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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10 September 2024 and 09 May 2025 have been considered by the examiner.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
1. Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0104879 to Kim et al. (“Kim”) in view of US 2019/0336963 to Hong et al. (“Hong”).
With regard to Claim 1, Kim teaches a method of preparing core-shell cathode active material precursors via a Couette-Taylor reactor wherein an aqueous multi-element metal solution precipitates core particles, and an aqueous transition metal solution forms a shell thereon (see Abstract; FIGs. 1-2; ¶¶ [0008], [0043]-[0044]). Kim does not expressly teach separation of the core-shell materials or series arrangement of Couette-Taylor reactors as claimed. Hong is similarly directed to core-shell materials via Couette-Taylor reactors, and teaches known arrangements thereof feature separation of core-shell particles produced thereby (see Abstract; ¶¶ [0006]-[0007]). Hong further teaches series arrangement of multiple Couette-Taylor reactors for sequential production of core and shell features, with the advantage of temperature control at each stage (see FIG. 1; ¶ [0009]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have employed multiple Couette-Taylor reactors in series and to have included routine separation operations in order to control process temperatures.
With regard to Claims 2-3, Kim teaches multi-element metal solutions and aqueous solutions comprising transition metals featuring the claimed materials (see ¶¶ [0044]-[0045]).
With regard to Claims 4-9, Kim teaches provision of chelating and precipitating agents and control of process parameters including solution flow rate, reactor rotation speed, and reaction residence time (see ¶¶ [0038], [0046], [0052]-[0053], [0056], [0058]). Hong teaches temperature control (see ¶ [0009]). Kim further teaches optimization of process conditions to influence process yield and core-shell characteristics (see ¶ [0010]). To the extent the references do not expressly disclose the claimed process parameters, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have employed the claimed process parameters throughout the course of routine experimentation and optimization in pursuit of desired yield and core-shell features.
2. Claim10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Hong as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of US 2008/0193841 to Sun et al. (“Sun”).
With regard to Claim 10, Kim teaches influencing core size and shell thickness via adjustment of process parameters (see ¶¶ [0004], [0053]); however the reference does not expressly teach the claimed size and shell thickness. Sun is similarly directed to core-shell cathode active materials, and teaches producing core sizes and shell thicknesses within the claimed range (see Abstract; ¶ [0023]-[0024]). It would have thus been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have produced core-shell particles featuring a core size and shell thickness within the claimed range in the method of Kim since Sun teaches the suitability of thus featured core-shell particles for usage as cathode active material.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2023/0278002 to Hong et al. is noted as teaching series arrangements of Couette-Taylor reactors (see Abstract; FIGs. 1-2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael P Rodriguez whose telephone number is (571)270-3736. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 6:00 Eastern M-F.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/Michael P. Rodriguez/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1715