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 63/505,375 (filed 05/31/23).
Claims 1-25 are pending.
Drawings
The Drawings filed 05/31/24 are approved by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
No IDS has been filed in this application.
Amendment(s)
The Preliminary Amendment (Statement of Government Interest) filed 10/29/25 is entered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with of Species 3 (non-aromatic compound) in the Response filed 04/15/26 is acknowledged.
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 2, 11 and 15 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.
The term “gradual addition” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is 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. For examination purpose, the examiner construes the limitation to include any heating which melts the organic compound.
The term “high heat”, “low heat”, “high decomposition”, and “low decomposition” in claim 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is 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. For examination purpose, the examiner construes the limitation to include any heating step(s) which melts the organic compound.
In dependent claim 11, the terminology “and may comprise…” is considered indefinite as it is unclear of the Markush group of functional group(s) following the term are required or optional. Clarification is required. For examination purpose, the examiner construes the limitation(s) as optional.
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
Applicant’s definition of the claim terminology “calcine” (i.e. to expose to heat) at para 0082 of instant PGPUB 2024/0400411 A1 is noted. Additionally, note that the examiner construes the claim term “sizing…the metal oxide” to include any method step(s) which separates and/or classifies particles based on difference is size (para 0080).
Claim(s) 1-4, 10-12, 14-17, and 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Karthikeyan et al (Bull Korean Chem Soc 2013) or Li et al (Electrochimica Acta 2015).
Karthikeyan et al (Bull Korean Chem Soc 2013) discloses (Abstract):
PNG
media_image1.png
392
1190
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The disclosed preparation method includes mixing Li/Ni/Fe/Mn precursor compounds with adipic acid chelating agent aqueous solution (instant organic compound having mp above 50°C), heating (80°C), decomposing at 400°C for 2h, followed by calcination at 700°C for 10h in air (Experimental). Morphology was determined (page 91) including particle size and carbon-containing coating. The disclosed process meets each of the claimed method steps recited in the instant claims listed above.
Li et al (Electrochimica Acta 2015) discloses (Abstract):
PNG
media_image2.png
374
948
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The disclosed preparation method includes mixing Li/Ni/Fe/Mn precursor acetate compounds with citric acid, glucose, or sucrose chelating agent aqueous solution (instant organic compound having mp above 50°C), heating (80°C for 6h), drying at 120°C for 12h, followed by grinding and pre-calcination at 450°C for 6h in air, and heating at 900° for 12h in air (2.1 Experimental). Morphology was determined (page 448-49) including particle size. The disclosed process meets each of the claimed method steps recited in the instant claims listed above.
The references are anticipatory.
Claim(s) 5-9, 13, and 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karthikeyan et al (Bull Korean Chem Soc 2013) or Li et al (Electrochimica Acta 2015).
Karthikeyan and Li are relied upon as set forth above.
With respect to instant dependent claims 5-9 and 20-21, the examiner respectfully submits that application of intermediate heating, grinding, and milling of the precursor powders are well-known processes to the skilled artisan in order to improve homogeneity of the resultant powder, and the selection of appropriate times/temperatures would have been within the purview of the skilled artisan. Likewise, with respect to dependent claims 13 and 22, the minor variation in mol ratio of transition metal stoichiometry, addition of dopant element(s), is/are result effective variables known to tailor electrical properties. "[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).
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18 and 19 are allowed. The prior art above does not disclose or fairly suggest the formation of a Li and Co rich layer as required.
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
June 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights