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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
1. The amendment filed on 03/16/2026 has been made of record and entered.
Claims 1-42, 45, 47-49, 52-53, 56-57, 59-62, & 64-65 have been canceled.
Claims 43 & 50-51 have been amended.
Claims 66-76 have been added.
Claims 43-44, 46, 50-51, 54-55, 58, 63, & 66-76 are currently pending in this application and under consideration.
Claim Objections
2. Claims 66 & 76 are objected to because of the following informalities:
A. In claim 66, line 8, “comprise” should change to --having--.
B. In claim 76, line 8, “comprise” should change to --having--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102(a)(1)
3. 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(s) 66 & 68 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kumar et al. (US 7,323,158 B2), hereinafter “Kumar et al. ‘158”.
Kumar et al. ‘158 discloses a collection of particles comprising a crystalline multiple metal oxide having an average particle diameter less than 500 nm (500 nm = 0.5 um) (see col. 40, claim 8).
The particles comprise lithium metal oxides having a structure selected from the group consisting of compounds including Li4Mn5O12 (see col. 40, claim 14).
Regarding claim 66, Kumar et al. ‘158 teaches collection of particles comprising a crystalline multiple metal oxide (Li4Mn5O12), which is the same chemical compound as claimed and comprising an average particle diameter of less than 500 nm (which is less than 0.5 um), which appears meeting the instant claimed average particle diameter of “less than 1,000 um”.
Regarding claim 68, the instant claimed average particle diameter of “less than about 200 um” is also met by the teaching of the reference.
The claimed structure is disclosed by the Kumar et al. ‘158 thus the instant claims are anticipated by the reference.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
Claim(s) 74 & 75 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al. (US 7,323,158 B2), hereinafter “Kumar et al. ‘158”, as applied to claims 66 & 68 above, and further in view of Chung et al. (US 2008/0119350 A1), hereinafter “Chung et al.”
Kumar et al. ‘158 discloses a collection of particles as set forth in the precedent paragraph.
Kumar e al. ‘158 does not disclose that the crystalline multiple metal oxide collection particles as disclosed forms a membrane, etc. or further comprising a support material (a polymer, a ceramic, or both).
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of skilled in the art (before the effective date of the claimed invention) to incorporate a known support material, such as a ceramic filter, as taught by Chung et al. to form an ion exchange type lithium adsorbent (see Chung et al., Abstract, p. 6, claims 12-24). Since Chung et al. teaches the same lithium manganese oxide compound (Li1.33Mn1.67O4), which can be expressed as (Li4Mn5O12) (see col. 6, claim 14), as in Kumar et al. ‘158, a person having the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add the ceramic filter taught by Chung et al. to produce an ion exchange adsorbent in Kumar et al. ‘158 because ceramic filter is a useful support material in the production of ion exchange adsorbent.
Response to Applicants’ Arguments
5. Applicants’ remarks submitted with the amendment on 03/16/2026 have been fully reviewed and considered, the amendments to the claims appeared overcome the rejection(s) and/objection(s) made in the last office. Thus, they have been withdrawn.
Applicants have added new claims 66-76 introducing new subject matter which were not previously presented. Examiner conducted a search based on the newly added claims and it would appear that the subject matter of the new claims 66, 68, & 74-75 read on the Kumar et al. (US 7,323,158) reference. A new ground of rejections has been applied to these claims. See above for more detailed discussion/explanations.
Reasons for Allowance
6. Claims 43-44, 46, 50-51, 54-55, 58, 63, & 76 are allowable over the prior art made of record. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
As concerned with claims 43-44, 46, 50-51, 54-55, 58, & 63, the prior art does not appear to disclose or fairly suggest a porous structure comprising (a) and (b) (as recited in the instant claim 43), wherein the porous structure comprises pores with diameters ranging from more than 1 um to less than 100 um, and wherein the mass ratio of the structural support to the ion exchange particles is from 5:1 to 1:20.
As concerned with claim 76, the prior art does not appear to disclose or fairly suggest a structure comprising: one or more ion exchange particles comprising an ion exchange material (as recited in the instant claim 76), and wherein the one or more ion exchange particles comprise an average diameter of greater than or equal to about 1 um.
*The claim would be allowed if the objection under “Claim Objection” is overcome or amended.
There would be no motivation to combine the teachings of the prior art references together to arrive to the claimed invention.
7. Claims 67 & 69-73 are 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.
The prior art does not appear to disclose or fairly suggest a structure comprising: one or more ion exchange particles comprising an ion exchange material (as recited in the instant claim 66), and wherein the one or more ion exchange particles having an average diameter of greater than or equal to about 1 um, more than about 10 um, more than about 20 um, more than about 30 um, more than about 40, or further comprises one or more pores with diameters of less than 15 um.
8. 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.
Citations
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. All references are cited for related art. See PTO-892 Form prepared.
Conclusion
10. Claims 43-44, 46, 50-51, 54-55, 58, 63, & 66-76 are pending. Claims 43-44, 46, 50-51, 54-55, 58, & 63 are allowed. Claims 66, 68, & 74-75 are rejected. Claims 66-67, 69-73, & 76 are objected.
Contacts
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner CAM N. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1357. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F (8:30 am – 5:00 pm) at alternative worksite or at cam.nguyen@uspto.gov.
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 571-270-3591. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Cam N. Nguyen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/CNN/
April 25, 2026
Prosecution Insights