CTNF 19/021,220 CTNF 82008 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2023/0402600 (US ‘600) . As to Claim 1, US ‘600 discloses an O2 type positive electrode material (Abstract) wherein the particle contains crystallites (Abstract). Particles containing crystallites that have diameters under 1000 nm (1 micron) as determined by different methods including XRD are noted to have higher performance characteristic (para. 0060). The reference notes the particle sizes can be as low as 0.1 micron (100 nm) (para. 0070) which the Examiner concludes would necessarily require crystallites in the particle to be less than 100 nm which falls within the claimed range. As to Claim 2, the Examiner respectfully submits the prior art would inherently disclose the claimed characteristic due to the similarity of the prior art materials and process of making to those of the instant claims. As to Claim 3, US ‘600 discloses the claimed components (Claim 9). As to Claim 4, US ‘600 discloses the formula (para. 0027). As to Claim 5, see discussion of Claim 5 . 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2022/0158165 (US ‘165) . As to Claim 1, US ‘165 discloses an electrode material containing a O2-type structure (Abstract) wherein the particle sizes range as low as 1 nm (para. 0060) which the Examiner concludes would necessarily require crystallites in the particle to be less than 100 nm which falls within the claimed range. As to Claim 2, the Examiner respectfully submits the prior art would inherently disclose the claimed characteristic due to the similarity of the prior art materials and process of making to those of the instant claims. As to Claim 3, the components are disclosed (para. 0060). As to Claims 4 and 5, US ‘165 discloses the claimed compound where b = 0 in the instant claim (Claim 2 in US ‘165) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US ‘600 . In the alternative to the 102 rejection above, as to Claim 1, US ‘600 is relied upon as discussed above. As noted above, particles containing crystallites that have diameters under 1000 nm (1 micron) as determined by different methods including XRD are noted to have higher performance characteristics (para. 0060). However, US ‘600 fails to disclose the specific crystallite size range of 40 to 100 nm as required by the claim. As to the difference, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the crystallite sizes of US ‘600 through routine experimentation for best results. As to optimization results, a patent will not be granted based upon the optimization of result effective variables when the optimization is obtained through routine experimentation unless there is a showing of unexpected results which properly rebuts the prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,276,205 USPQ 215,219 (CCPA 1980). See also In re Woodruff 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and In re Aller, 220 F2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233,235 (CCPA 1955). As to Claim 2, the prior art would be reasonably expected to display similar performance characteristics to those of the claim due to the similarity of the prior art materials and processes of making. As to Claims 3-5, see discussion in 102 rejection above . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US ‘165 in view of US ‘600 . In the alternative to the 102 rejection above, as to Claim 1, US ‘165 is relied upon as discussed above. However, US ‘165 fails to disclose the specific crystallite size range of 40 to 100 nm as required by the claim. As to the difference, US ‘600 notes particles containing crystallites that have diameters under 1000 nm (1 micron) as determined by different methods including XRD are noted to have higher performance characteristics (para. 0060). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the crystallite sizes of US ‘165 through routine experimentation for best results. As to optimization results, a patent will not be granted based upon the optimization of result effective variables when the optimization is obtained through routine experimentation unless there is a showing of unexpected results which properly rebuts the prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,276,205 USPQ 215,219 (CCPA 1980). See also In re Woodruff 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and In re Aller, 220 F2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233,235 (CCPA 1955). As to Claim 2, the prior art would be reasonably expected to display similar performance characteristics to those of the claim due to the similarity of the prior art materials and processes of making. As to Claims 3-5, see discussion in 102 rejections over US ‘165 above. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAISON P THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-8917. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:00 am-3:30 pm 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 (571) 270-7733. 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. /J.P.T/Examiner, Art Unit 1762 /jt/ 6/12/2026 /ROBERT S JONES JR/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1762 Application/Control Number: 19/021,220 Page 2 Art Unit: 1762 Application/Control Number: 19/021,220 Page 3 Art Unit: 1762 Application/Control Number: 19/021,220 Page 4 Art Unit: 1762 Application/Control Number: 19/021,220 Page 5 Art Unit: 1762 Application/Control Number: 19/021,220 Page 6 Art Unit: 1762 Application/Control Number: 19/021,220 Page 7 Art Unit: 1762 Application/Control Number: 19/021,220 Page 8 Art Unit: 1762
Prosecution Insights