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
Claims 7 and 8 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on November 6, 2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-6 in the reply filed on November 6, 2025 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar (US 20030044346 A1) and further in view of Ilchev (US 6190800)
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Kumar discloses a process of generating alkali metal manganate particles by combining manganese oxide particles and lithium containing compounds in a reaction vessel (Kumar [0074]). Since Kumar uses laser pyrolysis, the powdered precursor compounds are suspended in an organic solvent for aerosol delivery (Kumar [0079]). During this process the reaction chamber is filled with argon, an inert gas (Kumar [0207]).
Kumar does not disclose the use of a lithium complex (e.g., lithium amide) as a precursor. However, Ilchev, which teaches a similar process of lithium composite oxide synthesis, discloses the use of lithium precursor compounds, including lithium hydroxide and lithium amide (Ilchev [C12 L9-12). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute lithium amide in the place of the lithium precursor in Kumar to predictably produce a lithium composite oxide, in this case lithium manganate.
While Kumar discloses particle recovery using a filter (Kumar [138]) the prior art does not teach the application of washing the generated particles. However, Ilchev discloses a process where lithium-ion exchange manganese dioxide was stirred and allowed to settle, after which the material is decanted (Ilchev [C17 L 57-65]). This step is followed by the solids being mixed together with deionized water (Ilchev [C18 L 7-10]). Once the solid product are recovered the solids are dried in an oven (Ilchev [C18 L34-37]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply the purification method of Ilchev to Kumar in order to further purify the product.
Regarding claim 4, Kumar discloses that the manganese oxide particles are produced in various sizes using laser pyrolysis. The prior art teaches that primary particles would have an average diameter from about 5nm to 50nm (Kumar [0179]). With such a significant overlap one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to acquire manganese oxide particles with a particles size of 30nm or less. The "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 5, Kumar discloses a heating temperature of the heating process between 100°C to 500°C (Kumar [0177]). With the measurement encompassing the claimed range, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to produce alkali metal manganate at a temperature between 150°C to 350°C. The "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar (US 20030044346 A1), in view of Ilchev (US 6190800), and further in view of Diao (CN104600286A).
Regarding claim 6, Kumar discloses a heating temperature between 100°C to 500°C (Kumar [0177]) and teaches the use manganese and lithium precursors (Kumar [0007]). However, Kumar does not mention a hollow particle structure. Based off of the tertiary reference, Diao, which teaches a preparation method for lithium manganate by using magnesium oxide and lithium precursors, the prior art provides a method of generating hollow products by synthesizing hollow manganese oxide particles (Diao [0030]). The hollow precursors will then control the morphology of the end product. With this in mind one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to substitute the manganese oxide precursor in Kumar with the hollow manganese oxide precursor from Dio in order to generate a hollow lithium manganate particle.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 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.
Reasons for Indicating Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3, Kumar discloses a process of generating alkali metal manganate particles by combining manganese oxide particles and lithium compounds in a reaction vessel (Kumar [0074]).Ilchev discloses the use of lithium complexes during the lithium composite oxide synthesis process (Ilchev [C12 L9-12) where lithium-ion exchange manganese dioxide was stirred, decanted (Ilchev [C17 L 57-65], mixed with water (Ilchev [C18 L 7-10]) and dried (Ilchev [C18 L34-37]). Then Diao teaches a method of producing hollow particles by using a hollow precursor (Diao [0030]). These three references do not teach or suggest the use of a hexagonal MnO nanoparticle. Therefore, the claim is considered novel and nonobvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNETTE H PHAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4520. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-6:30 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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 5712703591. 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.
/ANNETTE PHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736