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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-27 in the reply filed on 11/10/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 28-31 have been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1, “claim 1-“ should be “claim 1”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1, the claim recites “depositing solid particles on a filter comprises depositing the solid particles on a glass-fiber filter”, however, claim 1 recites “depositing solid particles on a powder collector”. Therefore, it appears as though claim 18 includes a typographical error and should read “depositing solid particles on a powder collector comprises depositing the solid particles on a glass-fiber filter”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 10, 14-17, 19, 20, 22, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al (KR 2019-0020992 and its machine translation) in view of Gao et al (Nano Energy Chemistry article, as cited by applicant).
Lim et al disclose a method od preparing cathode active material particles (NCM which would have an ordered layered structure; instant claims 4, 10, 22), wherein the method includes
preparing a metal precursor solution comprising a lithium, a manganese, a nickel, and a cobalt precursor,
forming droplets of the precursor solution using an ultrasonic atomizing apparatus (1.7 MHz, example 1-1, [0104]; instant claim 16)
preparing a powder by reacting the droplets through a flame spray pyrolysis using a high (instant claim 14, 15; continuous liquid flow process, see examples and same apparatus) temperature flame to form particles/ powder by drying/ decomposing the droplets,
and wherein the powder is collected to be calcined (the method of the reference does not explicitly include a step of collecting the powder, but the powder would clearly be collected to be further processed by calcination then preparing the cathode active material)
and finally heat-treating the powder to form the cathode active materials in an oxygen atmosphere ([0076]-[0087]; instant claim 20).
The precursor is prepared by dissolving lithium nitrate, nickel nitrate, manganese nitrate, and cobalt nitrate to water ([0105], instant claim 1, 19),
Regarding the high nickel cathode material, the Lim et al reference teaches the following formula
PNG
media_image1.png
84
490
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, wherein the moles of Mn and Ni are each greater than 0 and less than or equal to 1.0. While the one example includes a high amount of Mn “b” (~0.558), one ordinary skill in the art would have envisaged are formula wherein there is a greater amount of Ni given that both elements are taught to have the same definition and one of skill in the art could have prepared the compound having an amount of Ni of about 0.6 given the range of up to 1 (high nickel materials are defined in the art as having a Ni content of about 0.6 and greater), to be present in an amount greater than that on the Mn as required by the instant claim 1. A high Ni content is well known in the art as providing improved capacity, a property one of ordinary skill in the art would seek to improve. Given the range of both Mn and Ni, and that the single non-limiting example demonstrate a content of one element in an amount of about “high” content range in the higher end of the range of 0< b or c < 1.0, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the Ni content through routine experimentation and optimization of battery properties to achieve a cathode active material having increased capacity.
The process includes adding additional (excess) lithium nitrate (example 2-1; instant claim 2).
The reference is broad with respect to the pyrolysis, and does not specifically disclose preheating the droplets prior to decomposing them in the burner.
However, Gao et al disclose a similar process wherein three-step calcination process, wherein the process includes “preheating” at two lower temperatures to decrease the length of the high temperature (780 o C) treatment with the first zone having a temperature of 450 o C, and the second at 530 o C prior to the final calcination at high temperature (780 o C). The process allows for improved crystal structure by controlling the temperature and including the preheating steps prior to high temperature calcination (page 2, 2.1; instant claims 17 and 25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to prepare the particles/ powder of Lim et al, choosing as the calcination process for forming the cathode active material by the process of Gao et al, which controls the calcination by including preheating steps to limit the high temperature exposure, to achieve an improved layered crystal structure by controlling the temperature of calcination.
Claim(s) 3, 5-7, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al in view of Gao et al, in further view of Duan et al (CN 114212834 and its machine translation).
Lim et al and Gao et al have been discussed above. The references teach a process of preparing a NCM-type cathode active material and teaches that known precursors may be included and provides broad non-limiting examples, but fails to specifically disclose urea in the precursor solution, or the specific transition metal nitrates added ([[0065]-[0068], [0105]).
Duan et al disclose a method of preparing a positive electrode material, broadly, and teaches that it is known to include a Ni salt, a Mn salt, and a Co salt in combination with water an urea, and wherein the salts known in the art include nickel nitrate hexahydrate, manganese nitrate tetrahydrate, and cobalt nitrate tetrahydrate ([0019]-[0021]).
Given that the reference teaches known precursor salts for Ni, Co, and Mn in the preparation of NCM cathode active materials, and that it is known to include urea in the precursor solution, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to prepare the material of Lim et al in view of Gao et al, choosing as the salts, those taught to by Duan et al to be known and equivalent to those suggested by Lim et al, and add urea taught to be a known precursor solution additive, to the process of Lim et al in view of Gao et al. The resultant method would include the precursor materials as set forth by the instant claims.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al in view of Gao et al, and in further view of Kun et al (WO 2019/020724 and its machine translation).
Lim et al and Gao et al have been discussed above. Lim et al teach a method of preparing particles using flame pyrolysis, wherein it is known in the art for such processes to include powder collectors. However, the reference(s) fails to specifically teach a glass-fiber powder collector.
Kun et al disclose a process of forming particles for electrodes using a flame pyrolysis process, wherein the reference teaches that the particle collector used in the process may include known materials including glass or metal fibers (page 4, lines 1-9).
Therefore, given the teachings of the references, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to prepare a material by the process of Lim et al in view of Gao et al, wherein the powder collector in the flame pyrolysis includes a glass fiber material as taught to be known in the art by Kun et al.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2, 4-20, 22-27 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 9-13, 20, 21-26, and 30 of copending Application No. 18/843937 (reference application; PG Pub 2025/0215608). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the ‘937 application claims a process of preparing a nickel-rich cathode material comprising the processing steps as set forth by the instant claims 1 and 19, wherein the droplets of precursor solution are aerosolized, pre-heated, then calcined at a time and temperature which is controlled. Adjusted to result in a active material particle having desired properties. The time and temperature claimed overlap that of the claims ranges, and the active material is NCM811 or NCM822 (which would have the properties as claimed by the instant claims, and taught to have n ordered layer structure as known in the art), as claimed by the instant claims and having structural features and properties as claimed given the process steps which are defined and claimed as the precursor materials as instantly claimed (the specification defines the process steps by having a co-flow burner flow rate as claimed, the same sprayer and process having a continuous flow, the application defines the pre-heating step as a two-step low temperature process, and wherein the collector is defined as a glass-fiber material). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to prepare a nickel-rich cathode active material by the method of the ‘937 application, wherein the steps and reactants, as well as the resultant materials also meet the limitations of the instant claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA C WALKE whose telephone number is (571)272-1337. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 5:30am to 4pm.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
/AMANDA C. WALKE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722