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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
The Examiner recognizes Foreign Priority to FR2402781, with a filing date of 03/20/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 03/19/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. Please refer to applicant’s copy of the 1449 herewith.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1, 2, 13 and 14 in the reply filed on 04/27/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 3-12 and 15 is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a method of preparing glass, a powder product, an electrode product, a method of preparing and electrode and a battery product, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in reply filed on 04/27/2026.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding Claims 1, 2, 13, and 14 - the terms x and y are interpreted as mol% as is convention for chemical oxide formulations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claim(s) 1-2, 13- 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL “The impact of
NiO on crystallization and thermos-magnetic properties of Li2O-NiO-P2O5 glasses as new magnetic
materials” by Abo-Mosallam et. al. (herein “Abo-Mosallam”).
Regarding Claim 1 – Abo-Mosallam teaches,
A glass; Page 2 Para. 2, ““The glasses were synthesized…”
of the following formula (I):x Li20- y NiO- (100-x-y) P205 (I); Page 1438, Para. 2 lines 5-6, “The glass samples were designed based on (35-x) LiO2 –(5+x) NiO – 60 P2O5”. Here, x is equivalent to y in the instant claim and (35-x) is equivalent to x of the instant claim.
wherein,
0 <x < 100; 10 ≤ y < 100 ; Page 3 Table I Sample GCNi20 , x= 20, y = 20.
While Abo-Mosallem discloses values for x =20 and y = 20 such that x+y = 40, Abo-Mosallem does not disclose values for x and y such that,
40 < x+y < 100;
Abo-Mosallem discloses the claimed invention except for the value of x+y >40, such as 40.1. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to use a value of x+y = 40, since the claimed ranges and the prior art ranges are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties and further being motivated such that physical, thermal and magnetic properties can be tailored for soft magnetic materials, as noted by Mosallem (Page 9, Para.2 lines 4-7, 23-25). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775,227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
Regarding Claim 2 - Abo-Mosallam in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim
1.
41 < x+y < 100, 42 < x+y < 100, 43 < x+y < 100, 44 < x+y < 100, or 45 < x+y < 100;
While Abo-Mosallem discloses values for x =20 and y = 20 such that x+y = 40, Abo-Mosallem does not disclose values for x and y such that,
41 < x+y < 100;
Abo-Mosallem discloses the claimed invention except for the value of 41<x+y <100. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to use a value of x+y = 40 (x=20, y=20), since the claimed ranges and the prior art ranges are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties and further being motivated such that physical, thermal and magnetic properties can be tailored for soft magnetic materials, as noted by Mosallem (Page 9, Para.2 lines 4-7, 23-25) A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775,227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding Claim 13 - Abo-Mosallam in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of
claim 1.
While Abo-Mossallam discloses formulas that include LiO2, NiO and P2O5, Abo-Mossallam does not
disclose,
formula (I) is 31 Li20- 15 NiO- 54 P205, 14 Li20- 28 NiO- 58 P205, or 21.5 Li20- 21.5 NiO- 57
P205;
Abo- Mossallam cites a composition of 20 Li20- 20 NiO- 60 P205 (Page 3, Table 1, Sample ID GCNi20).
Abo- Mossallam discloses the claimed invention except for the exact compositional values of Li20, NiO,
and P205 of the instant claim . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the
time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to use the composition of 20 Li20-
20 NiO- 60 P205 since the claimed ranges and the prior art ranges are close enough that one skilled in
the art would have expected them to have the same properties and further being motivated to tailor
the density and the magnetic properties of the glass, as noted by Mosallam (Page 9 Para.2 lines 9-10, 20-
23).
Regarding Claim 14 - Abo-Mosallam in the rejection of claim 2 above teach all of the limitations of
claim 2.
Abo-Mossallam teaches wherein,
0.5 < x/y < 2.5, 0.5 < x/y < 3.0, or 0.5 < x/y < 4.0; Page 3, Table I, Sample GCNi20 , x= 20, y = 20
where x/y = 1.0.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Barker et. al. (U.S. Patent 7,008,566) – teaches an alkali metal (A= lithium), redox active metal (M = Nickel) and phosphate (X = P) glass composition for electrodes.
Koestner et. al. (USPGPUB 20230246182A1) teaches the basics of lithium-ion batteries.
Song et. al (USPGPUB 20160002040A1) teaches (Abstract) a method for manufacturing lithium metal phosphate for a lithium secondary battery positive electrode.
Adamson et. al. (USPGPUB 20050194567A1) teaches lithium metal phosphate glasses, and variants, for making active materials for use in a battery.
Stoker et. al. (USPGPUB 20040013943A1) teaches lithium metal phosphate materials, and variants, for electrodes and batteries that contain active materials.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER PAUL DAIGLER whose telephone number is (571)272-1066. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30 CT.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on 571-270-7001. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER PAUL DAIGLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights