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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II in the reply filed on March 24, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that claims 1 and 13 have unity of invention as claim 13 is prepared by the method according to claim 1. Applicant further argues that is no serious search and/or examination burden on the Examiner. This is not found persuasive for the same reasons provided in the previous action, because Groups I-II lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require technical feature of mixing a metal/metal oxide, oxidant, water, complexing agent to a crystallization reaction equal to or greater than 200 µS/cm and ORP less than 100mv, complexing agent concentration, conducting magnetic separation to obtain a magnetic particles slurry, conducting separation to obtain solid particle and filtrate, washing and drying to obtain the precursor, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of CN109860530 in view of CN104505493 in view of CN108265178. CN109860530 teaches mixing an iron salt, titanium salt, phosphorus salt, niobium salt, precipitant comprising ammonia or urea, oxidant comprising hydrogen peroxide, stirring, conductivity of solution less than or equal to 200µm/cm, filtering and drying to form precursor (Paragraphs 17-36). CN109860530 fails to teach the precipitant concentration, metal or magnetic separation. CN104505493 teaches forming a lithium cathode precursor material comprising a metal including nickel, cobalt, manganese, aluminum, zirconium, magnesium (Claims). CN 108265178 teaches adding cobalt, nickel and urea solution, stirring, washing drying and sieving and magnetic separation to obtain a precursor used for electrode material (Claims). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provide the metal and magnetic separation in view of CN109860530 and CN104505493 in order to effectively separate the precursor compound for forming an electrode material. It would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan to optimize the amount of the precipitant in the reaction for forming the precursor material. There would be a serious search and examination burden if restriction were not required because (a) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries); and (b) the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention;
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 13 is dependent on claim 1, which is a withdrawn claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 18 is dependent on claim 14, which is a withdrawn claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 13, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al (CN109473667).
Regarding claims 13, 18 and 20, Song et al teaches a nickel cobalt aluminum hydroxide precursor for a lithium-ion battery (Abstract). Song et al further teaches a porous spherical particle precursor, beneficial for rapid and sufficient diffusion of lithium into the precursor (Paragraph 15). Song et al further teaches loose particles and uniform particle distribution (Figures 4-7). Song et al further teaches forming the precursor by mixing metals with oxidants, water and complexing agents comprising 2mol/l of ammonia (about 34g/L); forming a slurry and then performing solid-liquid separation and washing and drying (Example 2). Song et al further teaches sieving to obtain the hydroxide precursor material particle size (Paragraph 50). Song et al further teaches the average particle size corresponding to a particle size distribution of 50% is 3-19µm, which can be adjusted (Paragraph 16). Song et al further teaches mixing the spherical precursor material with lithium to form a positive electrode material for lithium-ion batteries (Paragraph 59). However, Song et al fails to specifically disclose the method of the making the precursor of the instant claims and recite uniform particle distribution.
With regard to the method of making the precursor, any difference imparted by the product by process limitations would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made because where the examiner has found a substantially similar product as in the applied prior art, the burden of proof is shifted to the applicant to establish that their product is patentably distinct, not the examiner to show the same process of making, see In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685 and In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324.
With regard to uniform particle distribution, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided uniform particle distribution as Song et al teaches the precursor particles having a uniform particle distribution in the figures 4-7. Furthermore, Song et al teaches sieving the particles to obtain the precursor particle size, wherein the average particle size corresponding to a particle size distribution of 50% is 3-19µm, which can be adjusted; hence, it would only be obvious to the ordinary artisan to sieve the obtained precursor particles to a uniform particle size distribution.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANISHA DIGGS whose telephone number is (571)270-7730. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Tuesday and Friday, 9:00AM-5:30PM.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at (571) 272-2817. 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.
/TANISHA DIGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761 April 14, 2026
Prosecution Insights