DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of the lithium species and the fluoride species in the reply filed on 8/27/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-12 and 15-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 1-10 are 13-14 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.
Claim 1 includes a “so-called primary particle” and Claim 14 includes a “so-called spheroidal secondary particle”. It is unclear why these particles are labeled as “so-called” and if by doing so, are the particles actually named primary and secondary particles.
In claim 1, it is unclear if the “less than or equal to 2 micron” refers to the size distribution or diameter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-9 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 102161590 B1 (hereafter KR, with citations taken from the attached translation) in view of Muggli et al. (US 2025/0239638 A1) and Choy et al. (US 2011/0287315 A1)
As to claim 1, KR teaches a method for preparing cathode material for a battery, comprising
obtaining said cathode material (p9) in the form of a mixture of so-called primary particles, of monomodal size distribution (p4) and volume mean diameter, determined by laser diffraction (p4), less than or equal to 2 µm (p4), then comprising a step of shaping said mixture of primary particles by granulation by grinding in a ball mill (p9, 12), in an organic solvent (p12).
KR does not teach a mixture of organic solvents comprising a polar organic solvent and an apolar
organic solvent, said polar organic solvent and said apolar organic solvent being immiscible. Muggli et al. teaches pulverizing such a mixture in a protic polarizing solvent in para 0112 and teaches other solvents for processing in para 0116. Choy et al. teaches that a mixture of organic polar and nonpolar solvents may be used to process lithium particles in para 0074 and 0090. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the combined solvents of Muggli et al and Choy et al. in KR for milling, as both Muggli and Choy teach the use of the claimed solvents for lithium particle processing.
As to claims 2-5, the solvents are taught in Muggli paras 0114-0116 and Choy para 0074 and 0090.
As to claim 6, Choy discloses the claimed invention in combination with KR and Muggli as discussed above except for the volume ratio. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the claimed volume ratio, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 223 (CCPA 1955).
As to claims 7-8, KR discloses the claimed invention in combination with Muggli and Choy as discussed above except for the milling time and speed. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the milling time and speed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 223 (CCPA 1955).
As to claim 9, the Li compound is taught on p2 of KR, for example.
As to claim 13, the cathode material comprises an electrically conductive agent on p2 of KR, for example.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art, alone or in combination does not teach the compound with fluorine of claim 10 or the monomodial size distribution of secondary particles of claim 14.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELLY M GAMBETTA whose telephone number is (571)272-2668. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
KELLY M. GAMBETTA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1718
/KELLY M GAMBETTA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights