Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 19/198,251

POSITIVE ELECTRODE ACTIVE MATERIAL, METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING POSITIVE ELECTRODE ACTIVE MATERIAL, AND SECONDARY BATTERY

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
May 05, 2025
Priority
May 19, 2017 — JP 2017-099871 +4 more
Examiner
KOPEC, MARK T
Art Unit
1762
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co., Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Non-Final)
84%
Grant Probability
Favorable
2-3
OA Rounds
1y 1m
Est. Remaining
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 84% — above average
84%
Career Allowance Rate
926 granted / 1097 resolved
+19.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+12.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
25 currently pending
Career history
1111
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
71.5%
+31.5% vs TC avg
§102
15.5%
-24.5% vs TC avg
§112
5.9%
-34.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1097 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/06/26 has been entered. Claims 2 and 17 are pending. Information Disclosure Statement The IDS statement filed 05/06/26 has been considered. An initialed copy accompanies this action. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in this application in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 2 and 17 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/356,310 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the instant claims and the above listed claims of the ‘310 application are drawn to a (Li ion) battery comprising a specific positive active electrode particle. The copending application discloses the claimed lithium cobalt oxide comprising magnesium, aluminum and fluorine (copending claims 13 and 18), and further discloses the instantly claimed aluminum/magnesium depth requirement (via EDX analysis), as well as the instantly claimed XRD peaks at 19.3° and 45.55° (copending claims 12, 18 and 19). The copending claims also teach measurement of XRD data at 4.6V (claims 12 and 19), and the examiner submits that the instantly claimed charging/discharging and electrolytic composition would have been an obvious design choice to the skill artisan. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Allowable Subject Matter The instant claims are allowable over the prior art for the reasons set forth in the Office Action mailed 07/08/25 and those set forth in the Office Action mailed 10/16/25. 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 26, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Show 1 earlier event
Jun 10, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 08, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DP
Sep 16, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 30, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 03, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
May 06, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
May 11, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 30, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12679744
METHOD FOR PRODUCING LITHIUM METAL COMPOSITE OXIDE
3y 2m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12683147
METHOD FOR PRODUCING A GRANULAR CARBON-CARBON COMPOSITE FROM A LIGNIN-CARBON COMPOSITE
2y 1m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12673894
GRAPHENE OXIDE FINE AGGREGATE IN CEMENT COMPOSITES
2y 8m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12676300
ELECTRODE MIX FOR SECONDARY BATTERY, ELECTRODE FOR ALL-SOLID-STATE SECONDARY BATTERY, AND ALL-SOLID-STATE SECONDARY BATTERY
1y 8m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12671086
CATHODE ACTIVE MATERIAL FOR LITHIUM SECONDARY BATTERY, AND LITHIUM SECONDARY BATTERY INCLUDING SAME
3y 3m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

2-3
Expected OA Rounds
84%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+12.9%)
2y 3m (~1y 1m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1097 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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