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 .
Claim Status
The claims are newly amended and therefore newly considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-11, filed 1/2/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of the amended claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the references below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 15, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brereton (US Pat.: 10189719) and in view of Guo (CN 202158564) and in view of Tokoro (US Pub.: 2018/0316004).
As to Claims 1, 2, 3 and 7, Brereton describes a process for making a cathode material (col. 1, lines 8-10, col. 2, lines 1-3, col. 3, lines 23-25) that combines that combines various metals (col. 6, lines 38-44) in oxide form (col. 6, lines 15, 30, 49-50, 65). The metals are combined and then calcined to make the oxides (col. 1, lines 28-31, abstract, col. 5, lines 10-12). The calcination occurs in a furnace (col. 5, line 11). In some instances, the mixed oxide is at least a ternary material (col. 6, line 15)
As to the features of the furnace, Brereton explains that the furnace used is not particularly limited and that any conventional furnace used capable of calcining the precursor is effective (col. 8, lines 8-10). Particularly, Brereton explains that suitable furnaces include box furnaces, rotary kiln tube furnaces, roller hearth furnaces and fluid bed furnaces (col. 8, lines 12-14).
Brereton does not specifically describe use of the features of the roasting kiln, particularly one that includes lances used to inject oxygen in a closed loop control manner based on at least one process influencing parameter measured or that at least one lance is installed at the roof and/or sidewall of the kiln.
Guo describes an anode/cathode roasting furnace that incorporates air feeding means into the device (title). The apparatus includes air inlets that feed air from 5 into the reaction chamber (see Fig. 1 and para. 25). These air inlet pipes are adjustable and the amount of air added can be adjusted (para. 26). The air inlet is installed at the roof of the roasting device (see Fig. 1).
The air injector is a long pipe that feed air into the reactor (see Fig. 1, #5). This can be considered a lance.
As to the “one or more zones” features, Guo teaches feeding air into one side of the reactor (Fig. 1 at 5) and on the other side of the reactor (Fig. 1, at 18). This can be considered two different zones of the reactor.
Guo describes adjusting the oxygen injection but does not describe adjusting it based on at least one process influencing parameter being measured.
Tokoro describes a method of producing cathode active material used for lithium secondary battery (title). The reference describes use of a rotary kiln for heat-treating a cathode active material precursor in the presence of oxygen (para. 15). In their process, Tokoro describes a firing furnace and an oxygen supply line fed by spraying (para. 19). Tokoro then explains that the oxygen concentration may be controlled by arranging oxygen concentration detectors in a number of locations to monitor and control the oxygen amount so that the oxygen concentration is set at a predetermined value (para. 77).
In the specification, the disclosure of this application states that controlling the roasting kiln in a closed loop control manner, this can be met by the system using at least one parameter to influence the process (PG Pub, para. 9).
Since Guo teaches adjusting the oxygen levels, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the oxygen levels based set parameters, as taught by Tokoro for use with the oxygen feed of Guo because Brereton explains that any suitable furnace is suitable for use in calcining the cathode material and the cathode heating device of Guo would lead to expected and predictable cathode formation.
As to Claim 4, Guo shows that the oxygen gas is fed down through the roof (see Fig. 1). The direction shown in Fig. 1 is about 90 degrees from a longitudinal axis of the furnace.
As to Claim 9, Brereton teaches that the cathode can be a lithium, nickel, cobalt and manganese oxide (col. 6, line 30).
As to Claim 15, the rejection of Claim 1 is re-iterated here. Additionally, Guo shows that the oxygen gas is fed down through the roof (see Fig. 1). The direction shown in Fig. 1 is about 90 degrees from a longitudinal axis of the furnace.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brereton, Guo and Tokoro as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhou (CN 105322154).
The references do not state that the air fed into the furnace is fed at a pressure of 0.5 bar to 10 bar.
Zhou describes a method of making an electrode active material precursor of nickel manganese oxide (title). The process heats the composition in an oxidizing furnace in the presence of air (page 5, para. 1). The air fed into the furnace is compressed air or oxygen that is fed into the furnace at a pressure of 0.3 to 0.8MPa (page 5, para. 1).
The material is then roasted in the furnace to produce the product (page 5, para. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to feed the oxidizing air into the furnace at a pressure of 0.3 to 0.8MPa, as taught by Zhou for use with the process of making the cathode material of Brereton, Guo and Tokoro because this method of application leads to predictable results for producing electrode active material in a furnace.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brereton, Guo and Tokoro as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Astorga (WO 2015/103715).
The references do not describe the coating of the gas injection means.
Astorga describes a furnace (abstract) that includes oxygen lances (pg 2, lines 41-43, last para). Astorga explains that the lances have a coating of ceramic material that has a high melting point, which prevents the lances from melting, losing their shape (page 5, 2nd to last para). The coating can be applied to either the outside or the inside of the lance (page 5, 2nd to last para).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to coat the oxygen lance with a ceramic that has a high melting point, as taught by Astorga for use with the electrode-making material of Brereton, Guo and Tokoro because coating these oxygen injection means prevents the lances from melting or losing their shape.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brereton, Guo and Tokoro as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hiroyuki (KR 2013/0044369).
Tokoro teaches that the kiln used can be a roller hearth kiln or a pusher furnace (para. 96), but the reference does not teach that the kiln used is continuous.
Hiroyuki describes a positive electrode active material that contains nickel and manganese (title). The electrode material is made by heating the precursor material in a furnace in the presence of oxygen (“Firing atmosphere” section, para. 2). The furnace is operated in either a batch-type heating or under continuous operation (“Firing atmosphere” section, para. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to operate the battery making process either in a batch-type process or under a continuous operation, as taught by Hiroyuki for use with the battery making process of Brereton, Guo and Tokoro because making positive electrodes using either of these means is known to lead to predictable results.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brereton, Guo and Tokoro as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Hou (CN 104628004).
Brereton, Guo and Tokoro describes one or more oxygen lances. The reference does not describe the oxygen lances on the sidewalls of the furnace.
Hou describes a cathode battery material (title) and a method of making the product (abstract). The process of making the electrode is put into a rectangular hearth furnace (page 3, lines 16-17). In the furnace, nozzles are arranged on the two sides of the furnace because then short flames can be used (page 9, lines 17-20), the temperature in the furnace width direction is more uniform and the air-fuel gas flow rate can be adjusted and ensure more temperature uniformity along the furnace length (page 9, para. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place oxygen lances on the sides of the furnace, as taught by Hou for use with the furnace of Brereton, Guo and Tokoro because short flames can be adjusted to produce a more uniform temperature along the furnace length.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brereton, Guo and Tokoro as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Hou (CN 104628004).
Brereton, Guo and Tokoro describes use of one or more oxygen lances. The reference does not describe the oxygen lances on the sidewalls of the furnace.
Hou describes a cathode battery material (title) and a method of making the product (abstract). The process of making the electrode is put into a rectangular hearth furnace (page 3, lines 16-17). In the furnace, nozzles are arranged on the two sides of the furnace because then short flames can be used (page 9, lines 17-20), the temperature in the furnace width direction is more uniform and the air-fuel gas flow rate can be adjusted and ensure more temperature uniformity along the furnace length (page 9, para. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place oxygen lances on the sides of the furnace, as taught by Hou for use with the furnace of Brereton, Guo and Tokoro because short flames can be adjusted to produce a more uniform temperature along the furnace length.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brereton, Guo and Tokoro as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wenghoefer (US Pub.: 2003/0013055).
Wenghoefer describes a furnace (title and abstract and para. 2) known for use in a variety of production methods, including battery manufacturing (para. 2). As to the operation, Wenghoefer teaches that the feed rate of air and exhaust flow into the combustion chamber are controlled (Claims 6 and 14). Use of exhaust flow is a means for remediating exhaust (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to feed exhaust into the furnace of Wenghoefer, as taught by Brereton, Guo and Tokoro because use of exhaust in combustion is a means to remediate this stream.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brereton, Guo and Tokoro as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yali (CN 107634282).
Brereton describes inclusion of Li, Mn, Ni and Co, but does not describe their precursor form.
Yali describes a method of making a ternary material for use in a battery (title). The material used can include cobalt, manganese and nickel (see step 3) and cobalt and manganese are in the form of a hydroxide (see step 3), which are combined and then roasted (see examples 1-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a cobalt hydroxide and/or a manganese hydroxide precursor for the cobalt and manganese component of the cathode, as taught by Yali for use with the roasted cathode of Brereton, Guo and Tokoro because these forms of cobalt and manganese are known to be effective precursors for use in cathode product manufacture.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Guo shows that oxygen is injected at 90 degrees from the longitudinal axis, but does not show an angle of 20-70 degrees.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHENG HAN DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5823. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Fung Coris can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/SHENG H DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 February 6, 2026