Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/496,977

PROCESS FOR PRODUCING LITHIATED TRANSITION METAL OXIDES

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Oct 30, 2023
Examiner
SLIFKA, COLIN W
Art Unit
1732
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
BASF Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
66%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
84%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 66% — above average
66%
Career Allow Rate
578 granted / 871 resolved
+1.4% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+18.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
13 currently pending
Career history
884
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
53.0%
+13.0% vs TC avg
§102
12.4%
-27.6% vs TC avg
§112
23.4%
-16.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 871 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . 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) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (CN 1226876 A; references made herein are with respect to the 7 page English translation, of record in parent application No. 16/678,706 on January 31, 2023). Regarding claim 1, Li teaches a method of making a lithiated transition metal (e.g., nickel and cobalt) oxide powders (particles) especially intended for use in lithium ion chemical battery positive electrodes (title and 2nd par. of “Description”). Li teaches the intermixing of the transition metal precursors, a lithium compound, and an alkali metal hydroxide, specifically potassium hydroxide, and heating said mixture in a single stage calcination method (abstract, clm. 1, and 5th full par. of page 4/7), wherein reactor temperatures are taught to be within a range of about 550-900°C (last full par. of page 3/7 and clm. 1) and an oxidizing atmosphere (clm. 1 and par. bridging pages 3/7 and 4/7). Regarding claims 2 and 3 and further regarding claim 1, Li teaches an average grain size of 2-50 µm (clm. 11). Li does not teach a first calcination step to achieve particles having a first grain size and a subsequent calcination step with the potassium processing additive to form particles having a second grain size, larger than the first, as claimed. However, there is no indication in the claims or Specification that breaking up a single stage calcination into two separate stages would achieve a distinct or unexpected result. In essence, the claimed process halts the calcination step in order to add in the processing additive comprising potassium, and then proceeds with the calcination in order to achieve a larger grain size (than when the calcination step was initially halted). Regarding claim 1, changes in sequence of adding ingredients is held to be prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.04 IV.C.), absent a showing of criticality. In fact, Li recognizes that the alkali metal hydroxide, preferably the presence of KOH, is to increase the size of the crystal grain (page 4/7, 6th par.). From the teachings of the prior art, one of ordinary skill would have fully expected the grain size of the primary particles to increase after addition of, for example, KOH. Furthermore, the final product attained by the Li process finds significant overlap with the final product grain sizes of claims 2 and 3, which are further limiting of parent claim 1. Regarding claims 4 and 5, Li teaches the use of nickel hydroxide or nickel cobalt hydroxide (page 3/4, pars. 12-13). Regarding claim 6, Li teaches the use of lithium hydroxide or lithium oxide (page 3/4, par. 14). Regarding claim 7, Li teaches that the potassium hydroxide may be added from 0.1-50 mol% (page 3/4, par. 15), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of 0.5-5 wt%. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kanada et al (US 2018/0309124) similarly teaches a two-step calcination process requiring mixing of lithium nickel containing composite oxide particles with a lithium compound and an alkali metal compound (abstract, Fig. 2). While Kanada teaches a two-step calcination, Kanada differs from the claimed process as claim 1 requires addition of the potassium processing additive prior to the second calcination step and Kanada teaches that the alkali metal other than lithium is removed by washing prior to the second calcination step (claim 7). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLIN W SLIFKA whose telephone number is (571)270-5830. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 AM-5:30 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, Ching-Yiu (Coris) Fung can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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. /Colin W. Slifka/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 30, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 23, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600635
PROCESS AND DEVICE FOR PREPARING GRAPHENE QUANTUM MATERIAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600627
Process and Apparatus for Oxygen Injection in a Sulfur Furnace
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595369
ALGAE-RESISTANT BITUMEN-CONTAINING MATERIALS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595418
FIBER-CONTAINING FIRE PROTECTION MATERIAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12586815
SULFIDE-BASED SOLID ELECTROLYTE USED FOR LITHIUM ION SECONDARY BATTERY AND PRODUCTION METHOD FOR SAME, SOLID ELECTROLYTE LAYER, AND LITHIUM ION SECONDARY BATTERY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
66%
Grant Probability
84%
With Interview (+18.1%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 871 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month