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
This office action is in response to amendments/arguments filed 07/06/2026. Claim(s) 18-19 are currently amended. The amendments are supported by the specification and the original claims, and no new matter has been entered. Claim(s) 15 are canceled. Claim(s) 1-14 and 16-17 stand as originally or as previously presented. claim(s) 1-14 and 16-19 are examined in this office action.
Claim Objections
The claim objections of the prior office action are withdrawn because of the amendments to the claims.
Claim Rejections
The 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 19 of the prior office action is withdrawn because of the amendments to the claims. Applicant’s amendments have necessitated new grounds of rejection as below set forth.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-7, 9-11, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20180151876 A1) in view of Paulson (US 20130209885 A1), Esken (WO 2018149834 A1, US 20200010367 A1 is used as an English equivalent), Mun (US 20140377655 A1), and Yi (US 20190177238 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a process of producing a coated mixed lithium transition metal oxide ([0129] discloses a mixed lithium transition metal oxide (LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2) coated with a zirconium oxide, therefore reading on the claimed limitation), the process comprising dry mixing a mixed lithium transition metal oxide and a zirconium dioxide ([0129] discloses that the coating material for the lithium transition metal oxide is zirconium oxide (also known in the art as zirconium dioxide), and that the lithium transition metal oxide and the zirconium oxide are mixed via dry mixing) by means of an electric mixing unit. [0131] of Kim discloses that the mixing occurs via a mixer, but does not disclose what type of mixer is used to perform the dry mixing step. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the invention of Kim necessarily would have to use some form of mixer, and therefore it would have been obvious to use a specific mixer that is known in the art. Doing so would be nothing more than the simple substitution of a known mixer in the art into the invention of Kim to obtain the predictable result of a mixer capable of forming the coated active material of Kim.
For example, Paulson discusses mixed lithium transition metal oxides used as cathode materials in the art (for example, LiCoO2, LiNi0.8Co-0.2O2, or LiNi0.33Mn0.33Co0.33O2 [0003]), and discloses that forming these materials to have a coating of fumed zirconia, alumina, or silica is known in the art [0011], and Paulson itself uses alumina for the coating [0016]. Paulson performs the coating by mixing a material to be coated with the fumed alumina in an electric mixer in a dry mixing process, disclosing a 2L Henschel type Mixer [0032]-[0033]. As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the 2L Henschel type Mixer used by Paulson to adhere the fumed alumina coating via dry mixing could also be used for the dry mixing process of Kim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this selection to obtain a mixer to carry out the mixing process of Kim, and the results of this substitution would have been predictable since both Paulson and Kim uses mixers to coat lithium metal oxides with ceramic materials. See MPEP 2143 I B. Paulson is analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same filed of endeavor, namely coated lithium metal oxide cathode material.
Paulson further discloses that the 2L Henschel type Mixer is provided with a 0.75 hp motor [0029], and discloses an example wherein 1kg of core material and 25.5g of coating material [0033], resulting in 1.0255 kg coated compound. As 1hp is the same as 0.7457 kW, 0.75 Hp is equivalent to 0.559 kW. As a result, the recited specific electrical power would be 0.559 kW/1.0255 kg or 0.545 kW/kg, falling within the claimed range. Because Kim does not disclose a specific mixture, including specific mixing conditions such as specific electrical power, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a 2L Henschel type Mixer with a 0.75 hp motor such that specific electrical power would be 0.545 kW/kg. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to do this to obtain a mixer as well as appropriate mixing conditions for forming the coated cathode material of Lee.
Kim does not disclose that the zirconium source is in the form of aggregated primary particles having a numerical mean diameter of 5 to 100 nm, and that the aggregated primary particles form agglomerates having a mean diameter of 1-2 µm. However, such features were known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and would have been obvious to include zirconium source of Kim.
For example, Esken discloses a similar coated mixed lithium transition metal oxide (abstract discloses a coated mixed lithium oxide, [0029] for example discloses that the mixed lithium oxide may be lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide, which is the same type of lithium transition metal oxide used by Kim), wherein the coating is pyrogenic [0025] aluminum oxide and titanium dioxide [0001]. Examiner notes that aluminum oxide and titanium dioxide are similar to the zirconium oxide used by Kim, and indeed Kim discloses that the coating material may also be one or more of titanium oxide or aluminum oxide [0081], in addition to the already discussed zirconium oxide.
Esken discloses that it is preferable that the aluminum oxide particles and titanium dioxide particles are in the form of aggregated primary particles [0025]. [0026] discloses that the compounds are preferably formed into primary particles that are highly dispersed and nonporous, which later fuse to form aggregates, which further cluster to form agglomerates. Esken further discloses that the diameter of the aggregates is about 50-1000 nm, overlapping the claimed range, and the diameter of the agglomerates is 1-2, µm, matching the claimed range. As a result, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the coating material of Kim from aggregates in the 50-1000 nm range, which then form agglomerates in the 1-2 µm range. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this to fill in details regarding the particle sizes and structure of the coating material that Kim is silent on, with sizes and structures known in the art to be preferable for similar mixed lithium transition metal oxide coating materials. After having done this, it would have been obvious to routinely select a diameter of the aggregate from amongst the overlapping portions of the disclosed range because selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05(1)).
Kim does not disclose a pyrogenically produced zirconium source made from a flame spray pyrolysis, however, the use of zirconium sources that can be made from flame spray pyrolysis processes as coating materials for mixed lithium transition metal oxides was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and would have been obvious to include as the coating material of Kim in view of Mun and Yi.
Mun, for example, discloses a core-shell structured material (the shell reading as a coating on the core), wherein the core is a lithium intercalatable material and the shell is a garnet-type oxide [0045]. Mun discloses that the garnet-type oxide shell may be a number of materials including all of zirconium, lithium, and lanthanum, [0050]. As an example, [0050] discloses Li7La3Zr2O12, which is also used in an embodiment [0136]. Mun discloses that the core material may be a lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide [0059], reading as a mixed lithium transition metal oxide. Examiner notes that the mixed lithium transition metal oxide of Kim is also a lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide. [0136] of Mun discloses using a lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide coated with Li7La3Zr2O12- (core-shell structure) in an embodiment. Finally, Mun discloses that that the garnet oxide (Li7La3Zr2O12) coating leads to improved lithium ion transfer performance, high-rate characteristics, and improved lithium battery performance [0042]-[0043]. As a result, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the Li7La3Zr2O12 coating material/shell as the coating material for Kim. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do this in order to obtain the benefits disclosed by Mun, including improved lithium ion transfer performance, high-rate characteristics, and improved lithium battery performance.
Mun does not disclose that the Li7La3Zr2O12 is produced via a FSP process which is executed to create a pyrogenically produced zirconium source, however production of Li7La3Zr2O12 via a FSP process was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
For example, Yi discloses the use of a flame-spray pyrolysis method to make a nano powder [0010]-[0012], the nano powder including Li7La3Zr2O12 [0013]. [0010] discloses that the FSP process provides a method of incrementally varying nano powder compositions with very exacting control of element compositions, enabling fine control of thin film properties. As a result, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the FSP method of Yi to create the Li7La3Zr2O12 material, which would result in the execution of a FSP process to obtain a pyrogenically produced zirconium source, thus meeting the limitations of the instant claims. A POSITA would have been motivated to do this in order to obtain a method which allows for incrementally varying nano powder compositions with very exacting control of element compositions, enabling fine control of thin film properties.
Regarding claim 2, modified Kim discloses the process according to claim 1, wherein the specific electrical power of the mixing unit is 0.1-1000 kW (As discussed in the claim 1 rejection above, the mixer of Paulson has a specific electrical power of 0.75 hp, or 0.559275 kW, falling within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 3, modified Kim discloses the process according to claim 1 or claim 2, wherein a volume of the electrical mixing unit is 0.1L to 2.5 m3 (Paulson discloses a 2L Henschel type Mixer, falling within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 6, modified Kim discloses the process according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach that the diameter of the coating particles is verified via transition electron microscopy (TEM), however a person of ordinary skill would expect TEM to provide accurate results, and as such correctly read that particle diameter is 5-100 nm in cases where particle diameter is controlled to be 5-100 nm (see claim 1 rejection above).
Regarding claim 7, modified Kim discloses the process according to claim 1, wherein;
The zirconium source has a mean particle diameter D50 of 10 to 150 nm (Esken discloses a primary particle diameter of, for example, 10-25 [0027], overlapping the claimed range, see also claim 1 rejection above). Modified Kim does not explicitly teach that the diameter of the coating particles is verified via static light scattering (SLS), however a person of ordinary skill would expect SLS to provide accurate results, and as such correctly read that particle diameter is 10-25 nm in cases where particle diameter is controlled to be 10-25 nm.
Regarding claim 9, modified Kim discloses the process of claim 1, wherein the zirconium source includes the pyrogenically produced mixed oxide comprising zirconium, the pyrogenically produced mixed oxide comprising zirconium further comprising lithium (modified Kim discloses Li7La3Zr2O12, produced via pyrogenic methods (FSP), as the zirconium source, satisfying the claimed limitation, see claim 1 rejection above.
Regarding claim 10, modified Kim discloses the process of claim 1, wherein:
the mixed lithium transition metal oxide is at least one selected from the group consisting of a lithium-nickel-manganese-cobalt oxide ([0129] of Kim discloses an embodiment which uses LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2).
Regarding claim 11, modified Kim discloses the process of claim 1, wherein:
The zirconium source is present in an amount of 0.05% to 5% by weight, based on a total weight of the mixed lithium transition metal oxide and the zirconium source (abstract of Mun discloses that the amount of the garnet oxide is about 1.9 wt. % or less based on the total weight of the composite cathode active material, thus falling within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 16, modified Kim discloses the process of claim 1, wherein:
the zirconium source includes the pyrogenically produced mixed oxide comprising zirconium (see claim 1 rejection above), and
the pyrogenically produced mixed oxide comprising zirconium further comprises lithium and at least one selected from lanthanum (modified Kim uses Li7La3Zr2O12, satisfying the claimed limitation, see claim 1 rejection above).
Regarding claim 17, modified Kim discloses the process according to claim 1, wherein the zirconium source includes the pyrogenically produced mixed oxide comprising zirconium (see claim 1 rejection above), and
the pyrogenically produced mixed oxide comprising zirconium further comprises lithium and lanthanum (modified Kim uses Li7La3Zr2O12, satisfying the claimed limitation, see claim 1 rejection above).
Regarding claim 18, modified Kim discloses the process of claim 1, wherein the executing of the FSP process comprises:
atomizing a solution containing a zirconium precursor ([0012]-[0013] discloses an aerosol of a solution containing a zirconium precursor, with [0030] disclosing aerosolizing and combusting a solution. Aerosolizing reasonable reads as atomizing, as it involves releasing a substance as a fine spray, and atomizing is commonly understood in the art to involve converting a substance into very fine particles or droplets),
mixing the solution with a combustion gas to form a mixture ([012] discloses combusting aerosols of the selected precursors in an oxidizing atmosphere, reasonably reading as mixing/intermixing the solution with a combustion, or combustion enabling, gas),
burning the mixture to generate hot gasses and solid product ([0012] discloses that the precursor containing aerosols are combusted in an oxidizing atmosphere, reasonably reading on “burning the mixture”. [0012] also discloses that this is how the nanoparticles, or “solid products”, are produced. A person of ordinary skill in the art would know that a combustion reaction releases CO2 gas, or “hot gasses”),
cooling the hot gasses and the solid products ([0014] discloses that the synthesized nanoparticles are dried at a temperature of, e.g. 20°C, thus inherently involving a cooling step at some point); and
separating the solid products from the hot gasses to obtain the zirconium source ([0014] discloses that the synthesized nanoparticles are later dried in ambient are, nitrogen, argon, or under vacuum. None of these atmospheres involve the CO2 hot gasses, thus inherently necessitating a step of separating the solid product from the hot gasses at some point).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20180151876 A1) in view of Paulson (US 20130209885 A1), Esken (WO 2018149834 A1, US 20200010367 A1 is used as an English equivalent), Mun (US 20140377655 A1), and Yi (US 20190177238 A1), and further evidenced by Maeda (US 20100284239 A1).
Regarding claim 4, modified Kim discloses the process according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose the speed of the mixing tool. However, Paulson does disclose a 2L Henschel type Mixer with a 0.75hp motor with a blade speed range of 750-3000 rpm, with an example rpm, for instance, 1000 rpm [0029], [0033]. Speed of the mixing tool can be calculated if both the RPM and the radius of the blade (mixing tool) is known. Maeda evidences that the diameter of the blade for a 2L Henschel type Mixer is 180mm, or 0.18m [0062]. Mixing tool speed can be calculated by the formula:
(π * (2r) * rpm)/60. Plugging in 0.09 for r (r= diameter/2) and 1000 for rpm, a mixing tool speed of 9.42 can be found, falling within the claimed range.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20180151876 A1) in view of Paulson (US 20130209885 A1), Esken (WO 2018149834 A1, US 20200010367 A1 is used as an English equivalent), Mun (US 20140377655 A1), and Yi (US 20190177238 A1), and further in view of Murakami (US 20200266440 A1).
Regarding claim 5, modified Kim discloses the process of claim 1, however Kim does not disclose the BET surface area of the zirconium source. As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to turn towards teachings known in the art to determine an appropriate BET surface area for the zirconium source.
For example, Murakami discloses a lithium metal composite oxide provided with a coating layer [0006], wherein the coating layer includes a zirconium source ([0119] discloses zirconium oxide, the same coating as Kim). Further, Murakami discloses that the zirconium oxide preferably has a BET specific surface area of 10 m2 or more, overlapping the claimed range, and that this helps promote the uniform formation of the coating layer [0119]. As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the zirconium source coating material of modified Kim to have a BET specific surface area of 10 m2 or more, as taught by Murakami. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this to obtain a BET surface area for the zirconium source of modified Kim, as well as to promote uniform formation of the coating layer as taught by Murakami. Further, after having done this, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to routinely select a BET surface area within the claimed range of 5-200 m2 because selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05(1)).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20180151876 A1) in view of Paulson (US 20130209885 A1), Esken (WO 2018149834 A1, US 20200010367 A1 is used as an English equivalent), Mun (US 20140377655 A1), and Yi (US 20190177238 A1), and further in view of Tang (CN 107445202 A, a machine translation from Espacenet included in the office action of 05/19/2025 is used as an English equivalent).
Regarding claim 8, modified Kim discloses the process of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose the particle size span of the zirconium source. However, particle size spans for zirconium source coating materials are known in the art. For example, Tang discloses a nano-sized zirconium oxide coating powder [0002], and teaches that nano-powders with uniform particle-size distribution are desirable, as this prevents defects which can occur from particles having varying sizes which can cause the coatings to crack and peel off [0005].
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the zirconium source coating particle of modified Kim to exhibit a uniform particle size distribution (a span value of around 1 or less), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to prevent defects that otherwise would cause make the coating material more likely to crack and peel off, as taught by Tang. Implementing a span value around 1 or less would result in a particle size span overlapping the claimed range, and as a result it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to routinely select a span from amongst the overlapping portions of ranges because selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05(1)).
Modified Kim does not explicitly teach that the span of the coating particles is verified via static light scattering (SLS), however a person of ordinary skill would expect SLS to provide accurate results, and as such correctly read the span in cases where span is controlled within a certain range.
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20180151876 A1) in view Esken (WO 2018149834 A1, US 20200010367 A1 is used as an English equivalent), Mun (US 20140377655 A1), and Yi (US 20190177238 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Kim discloses a coated mixed lithium transition metal oxide ([0129] discloses a mixed lithium transition metal oxide (LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2) coated with a zirconium oxide, therefore reading on the claimed limitation), comprising a zirconium material consisting of at least one selected from the group consisting of zirconium oxide and a mixed oxide comprising zirconium, the zirconium material being present on a surface of the mixed lithium transition metal oxide [0129].
Kim does not disclose that the zirconium material has a number average particle size of 10 to 150 nm, wherein the zirconium material is formed by a zirconium source in the form of aggregated particles having a numerical mean diameter of 5 to 100 nm, and the aggregated primary particles form agglomerates having a mean diameter of 1-2 µm, however these features were known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and would have been obvious to include in the material of Kim.
For example, Esken discloses that it is preferable that the aluminum oxide particles and titanium dioxide particles are in the form of aggregated primary particles [0025]. [0026] discloses that the compounds are preferably formed into primary particles that are highly dispersed and nonporous, which later fuse to form aggregates, which further cluster to form agglomerates. Esken further discloses that the diameter of the aggregates is about 50-1000 nm, overlapping the claimed range, and the diameter of the agglomerates is 1-2, µm, matching the claimed range. Esken also discloses a primary particle diameter of, for example, 10-25 [0027], overlapping the claimed range of 10 nm to 150 nm. As a result, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the coating material of Kim from primary particles in the 10-25 nm range, which form aggregates in the 50-1000 nm range, which then form agglomerates in the 1-2 µm range. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this to fill in details regarding the particle sizes and structure of the coating material that Kim is silent on, with sizes and structures known in the art to be preferable for similar mixed lithium transition metal oxide coating materials. After having done this, it would have been obvious to routinely select a diameter of the aggregate from amongst the overlapping portions of the disclosed range because selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05(1)).
Kim does not disclose a pyrogenically produced zirconium source made from a flame spray pyrolysis, however, the use of zirconium sources that can be made from flame spray pyrolysis processes as coating materials for mixed lithium transition metal oxides was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and would have been obvious to include as the coating material of Kim in view of Mun and Yi.
Mun, for example, discloses a core-shell structured material (the shell reading as a coating on the core), wherein the core is a lithium intercalatable material and the shell is a garnet-type oxide [0045]. Mun discloses that the garnet-type oxide shell may be a number of materials including all of zirconium, lithium, and lanthanum, [0050]. As an example, [0050] discloses Li7La3Zr2O12, which is also used in an embodiment [0136]. Mun discloses that the core material may be a lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide [0059], reading as a mixed lithium transition metal oxide. Examiner notes that the mixed lithium transition metal oxide of Kim is also a lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide. [0136] of Mun discloses using a lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide coated with Li7La3Zr2O12- (core-shell structure) in an embodiment. Finally, Mun discloses that that the garnet oxide (Li7La3Zr2O12) coating leads to improved lithium ion transfer performance, high-rate characteristics, and improved lithium battery performance [0042]-[0043]. As a result, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the Li7La3Zr2O12 coating material/shell as the coating material for Kim. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do this in order to obtain the benefits disclosed by Mun, including improved lithium ion transfer performance, high-rate characteristics, and improved lithium battery performance.
Mun does not disclose that the Li7La3Zr2O12 is produced via a FSP process which is executed to create a pyrogenically produced zirconium source, however production of Li7La3Zr2O12 via a FSP process was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
For example, Yi discloses the use of a flame-spray pyrolysis method to make a nano powder [0010]-[0012], the nano powder including Li7La3Zr2O12 [0013]. [0010] discloses that the FSP process provides a method of incrementally varying nano powder compositions with very exacting control of element compositions, enabling fine control of thin film properties. As a result, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the FSP method of Yi to create the Li7La3Zr2O12 material, which would result in the execution of a FSP process to obtain a pyrogenically produced zirconium source, thus meeting the limitations of the instant claims. A POSITA would have been motivated to do this in order to obtain a method which allows for incrementally varying nano powder compositions with very exacting control of element compositions, enabling fine control of thin film properties.
Regarding claim 13, modified Kim discloses an active positive electrode material for a lithium battery comprising the coated mixed lithium transition metal oxide of claim 12 (title, abstract, [0129] of Kim)
Regarding claim 14, modified Kim discloses a lithium battery comprising the coated mixed lithium transition metal oxide of claim 12 (title, abstract).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20180151876 A1) in view of Paulson (US 20130209885 A1), Esken (WO 2018149834 A1, US 20200010367 A1 is used as an English equivalent), Mun (US 20140377655 A1), and Yi (US 20190177238 A1), and further in view of Grohn (Scale-up of Nanoparticle Synthesis by Flame Spray Pyrolysis: The High-Temperature Particle Residence Time).
Regarding claim 19, modified Kim discloses the process of claim 18. Wherein:
the zirconium precursor comprises a zirconium carboxylate of an aliphatic carboxylic acid (Yi, for example, discloses zirconium isobutyrate [0013] as a precursor for the zirconium coating material formed by the flame spray pyrolysis process), but does not disclose a zirconium carboxylate of an aliphatic carboxylic acid having 6 to 9 carbon atoms. Yi does however disclose zirconium isobutyrate, a similar compound having 4 carbon atoms, and further discloses that zirconium isobutyrate is merely an optional precursor, and that usable precursors include but are not limited to the ones explicitly listed. The use of similar zirconium carboxylate of aliphatic carboxylic acid precursors having 6-9 carbon atoms as a precursor in the flame spray pyrolysis creation of a zirconium source was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
For example, Grohn discloses a synthesis method for the production of ZrO2 (which Kim also discloses as a coating material for the lithium transition metal oxide, see [0129] of Kim and claim 1 rejection above) nanoparticles using flame spray pyrolysis (abstract), disclosing that the flame spray pyrolysis method enables control over particle and agglomerate size and morphology, and enables scaled up production without significantly affecting particle properties (abstract). Grohn further discloses zirconium2-ethylhexanoate as a precursor material for the FSP, zirconium 2-ethylhexanoate being a zirconium carboxylate of an aliphatic carboxylic acid having 6-9 carbon atoms. As a result, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use zirconium 2-ethylhexanoate as a precursor for the flame spray pyrolysis process of the zirconium source of modified Kim. This would have been obvious both as the simple substitution of one known zirconium source for the FSP of a Zirconium source for another, or for control over particle and agglomerate size and morphology and to enable scaled up production without significantly affecting particle properties, as taught by Grohn. Grohn is considered analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor (FSP of a zirconium source) and pertains to the problems of synthesizing a zirconium source as well as controlling particle and agglomerate size (abstract of Grohn).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding arguments beginning on pg. 7 of remarks filed 07/06/2026, applicant argues unexpected results for the fumed ZrO2 of example 1 (see also figs. 1-2 and 5), arguing that fumed zirconia shows unexpectedly good results over the compared nano ZrO2 (pg. 7 of remarks). Applicant argues that a pyrogenically produced zirconia source demonstrates unexpected results including a mono-modal and narrow particle size distribution, improved stability and cell life, and specific discharge capacity. Applicant argues that these advantages are not taught or suggested by the cited references (pg. 7 of remarks). A number of factors contribute to these arguments not being found persuasive.
First, applicant has only provided data comparing Zirconium oxide (ZrO2), however the instant claims allow and even require other possibilities (see claim 1 which allows a mixed oxide comprising zirconium, see claim 17 which requires a mixed oxide comprising lithium and lanthanum). Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." (See MPEP 716.02(d)). Data that suggests unexpected results only for pyrogenically produced ZrO2 is not commensurate in scope with the claims because the claimed are not limited just to ZrO2.
Additionally, at least some of the cited benefits of pyrogenically produced material appear to have already been known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, see e.g. abstract of Grohn, which discloses that the flame spray pyrolysis method enables control over particle and agglomerate size and morphology, or [0026]-[0027] of Esken, which discloses that pyrogenic methods enable the formation of primary and agglomerate particles of desirable particle sizes.
Additionally, the data available in the instant application only compares the pyrogenically produced particles to one other option, “nano-sized ZrO2 particles” (see [0014] of published document). [0014] discloses that commercially available ZrO2 nanoparticles “often” leads to inhomogeneous distribution and large agglomerated particles, resulting in no or minimal improvements, but the instant application does not precisely describe the comparison nano-ZrO2 in terms of what method was used to create it, and leaves doubts as to if it truly is generally representative of commercially available ZrO2. For these reasons, applicant’s arguments with respect to the unexpected results of the pyrogenically produced zirconium source are not found persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ZACKARY R COCHENOUR whose telephone number is (703)756-1480. The examiner can normally be reached 1-9:00PM ET.
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, Nicholas Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/ZACKARY RICHARD COCHENOUR/ Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/JEFFREY T BARTON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1726 13 August 2026
Prosecution Insights