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 CN 202411472835.7 (filed 10/22/24).
It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the priority application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claims 1-8 are pending.
Drawings
The Drawings filed 05/07/25 are approved by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS statements filed 05/16/25 and 10/09/25 have been considered. Initialed copies accompany this action.
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.
Claim Construction
Note that the examiner considers the structural and compositional recitations appearing at lines 1-13 as positive claim limitations. Any terminology in the preamble that limits the structure of the claimed invention must be treated as a claim limitation. See, e.g., Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1257, 9 USPQ2d 1962, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Also, as no special technical definition appears in the instant specification, the examiner construes the claim terminology “radial heterojunction” to require it’s normal meaning in the art (i.e. a core/shell structure emanating from a central point)(see instant Figs 1-4).
Claims 1-8 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.
The instant claims are considered indefinite in that it is unclear as to how the recited process (instant step 2) results in the precursor particle stoichiometry of Ni0.3Mn0.7(OH)2 coated Ni0.5Mn0.5(OH)2 recited in method step 3 as it appears that the two solutions recited in step 2 are never present or reacted with each other to result in a mixed stoichiometry precursor. Specifically, while instant method step 2 recites both a first mixed solution and a second mixed solution, instant step 2 further requires “…taking out the precursor material” and “…switching the salt solution in the reaction kettle to the second mixed solution…”. Accordingly, it does not appear that the two solutions are ever in contact (or reacted) with each other. The examiner notes that the reaction conditions with which the instant inventive examples are produced (i.e. instant PGPUB para 0047-49) and the reaction conditions of the comparative embodiment (para 0066-67) are identical. It is unclear as to how identical reaction conditions with identical stoichiometry precursor materials could result in different products (Table 1). Clarification is required.
In dependent claims 2 and 4-7, applicant should clarify in which method step(s) (e.g. 1-5) recited in independent claim 1 the additional limitations refer.
Allowable Subject Matter
The above 112 rejection(s) notwithstanding, the instant claims are allowable over the prior art.
CN 117976884 discloses (Abstract):
PNG
media_image1.png
470
1358
media_image1.png
Greyscale
While the reference discloses the claimed O3/P2 core/shell structure, the reference does not disclose or fairly suggest the instant claimed method wherein a specific stoichiometry of hydroxide precursor (i.e. Ni0.3Mn0.7(OH)2 coated Ni0.5Mn0.5(OH)2) is utilized during sodium source reaction, followed by first and continued sintering.
The remaining reference coted n forms PTO-1449 and PTO-893 are considered cumulative to the prior art above.
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
July 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights