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 .
Examiner’s Comments
Applicants’ response filed on 12/1/2025 has been fully considered. Claims 2-3 are cancelled, claims 10-13 and 16-17 are withdrawn, claims 18-19 are new and claims 1 and 4-19 are pending.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 4-9 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacob et al (WO 2019/197147 A1). Jacob et al (US 2021/0114873 A1) is being used for the English translation for Jacob et al (WO 2019/197147 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Jacob discloses a method for thermal treatment by synthesis, drying and calcination of a battery material (method for manufacturing a mixed oxide powder; paragraphs [0011] and [0026]) which is micro-scale (mixed oxide powder has a particle size between 1 µm and 10 µm; paragraph [0026]), the thermal treatment being performed in a thermal reactor having an application space and a reaction space (a raw mixture material into a pulsating hot gas flow for thermal treatment in a reactor; paragraph [0019]), the method comprises the steps of:
introduction of a starting compound as a front feed point into the thermal reactor seen in the direction of flow of a hot gas stream flowing in the thermal reactor (introducing a raw mixture material into a pulsating hot gas flow for thermal treatment in a reactor; paragraph [0019]), wherein the starting material is a battery material introduced in the reactor in the form of a solution (the raw material mixture is comprises at least one salt and/or salt mixtures of the elements of lithium, nickel and manganese for forming a stoichiometric raw material mixture where the raw material mixture comprises organic or inorganic solvents or further fluid components; paragraph [0015]),
thermal treatment of the battery material carried in the hot gas stream in a treatment zone of the thermal reactor a temperature between 700 °C and 1200 °C (introducing the raw material mixture into a pulsating hot gas flow for thermal treatment in the reactor where the hot gas flow has a temperature between 700 °C and 1200 °C; paragraphs [0019]-[0021]) with a residence time between 0.1 s and 10 s (the raw material mixture has a short sojourn time between 0.1 s and 10 s; paragraph [0019]), starting compound reacted into a treated battery material by at least one of synthesis and a combination of drying and calcination in a single step in the hot gas stream in the thermal reactor (the raw material mixture is converted into a mixed oxide powder of LMNO powder; paragraphs [0019] and [0026]) and
discharging the obtained battery material in powder form from the reactor (separating particles from the hot gas flow by way of a filter; paragraph [0024]).
The temperature of the hot gas flow and the sojourn time overlaps the claimed range for the temperature of the thermal reactor and the residence time.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference in order to have complete conversion of the raw material mixture into LMNO powder and LMNO powder with improved electrochemical characteristics of higher energy density and power density (paragraph [0020] of Jacob). It has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Please see MPEP 2144.05, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Since the temperature of the hot gas flow and the sojourn time overlap the claimed ranges for the temperature of the thermal reactor and the residence time, the step of converting the raw material mixture into a mixed oxide powder of LMNO powder during thermal treatment in the thermal reactor is considered to be a single step of synthesis, drying and calcination.
Regarding claim 4, Jacob discloses the method of claim 1 as noted above and Jacob discloses the method comprising the starting compound introduced into the reactor by means of a carrier fluid (raw material mixture comprises organic or inorganic solvents or further fluid components; paragraph [0015]).
Regarding claim 5, Jacob discloses the method of claim 1 as noted above and Jacob discloses the method comprising the hot gas stream pulsating one of regularly and irregularly (pulsating hot gas flow having an oscillation frequency being set; paragraph [0019]).
Regarding claim 6, Jacob discloses the method of claim 1 as noted above and Jacob discloses the method comprising after thermal treatment in the treatment zone, the treated battery material being transferred to a cooling zone of the reactor and then removed from the thermal reactor and deposited in powder form (a cooling gas fed to the hot gas flow before step (d) and separating the particles from the hot gas flow; paragraphs [0023]-[0024]).
Regarding claim 7, Jacob discloses the method of claim 1 as noted above and Jacob discloses the method comprising the battery material being a lithium-containing battery material (the mixed oxide powder being LMNO powder; paragraph [0026]).
Regarding claim 8, Jacob discloses the method of claim 7 as noted above and Jacob discloses the method comprising the lithium-containing battery material being one of a lithium material containing nickel and manganese (the mixed oxide powder being LMNO powder; paragraph [0026]).
Regarding claim 9, Jacob discloses the method of claim 7 as noted above and that claim 9 is alternative language and is met by the embodiment of the lithium-containing battery material of claim 7 being chosen.
Regarding claim 14, Jacob discloses the method of claim 1 as noted above and Jacob discloses the method comprising starting compound introduced into the thermal reactor as an aerosol (the precursors being sprayed; paragraph [0053]).
Regarding claim 15, Jacob discloses the method of claim 5 as noted above and Jacob discloses the method comprising the oscillation frequency being set (paragraph [0019]).
Jacob does not disclose the method comprising the hot gas stream pulsating with a frequency of between 5 Hz and 30 Hz.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to set the oscillation frequency of the pulsating hot gas flow to be between 5 Hz and 30 Hz because doing so allows for the electrochemical characteristics of the mixed oxide powder to be set even better (paragraph [0019]).
Regarding claim 18, Jacob discloses the method of claim 1 as noted above and discloses the treated battery material having an average particle size in the range from 10 nm to a few micrometers (mixed oxide powder has a particle size between 1 µm and 10 µm; paragraph [0026]).
The particle size of the mixed oxide powder overlaps the claimed range for the average particle size of the treated battery material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference in order to have a mixed oxide powder manufactured in a simple and inexpensive manner with a high electrochemical capacity (paragraph [0026] of Jacob). It has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Please see MPEP 2144.05, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 19, Jacob discloses the method of claim 1 as noted above and discloses the treated battery material having an average particle size of up to 50 µm (mixed oxide powder has a particle size between 1 µm and 10 µm; paragraph [0026]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-6, filed 12/1/2025, with respect to the claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed 12/1/2025, with respect to the 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/1/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue that Jacob fails to disclose the starting compound being reacted into a treated battery material by synthesis, drying and calcining in a single step and that the calcination step is carried out in a post treatment step.
This argument is not persuasive as the steps of synthesis, drying and calcination all occur when the raw material is in the reactor undergoing thermal treatment. The thermal treatment allows for complete conversion of the raw material mixture into LNMO powder, which reads on the claimed synthesis. The hot gas flow for the thermal treatment occurs between 700 °C and 1200 °C, which reads on the claimed drying and calcination. This temperature range is high enough to allow the mixed oxide powder to evaporate any solvent or liquid in order to dry and is also high enough to calcine the mixed oxide powder to remove even more volatile matter without fusing or to effect changes such as oxidation or pulverization.
Also, the temperature range for the hot gas flow of between 700 °C and 1200 °C overlaps the claimed range for the temperature of the thermal reactor and would imply that calcination has occurred due to being a range of high temperatures.
Furthermore, paragraph [0025] of Jacob discloses that the particles obtained from the reactor are subjected to a thermal post-treatment, in particular a post-calcination. This disclosure further implies that a calcination step has occurred in the reactor. Based on these reasons, the Jacob discloses the starting compound being reacted into a treated battery material by synthesis, drying and calcining in a single step.
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 SATHAVARAM I REDDY whose telephone number is (571)270-7061. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM-6:00 PM 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571)-272-1291. 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.
/SATHAVARAM I REDDY/Examiner, Art Unit 1785