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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1-6 and 8-16 are pending and presented for examination. Claims 1 and 15 were amended and claim 16 newly added via the instant amendment dated 17 November 2025 which is acknowledged and entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks dated 17 November 2025 (hereinafter, “Remarks at __”) are acknowledged and entered.
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 11, 12 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Ernst in view of Hampden-Smith and Sunkara is MAINTAINED and updated below to reflect the instant amendment.
The traversal is that Hampden-Smith teaches that “some moisture may be removed, Hampden-Smith does not teach drying a dispersion to a powder as claimed. In contrast, Hampden-Smith teaches an aerosol, not a dried powder”. (Remarks at 4). Hampden-Smith discloses in [0145] that “ The dry gas 118 will most often be dry air, although in some instances it may be desirable to use dry nitrogen gas or some other dry gas. If sufficient a sufficient quantity of the dry gas 118 is used, the droplets of the aerosol 108 are substantially completely dried to beneficially form dried precursor particles in aerosol form”. This appears to be akin to spray drying which is known in the art to result in the formation of powder as an aerosol is merely a dispersion of particles within a fluid and removal of the fluid would result in the formation of a dried powder.
The traversal continues in that “the claimed drying step is important for controlling residence times of the precursor on the order of seconds up to minute for complete conversion.” (Remarks at 4), Hampden-Smith discloses a time frame of ten seconds so this is not persuasive as an unexpected result. It continues “The drying, jet milling, and exposing steps are essential for achieving the desired particle morphology, crystallinity, and energy efficiency.” (Id.) This is not supported by the Instant Specification showing that this is actually an unexpected result which exists and no testing data supporting such was provided so this cannot be seen as being an unexpected result at this time. The traversal continues discussing how the claim process allows for making Li-NMC compounds “of any composition as single crystals”, however again this not supported nor is this commensurate in scope with the claims as they are broader than the production of Li-NMC.
The next aspect of the traversal is that the instant Examples show production of 0.5-5 microns particle sizes in 1-5 seconds “without any follow-up long calcination steps and/or addition of additional li[sic] compounds. The claimed method treats dried precursor powders as solid powders and not as liquid droplets” (Remarks at 5, emphasis added). This is not seen as an unexpected result as will be exemplified infra. Furthermore, Hampden-Smith discloses that annealing is optional ([0114]), though it can be understood that in Ernst it is required such that the rejection is not valid over claim 16, so any additional annealing aspect is considered to be material to patentability if it is required to achieve a desired particle size (should one be claimed, for now this is not commensurate in scope with the claim as no particle size is claimed). The additional discussion of Sunkara is noted but it does not affect the overall aspect of the results not being necessarily unexpected.
The discussion of MIP is noted, but this is not a claimed feature and as such this argument cannot be adequately given weight and may be an avenue Applicants may wish to explore amending into the claims in a more direct manner.
The rejection of claims 1-9 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Sunkara-2 in view of Hampden-Smith and Sunkara is MAINTAINED and updated below to reflect the instant amendment.
The traversal is that Sunkara-2 and Hampden-Smith are “not combinable as Sunkara-2 teaches showering liquid droplets down a plasma flame tube while Hampden-Smith teaches creating aerosols comprising liquid droplets with a carrier gas”, both of these still involve plasma exposure to precursors and Hampden-Smith discloses the drying aspect, this does not appear to actually not be combinable as Sunkara-2 does not teach away from any drying before flame pyrolysis. The same unexpected results aspects as discussed are not actually unexpected as discussed supra. While the traversal continues in that the combined references may result in nanoscale powders which “do not allow for growth into micro-scale crystals”, crystal size is unclaimed.
The rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Ernst in view of Hampden-Smith and Sunkara and in further view of Hou is MAINTAINED.
The traversal is that Hou “discloses coatings for electrochemical performance, but the claimed method enables in-situ or post-synthesis coating using vapor-phase precursors in a fluidized bed palsam reactor.” (Remarks at 7). However, this is not claimed as the claim only broadly requires that polymeric or inorganic coatings are added to the mixed metal oxide powder and nor is the coating method explicitly integrated into the primary manufacturing method.
The rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Sunkara-2 in view of Hmpden-Smith and Sunkara in further view of Hou is MAINTAINED for the same reasons as the Ernst in view of Hampden-Smith and Sunkara and in further view of Hou.
The method of claims 10-14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Ernst in view of Hampden-Smith and Sunkara and in further view of Li is MAINTAINED.
The traversal is that “Li describes repeated synthesis steps for core-shell structures but does not disclose the controlled concentration-gradient architecture achieved through sequential plasma exposure and tailored precursor compositions.” (Remarks at 8). This is not persuasive as Li grows a shell which has a different composition than the core and thusly has a different concentration gradient between the core and shell.
The rejection of claims 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Sunkara in view of Hampden-Smith and Sunkara and in further view of Li is MAINTAINED for the same reasons as Ernst in view of Hampden-Smith, Sunkara and Li.
The rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/103 over Deng is MAINTAINED and updated below to reflect the instant amendment.
The traversal is that Deng does not disclose a crystalline mixed metal oxide powder that exhibits distinct structural and compositional features, including controlled particle size distribution, crystallinity, achieved without post-calcination, and unique core-shell or coated architectures.” (Remarks at 9). However, these features are not presently supported by the Instant Specification or testing data nor many of these aspects explicitly claimed such that the products really are presented as being different.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-6, 8, 11, 12, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub No. 20220228288 to Holman et al. (hereinafter, “Holman at __”) in view of Sunkara.
Regarding claims 1-4, 8 and 15, Holman discloses a method of manufacturing (and product of) crystalline (single crystal, specifically NMC, Holman at “Abstract”) mixed metal oxide powder comprising:
Mixing two or more metal precursors (nitrates, sulfates, formats, acetates, [0046] of Li, Ni, Co, Mn) in an aqueous solvent to form a dispersed metal precursor in the solvent (Id.);
Drying the dispersion to obtain a dried mixed metal precursor powder, Holman at [0022]);
Exposing the particles to a microwave Roxygen plasma for less than two seconds (Holman at [0048]); and then
Recovering the crystalline mixed metal oxide powder (Id.).
However, Holman does not expressly state usage of jet milling to get a particle size of 0.2-20 microns.
Sunkara in a method of forming oxide compositions discloses usage of jet milling of coarse particles via flame or plasma pyrolysis (Sunkara at [0027]) to a size of 0.7 microns. It is noted that Holman performs jet milling after final product is made ([0065]) so this combination would also enable doing it before any processing as large particles could be removed before formation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to perform the method of Holman in view of the jet-milling of Sunkara. The teaching or suggested motivation in doing so being removal of any larger unwanted particles that remain after drying (Id.).
Turning to claim 5, spray drying removes more than 40% of the moisture.
Concerning claim 6, given usage of an oxygen plasma like that instantly disclosed the same heating rate would be expected of 500-3000C/min, absent evidence to the contrary, though the Office cannot test for this. See MPEP 2112 V, "[T]he PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on inherency' under 35 U.S.C. 102, on prima facie obviousness' under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same." The burden of proof is similar to that required with respect to product-by-process claims. In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 70, 205 USPQ 594, 596 (CCPA 1980) (quoting In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430,433-34 (CCPA 1977))".
Turning to claims 11 and 12, lithium hydroxide (Holman at [0009]) or lithium nitrate (Holman at [0022]) can be added after exposure.
As to claim 16, calcination is not required but may be utilized for Li incorporation (Holman at [0041]).
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 11, 12, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ernst in view of Hampden-Smith and Sunkara.
As to claims 1, 2 and 11 and 15, Ernst discloses a method of making a (and product made) crystalline mixed metal oxide (mixed spinels, Ernst at “Abstract” & 373 L col) comprising:
Mixing Li and Mn precursors (Li butoxide and manganese acetylacetonate) in a solvent (THF) to form a dispersion in the solvent (Ernst at “2.1 Powder Synthesis”);
Exposing the solution to a hydrocarbon flame (Id.), the residence time in Hampden-Smith is no longer than “about 10 seconds” (Id.) which overlaps that range instantly claimed and is thusly prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05);; and
Recovering the formed mixed oxide particles (Id., via glass fiber collection).
However, Ernst does not expressly state drying the dispersion to obtain a dried mixed oxide metal precursor powder or conducting jet milling on said powder.
Hampden-Smith in a method of making spinel materials (Hampden-Smith at [0165]) discloses usage of a dry gas addition after droplet formation but before furnace time (Hampden-Smith at [0145] & [0165], which forms a dry aerosol particle which is considered to meet the broadest reasonable interpretation of “powder”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to perform the method of Ernst in view of the drying gas step of Hampden-Smith. The teaching or suggested motivation in doing so being reduction in contact ability between the droplets and the reactor wall (Id.).
Sunkara in a method of forming oxide compositions discloses usage of jet milling of coarse particles via flame or plasma pyrolysis (Sunkara at [0027]) to a size of 0.7 microns.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to perform the method of Ernst in view of the jet-milling of Sunkara. The teaching or suggested motivation in doing so being production of a nanowire structure (Id.).
As to claim 4, the solvent in Hampden-Smith is aqueous (Hampden-Smith at [0151]).
Concerning claim 5, Hampden-Smith completely dries the particles (Hampden-Smith at [0145] states “substantially completely dries” which is considered to meet <40% moisture content).
Concerning claim 8, Hampden-Smith discloses plasma torch can be utilized which meets “any other form of plasma excitation” (Hampden-Smith at [0068]).
With respect to claim 12, Sunkara discloses lithium hydroxide addition before radiation (Sunkara at [0026]-[0027]).
Concerning claim 16, Sunkara-2 nor Hampden-Smith explicitly require that an additional annealing or calcination step are required.
Claims 1-6, 8, 9, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sunkara-2 in view of Hampden-Smith and Sunkara.
Regarding claims 1-4 and 15, Sunkara-2 discloses a method of making crystalline (and product made by) a mixed metal oxide (Sunkara-2 at “Abstract” & 8:56) comprising:
Mixing two or more meta precursors (nitrates of nickel and manganese, Sunkara-2 at 8:8-12) in a solvent (DI water, Id.) to form a dispersion of the metal precursors in the solvent;
Exposing the particles toa hydrocarbon flame or an oxygen plasma (“Abstract”) with a residence time is ~25~35 seconds (Sunkara-2 at 7:59-60); and
Then recoverin the mixed metal oxide powder (Id.).
However, Sunkara-2 does not expressly state drying the dispersion to obtain a dried mixed metal precursor powder nor jet milling of it to be in a range of 0.2-20 microns.
Hampden-Smith in a method of making spinel materials (Hampden-Smith at [0165]) discloses usage of a dry gas addition after droplet formation but before furnace time (Hampden-Smith at [0145] & [0165], which forms a dry aerosol particle which is considered to meet the broadest reasonable interpretation of “powder”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to perform the method of Sunkara-2 in view of the drying gas step of Hampden-Smith. The teaching or suggested motivation in doing so being reduction in contact ability between the droplets and the reactor wall (Id.).
Sunkara in a method of forming oxide compositions discloses usage of jet milling of coarse particles via flame or plasma pyrolysis (Sunkara at [0027]) having a size of 0.7 microns.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to perform the method of Sunkara-2 in view of the jet-milling of Sunkara. The teaching or suggested motivation in doing so being production of a nanowire structure (Id.).
Concerning claim 5, Hampden-Smith completely dries the particles (Hampden-Smith at [0145] states “substantially completely dries” which is considered to meet <40% moisture content).
Concerning claim 6, given usage of an oxygen plasma like that instantly disclosed the same heating rate would be expected of 500-3000C/min, absent evidence to the contrary, though the Office cannot test for this. See MPEP 2112 V.
Turning to claim 8, microwave or RF plasma can be utilized (Sunkara-2 at 7:21-23).
Regarding claim 9, fluidized bed reactors can be utilized which thusly would fluidize the particles (Sunkara-2 at 7:13-15).
Concerning claim 16, Sunkara-2 nor Hampden-Smith explicitly require that an additional annealing or calcinination step are required.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ernst, Hampden-Smith, and Sunkara as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Hou.
Regarding claim 10, neither Ernst, Hampden-Smith, or Sunkara do not disclose adding a polymeric or inorganic coating to the particle.
Hou, in a method of making a battery material of lithium mixed oxide (Hou at “Abstract”) discloses coating the particles with high manganese content oxides (Hou at 4256 R col).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to perform the method of Ernst, Hampden-Smith, and Sunkara in view of the coating of Hou. The teaching or suggested motivation in doing so being better electrochemical performance (Id.).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sunkara-2, Hampden-Smith, and Sunkara as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Hou.
Regarding claim 10, Sunkara-2 in view of Hampden-Smith and Sunkara do not disclose adding a polymeric or inorganic coating to the particle.
Hou, in a method of making a battery material of lithium mixed oxide (Hou at “Abstract”) discloses coating the particles with high manganese content oxides (Hou at 4256 R col).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to perform the method of Sunkara-2, Sunkara, and Hampden-Smith, in view of the coating of Hou. The teaching or suggested motivation in doing so being better electrochemical performance (Id.).
Claims 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ernst, Hampden-Smith, and Sunkara as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Li.
Regarding claims 13-14, neither Ernst, Hampden-Smith, or Sunkara expressly state repeating the synthesis method such that a core-shell mixed metal oxide particle having different composition in each layer of the core-shell mixed metal oxide particles or a concentration gradient is formed.
Li, in a method of making lithium mixed metal oxides for batteries (Li at [0008]) discloses that the synthesis process can be repeated (while it is a different process the concept of repetition is what matters here, Li at [0111]) and that this causes formation of a concentration gradient in each layer (Li at “Abstract”) and that a coating of MoO3 is applied (Li at [0111]) and LiOH would be added too (Id., and this thusly covers claims 10-12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to perform the method of Ernst, Hampden-Smith, and Sunkara in further view of the repetition of the synthesis steps of Li. The teaching or suggested motivation in doing so being the ability to better accommodate stress (Li at [0009]).
Claims 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holman and Sunkara as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Li.
Regarding claims 13-14, neither Holman or Sunkara expressly state repeating the synthesis method such that a core-shell mixed metal oxide particle having different composition in each layer of the core-shell mixed metal oxide particles or a concentration gradient is formed.
Li, in a method of making lithium mixed metal oxides for batteries (Li at [0008]) discloses that the synthesis process can be repeated (while it is a different process the concept of repetition is what matters here, Li at [0111]) and that this causes formation of a concentration gradient in each layer (Li at “Abstract”) and that a coating of MoO3 is applied (Li at [0111]) and LiOH would be added too (Id., and this thusly covers claims 10-12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to perform the method of Holman and Sunkara in further view of the repetition of the synthesis steps of Li. The teaching or suggested motivation in doing so being the ability to better accommodate stress (Li at [0009]).
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sunkara-2, Hampden-Smith, and Sunkara as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Li.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, neither Sunkara-2, Hampden-Smith, or Sunkara expressly state repeating the synthesis method such that a core-shell mixed metal oxide particle having different composition in each layer of the core-shell mixed metal oxide particles or a concentration gradient is formed.
Li, in a method of making lithium mixed metal oxides for batteries (Li at [0008]) discloses that the synthesis process can be repeated (while it is a different process the concept of repetition is what matters here, Li at [0111]) and that this causes formation of a concentration gradient in each layer (Li at “Abstract”) and that a coating of MoO3 is applied (Li at [0111]) and LiOH would be added too (Id.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to perform the method of Ernst, Hampden-Smith, and Sunkara in further view of the repetition of the synthesis steps of Li. The teaching or suggested motivation in doing so being the ability to better accommodate stress (Li at [0009]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Deng.
Regarding claim 15, Deng discloses a crystalline particle of Li1.3Ni0.2Mn0.6O2 having a diameter of ~15 microns (Deng at [0077]). While the claim requires the particle be made by the method of claim 1, this renders the claim that of a product-by-process and it is examined on the merits of the product not how it is made. While the product is claimed as dependent upon the process made, there is nothing to suggest that the instant product would have different properties, structure or aspects than that in the prior art, absent evidence to the contrary. Accordingly, at minimal one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that prior art product and the instant product would have the same product aspects as that instantly claimed. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) also MPEP 2113, et seq. As shown supra the product is known.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by or in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Lithium-ion full cell with high energy density using nickel-rich LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 cathode and SiO−C composite anode” to Iqbal et al. (hereinafter, “Iqbal at __”).
Regarding claim 15, Iqbal discloses a LI-801010NMC crystalline material 1479 L col). While the claim requires it be made by the method of claim 1 this is a product-by-process claim and is examined on the merits of the product, not how it is made (see the discussion about MPEP 2113 above).
Conclusion
Claims 1-16 are finally rejected.
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 RICHARD M RUMP whose telephone number is (571)270-5848. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 06:45 AM to 04:45 PM.
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, Duane Smith can be reached at 571-272-1166. 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.
RICHARD M. RUMP
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
/RICHARD M RUMP/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759