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
Status of Application
1. This application is a Continuation of PCT/CN2022/093079, which was filed on 05/16/2022.
Claims 1-14 were originally presented in this application for examination.
Claims 1-14 are currently pending in this application and under consideration.
Priority
2. Acknowledgement is made of Applicants’ claim for foreign priority based on application filed in China on 08/27/2021. Certified copy of document CN202110994263.9 required by 37 CFR 1.55 has been received and placed in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/28/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner. An initialed copy accompanies this office action.
Specification
4. The examiner has not checked the specification to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors (grammatical, typographical, and idiomatic). Cooperation of the applicant(s) is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant(s) may become aware of in the specification, in the claims and in any further amendment(s) that applicant(s) may file.
Applicant(s) is also requested to complete the status of the copending applications referred to in the specification by their Attorney Docket Number or Application Serial Number, if any.
The status of the parent application(s) and/or any other application(s) cross-referenced to this application, if any, should be updated in a timely manner.
Claim Objections
5. Claims 1 & 8-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
A. In claim 1, line 1, “preparation method” should change to --method for preparation--.
B. In claims 8-14, “Cobaltosic oxide” should change to --A cobaltosic oxide--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102(a)(1)/103
6. 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.
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) 8-14 is/are 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 Park et al. (US 11,038,169 B2), hereinafter “Park et al. ‘169”.
Park et al. ‘169 discloses a cobaltosic oxide (CO3O4) (see col. 14, claim 1; col. 9, Examples 1 & 2). The product disclosed appears the same as the product claimed.
The claims are directed to a cobaltosic oxide product produced by a process, therefore any difference imparted by product-by-process limitations would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of 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, In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324, In re Spada, 15 USPQ 2d 1655, In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 594 and MPEP 2113.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 1-7 are allowable over the prior art made of record. Claim 1 would be allowed if the Claim Objection is overcome. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Park et al. (US 11,038,169 B2) is identified as the closest prior art, which teaches a method of preparing cobaltosic oxide from cobalt chloride (cobalt salt) and ammonium bicarbonate (carbonate solution) by precipitation and thermal heat treatment (see col. 14, claim 1; col. 9, Examples 1 & 2), however the reference does not teach to “spray adding a cobalt salt” and “spray adding a carbonate solution” at different flow rates, multiple times in each of step (1), step (2), and step (3), and at different amounts to obtain a particle size of 3 um to 5 um (as recited in step (1)) and 9 um to 13 um (as recited in step (2)).
There would be no motivation to combine the teachings of the prior art references together to arrive to the claimed invention.
Citations
8. 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
9. Claims 1-14 are pending. Claims 1 & 8-14 are objected. Claims 8-14 are rejected. Claims 2-7 are allowed.
Contacts
10. 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 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights