DETAILED ACTION
Claims 15-16, 20, 27-34, 36 and 38-39 were rejected in Office Action mailed on 12/18/2025.
Applicant filed a response, amended claim(s) 15-16, 20, 30, 34 and 38 on 06/15/2026.
Claims 15-16, 20, 27-34, 36 and 38-39 are pending.
Claims 15, 20, 27, 29-30 and 34 are rejected.
Claims 16, 28, 31-33, 36 and 38-39 are objected to.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 15, 20, 27, 29-30 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(1) as being anticipated by Pignanelli et al., Insights of cobalt doping on carbon-coated LiFePO4 olivine nanoparticles prepared by citric acid combustion route as cathodes for lithium batteries, Ionics, published February 19, 2019 (Pignanelli).
Regarding claims 15, 17, 20, 29-30 and 34, Pignanelli discloses the preparation of carbon-coated cobalt-doped olivine nanoparticles (reading upon a powder) (LiFePO4/C) by the citrate gel precursor combustion method (Pignanelli, Abstract);
for preparation of samples, stoichiometric amounts of Li2CO3 (reading upon an alkali metal or salt thereof), FeC2O4.2H2O (reading upon an iron species),
and CoC2O4 (reading upon at least one transition metal species selected from the group consisting of manganese, cobalt, zinc, copper, a salt thereof) were mixed with citric acid (reading upon a complexing agent) in water and stirred until the formation of a homogeneous
solution. The solution was heated at 80 °C for 5 h (reading upon heating the homogenous aqueous solution to partially remove the solvent and thereby provide a slurry or paste) until the formation of a gel precursor and then was calcined at 750 °C for 10 h in vacuum (Pignanelli, page 3594, left column, 2nd paragraph).
Further regarding claim 15, while Pignanelli does not explicitly disclose the carbon-coated cobalt-doped olivine nanoparticles to function as a CO2 hydrogenation catalyst precursor, as presently claimed, the recitation in the claims that the powder is “a CO2 hydrogenation catalyst precursor” is merely an intended use. Applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
It is the examiner’s position that the intended use recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. Given that Pignanelli discloses the powder and its process of the preparation as presently claimed, it is clear that carbon-coated cobalt-doped olivine nanoparticles of Pignanelli would be capable of performing the intended use, i.e. a CO2 hydrogenation catalyst , presently claimed as required in the above cited portion of the MPEP, and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
Further regarding claim 20, Pignanelli discloses the gel precursor then was calcined at 750 °C for 10 h in vacuum, where in part of the calcination can read upon the calcination of the presently claimed, and part of the calcination can read upon the activating, absent a specific definition of activating.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16, 28, 31-33, 36 and 38-39 are 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.
Regarding claims 16 and 28, Pignanelli does not disclose the alkali metal comprises potassium or a salt, oxide, or hydroxide thereof. On the contrary, Pignanelli discloses Li2CO3.
Regarding claim 31, Pignanelli does not disclose wherein the at least one transition metal species is manganese, and wherein the iron species and the manganese species in a step (a) have a molar ratio between about 100:1 to about 4:1. On the contrary, Pignanelli discloses CoC2O4.
Regarding claim 32, Pignanelli does not disclose wherein the iron species and the alkali metal or salt thereof in step (a) have a molar ratio between about 100:1 to about 4:1. On the contrary, Pignanelli discloses stoichiometric amounts of Li2CO3 and FeC2O4, i.e., a molar ratio of Li and Fe would be 1:1.
Regarding claim 33, Pignanelli does not disclose wherein the CO2 hydrogenation catalyst precursor comprises from about 50 wt% to about 90 wt% iron species. On the contrary, Pignanelli discloses the carbon-coated cobalt-doped olivine nanoparticles in the formula of LiFePO4/C, wherein Fe would be lower than 50wt%.
Regarding claim 36, Pignanelli does not disclose wherein the calcination is performed at a temperature of between 300 to about 500 °C. On the contrary, Pignanelli discloses calcined at 750˚C.
Regarding claim 39, Pignanelli does not disclose wherein the at least one transition metal comprises zinc, or a salt, oxide, or hydroxide thereof. On the contrary, Pignanelli discloses Li2CO3.
Response to Arguments
In response to the amended claims, the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
In response to the amended claim 15, which recites, “(a) combining (i) an iron species, (ii) an alkali metal or salt thereof, (iii) at least one transition metal species selected from the group consisting of manganese, cobalt, zinc, copper, a salt thereof, an oxide thereof, a hydroxide thereof, and combinations thereof , (iv) a complexing agent, and (v) a solvent comprising water, to form a mixture”. It is noted that Tao, Tian, Chong, Zheng, alone or in combination would meet the present claims. Therefore, the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections over Tao in view of Tian and Chong and Tao in view of Tian, Chong and Zheng are withdrawn from the record. However, the amendments necessitate a new set of rejections over Pignanelli as set forth above.
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 Coris Fung whose telephone number is (571)270-5713. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m..
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at (571)272-1123. 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.
/CORIS FUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights