12588427
ELECTRICAL, MECHANICAL, COMPUTING, AND/OR OTHER DEVICES FORMED OF EXTREMELY LOW RESISTANCE MATERIALS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12577124
FEEDSTOCK COMPOSITE WITH CARBONACEOUS MATERIAL HAVING A TAILORED DENSITY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12573627
IRON SODIUM HYDROXYSULPHIDE COMPOUND, PROCESS FOR PREPARING SUCH A COMPOUND, ACTIVE MATERIAL COMPRISING SUCH A COMPOUND AND ELECTROCHEMICAL ELECTRODE PRODUCED OF SUCH AN ACTIVE MATERIAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 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
84%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+12.8%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1082 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