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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 9-17 stand withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 22 December 2025.
Claim Amendments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed 5 June 2026 have been entered and considered for this action.
These amendments overcome the prior rejections under 35 USC § 112(b), which are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng et al. (CN 112645299 A) in view of Wang et al. (CN 111704121 A) and Zhang et al. (Cryst. Growth Des. 2013, 13, 1099−1109). The provided English machine translations of Zheng (CN 112645299 A) and Wang (CN 111704121 A) are relied upon in the analysis below.
The Zheng et al. reference applied in the following rejections shares a common applicant/assignee and certain inventors with the instant application. However, the additional authorship on the Zheng disclosure qualifies it as prior art under 35 USC 102(a)(1).
Additionally, Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Regarding claim 1, Zheng discloses a method for preparing a nano-sheet ferric phosphate, comprising the following steps:
(1) dissolving a phosphorus source and an iron source in an acidic solution to obtain a solution containing phosphorus and iron (dissolve the weighed ferric phosphorus in the hydrochloric acid solution at 20 °C, filter, and obtain an acidic ferric phosphorus solution; [0046]);
(2) heating part of the solution containing phosphorus and iron (Pour the diluted acidic iron-phosphorus solution into a precipitation reactor … heat the solution to 90 °C), adding a precipitation auxiliary agent (Preferably, in step (2), before heating, a precipitation aid is added to the acidic iron phosphorus solution; [0028]), and performing dilution (Add an appropriate amount of deionized water to the obtained acidic iron-phosphorus solution to control the iron and phosphorus concentration; [0047]) for a reaction to obtain a primary ferric phosphate slurry (to obtain a slurry containing iron phosphate precipitate; [0047]).
The nanosheet morphology of the ferric phosphate prepared by Zheng is evident in Figure 2, and Zheng describes the particles as plate-like ([0050]).
While the embodiment of [0046] referenced above does not heat to boiling in step (2), Zheng further teaches that the temperature of step (2) can be 40°C-250 °C ([0019]), which includes temperatures at which the solution would boil, and also teaches that the heating function curve plays a role in regulating the nucleation process, thereby affecting the physical characteristics of the final precipitate, such as particle size and morphology ([0020]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the temperature in step (2) by routine experimentation to arrive at the method where the heating is performed to the boiling point of the solution.
Zheng does not teach after heating in step (2), adding a remaining portion of the acidic solution containing phosphorus and iron dropwise into the primary ferric phosphate slurry, and performing heating for a reaction to obtain ferric phosphate. Nor does Zheng specifically teach the time over which the dilution is performed or the aging step.
However, Wang also teaches a preparation method of iron phosphate nanosheets (small flaky primary particles; abstract). In particular, Wang teaches a feeding method where first a part of the phosphorus and iron source are used to synthesize iron phosphate and then the remaining iron-phosphorus mixture is added to the iron phosphate slurry at a rate of 0.4 mL/sec (1.5 L/h), which can be considered dropwise, and heated ([0024] and [0046]). Wang additionally teaches that such a feeding method improves the performance of lithium iron phosphate materials produced from it ([0072]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to heat only a portion of the acidic solution containing phosphorus and iron in step (2) of the method taught by Zheng, and to then add a remaining portion of the acidic solution containing phosphorus and iron dropwise into the primary ferric phosphate slurry, and perform heating for a reaction to obtain ferric phosphate, as taught by Wang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Wang teaches that such a feeding method provides a ferric phosphate from which lithium iron phosphate with improved properties can be synthesized.
Wang teaches that the temperature of this second reaction step is 90-100 °C ([0013]), which lies just outside the instantly claimed range of 30-85°C.
It is noted that the courts have stated where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art” and even when the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have similar properties, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F2d 775. 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP 2144.05.01). Furthermore, generally, differences in temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See MPEP 2144.05 and In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect heating at 85 °C and at 90 °C to have similar effects, and there is nothing of record to suggest that 85 °C provides any advantage over 90°C, as both temperature fall within the more preferred range recited in the instant specification (p. 4, ¶ 5). Therefore, 85 °C is considered an obvious variation of the temperatures suggested by the prior art.
Regarding the continuous addition of water step in the dilution operation, Zheng teaches the addition of water for dilution, and any addition process will be continuous over the period in which it is added. While Zheng does not specify the time over which the water is added, it would have been obvious to add the water in a manner that is controlled, and the time of addition would therefore be a function of the scale on which the reaction is performed, with more water requiring longer addition time. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the scale of the reaction in order to prepare a desired amount of ferric phosphate. Therefore, it would have also been obvious to modify the time of addition of water, including into the claimed range of 5 min to 120 min, in order to be able to transfer the required amount of water safely, with larger amounts of water requiring more time.
Regarding the step of standing for aging, Zheng teaches that their method provides plate-like primary particles ([0050]), just as the first step of the process of Wang ([0024]). Zhang teaches that aging of ferric phosphate allows for the development of the ferric phosphate precipitates into a nanoplate morphology, and that such a process occurs in their system after about 36 min (When thermal treatment time increased to 36 min, microsheet morphology became dominant in the product; Section 3.2.2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the method of modified Zheng an aging step of approximately 40 min, as taught by Zhang, and to perform this aging just before the second reaction step, which is when aggregation of the nanoplates occurs (Wang, [0024]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to allow the nanoplate morphology of the ferric phosphate to develop before the aggregation step taught by Wang.
Regarding claim 2, modified Zheng teaches the method of claim 1, where Zheng also teaches filtering, washing, and drying the ferric phosphate ([0011]-[0012]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Zheng teaches the method of claim 1, where in step (1) the iron source is a ferric salt (ferric phosphate or ferric sulfate; [0013] and [0046]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Zheng teaches the method of claim 1, where in step (1) the phosphorus source can be phosphoric acid ([0013]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Zheng teaches the method of claim 1, where in step (1) the acidic solution is hydrochloric acid ([0046]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Zheng teaches the method of claim 1, where in step (2) water is added for dilution during the dilution (add an appropriate amount of deionized water; [0047]). Zheng further teaches that the final concentration of iron and phosphorus is 1.0 mol/L, and that the initial concentration of iron and phosphorus in the acid solution 80 g FePO4 in 120 mL of solution ([0046]). This corresponds to an iron concentration of 0.53 mol per 0.12 L, or 4.4 mol/L. To achieve a concentration of 1.0 mol/L, the total volume of the added water to the volume of the part of the solution containing phosphorus and iron must be 3.4:1, which falls in the instantly claimed range of (2-20):1.
Regarding claim 7, modified Zheng teaches the method of claim 1, where in step (2) the precipitation auxiliary agent (precipitation agent) can be titanium dioxide ([0029]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Zheng teaches the method of claim 1, but neither Zheng nor Wang explicitly teach adding a precipitating agent during step (3). However, Zheng does teach that the precipitating agent serves to help overcome energy barriers associated with precipitation and to ensure uniformity of doping.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the precipitation auxiliary agent into the remaining solution containing phosphorus and iron before adding the remaining solution containing phosphorus and iron into the primary ferric phosphate slurry. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because continued precipitation is occurring during step (3) and having the precipitating agent present would help to ensure uniform doping of the element in the precipitating agent.
Regarding claim 18, modified Zheng teaches the method of claim 1, where Zheng teaches that in a case where the iron source is a ferrous salt an oxidant is further added to the solution containing phosphorus and iron ([0024]).
Claims 1-8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong et al. (CN 101708834 A) in view of Wei et al. (CN 11908441 A), Wang et al. (CN 111704121 A), Chen (CN 110294466 A), and Zhang et al. (Cryst. Growth Des. 2013, 13, 1099−1109). The provided English machine translations of Gong (CN 101708834 A), Wei (CN 11908441 A), Wang (CN 111704121 A), and Chen (CN 110294466 A) are relied upon in the analysis below.
Regarding claim 1, Gong discloses a method for preparing a nano-sheet ferric phosphate (disc-shaped iron phosphate powder; [0002]), comprising the following steps:
(1) dissolving a phosphorus source and an iron source in an acidic solution to obtain a solution containing phosphorus and iron (Add 1 liter of deionized water pre-adjusted to pH=1 with nitric acid to a stirred reactor, then add 40.4 g (0.1 mol) Fe(NO3)3·9H2O with stirring. After Fe(NO3)3·9H2O has dissolved, add 14.2 g (0.1 mol) Na2HPO4; [0021]);
(2) heating part of the solution containing phosphorus and iron to obtain a primary ferric phosphate slurry (reactor solution was heated to 80°C and reacted at this temperature for 3 hours to obtain a white suspension; [0021]).
Regarding heating the solution to boiling, as required by the instant claim, Gong further discloses that the temperature in this step should be in the range of 80 °C-100°C ([0010]), and the boiling point of the aqueous solution is expected to be approximately 100 °C. Therefore this range overlaps, or very nearly overlaps, with the instantly claimed temperature.
Generally, differences temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating that such a temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See MPEP 2144.05 and In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, the claimed conditions of heating to boiling merely represent an obvious variant and/or routine optimization of the temperature values of the cited prior art.
Gong does not teach the two-step dilution, or adding a precipitation auxiliary agent, or after heating in step (2), adding a remaining portion of the acidic solution containing phosphorus and iron dropwise into the primary ferric phosphate slurry, and performing heating for a reaction to obtain ferric phosphate.
However, Wei also teaches a preparation method of iron phosphate (titanium-doped iron phosphate; title) and further teaches that a precipitation auxiliary agent (titanium sulfate; [0041]) can be added to a phosphorus and iron containing solution ([0032]-[0033]) to create a uniform doping effect ([0025]). Wei additionally teaches that doping can improve the material’s performance in power and energy storage applications ([0004]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Gong to include adding the precipitation auxiliary agent of titanium sulfate, as taught by Wei. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because the precipitation auxiliary agent would allow for the generation of uniformly titanium-doped iron phosphate and increased performance, as taught by Wei.
Furthermore, Wang also teaches a preparation method of iron phosphate nanosheets (small flaky primary particles; abstract). In particular, Wang teaches a feeding method where first a part of the phosphorus and iron source are used to synthesize iron phosphate and then the remaining iron-phosphorus mixture is added to the iron phosphate slurry at a rate of 0.4 mL/sec (1.5 L/h), which can be considered dropwise, and heated ([0024] and [0046]). Wang additionally teaches that such a feeding method improves the performance of lithium iron phosphate materials produced from it ([0072]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to heat only a portion of the acidic solution containing phosphorus and iron in step (2) of the method taught by Gong, and to then add a remaining portion of the acidic solution containing phosphorus and iron dropwise into the primary ferric phosphate slurry, and perform heating for a reaction to obtain ferric phosphate, as taught by Wang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Wang teaches that such a feeding method provides a ferric phosphate from which lithium iron phosphate with improved properties can be synthesized.
Additionally, Chen also teaches the preparation of nanosheet ferric phosphate (title), and further teaches that the solution concentration has an effect on the morphology of the iron phosphate ([0020]). Furthermore, Zhang teaches that aging of ferric phosphate allows for the development of the ferric phosphate precipitates into a nanoplate morphology, and that such a process occurs in their system after about 36 min (When thermal treatment time increased to 36 min, microsheet morphology became dominant in the product; Section 3.2.2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize by routine experimentation the concentration of the solution in which the plate-like ferric phosphate particles are formed by including a dilution step to adjust the concentration, by the addition of water, which is necessarily continuous over the period of addition. It would have been further obvious to also allow the solution to age for approximately 40 min over which time the plate-like particle morphology sought by Gong and Wang could develop, as taught by Zhang.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Chen teaches that the solution concentration has an effect on the morphology of the iron phosphate produced, which is something that Gong also wants to control (a method for preparing disc shaped iron phosphate powder; [0002]), and because Gong and Wang both seek plate-like/flake-shaped primary particles that take time to develop, as taught by Zhang. It would have also been obvious to perform this dilution and aging before the second reaction step, which is when aggregation of the nanoplates occurs (Wang, [0024]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to allow the nanoplate morphology of the ferric phosphate to develop before the aggregation step taught by Wang.
Regarding the time period over which the continuous addition of water is performed, while Zheng does not specify the time over which the water is added, it would have been obvious to add the water in a manner that is controlled, and the time of addition would therefore be a function of the scale on which the reaction is performed, with more water requiring longer addition time. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the scale of the reaction in order to prepare a desired amount of ferric phosphate. Therefore, it would have also been obvious to modify the time of addition of water, including into the claimed range of 5 min to 120 min, in order to be able to transfer the required amount of water safely, with larger amounts of water requiring more time.
Regarding the temperature of the reaction in step (3), Wang teaches that the temperature of this second reaction step is 90-100 °C ([0013]), which lies just outside the instantly claimed range of 30-85°C. However, generally, differences in temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See MPEP 2144.05 and In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In this case, there is nothing of record to suggest that 85 °C provides any advantage over 90°C, as both temperature fall within the more preferred range recited in the instant specification (p. 4, ¶ 5). Therefore, 85 °C is considered an obvious variation of the temperatures suggested by the prior art.
Regarding claim 2, modified Gong teaches the method of claim 1, where Gong also teaches filtering, washing, and drying the ferric phosphate (After cooling and filtration, the filter cake was washed three times with deionized water. The filter cake was then dried in an oven at 100-120°C for 6 hours to obtain iron phosphate powder; [0021]).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, modified Gong teaches the method of claim 1, where in step (1) the iron source is a ferric salt (Fe(NO3)3·9H2O) and
the phosphorus source is hydrogen phosphate (Na2HPO4; [0021]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Gong teaches the method of claim 1, where the acidic solution in step (1) is nitric acid ([0021]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Gong teaches the method of claim 1, but neither Gong nor Chen specifically teach a volume ratio of the added water to the part of the solution containing phosphorus and iron being in the range of (2-20):1.
However, Chen teaches that the solution concentration has an effect on the morphology of the iron phosphate ([0020]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize by routine experimentation the amount of water being added during the dilution, including into the claimed range of (2-20):1 for a ratio of the added water to the part of the solution containing phosphorus and iron. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Chen teaches that the solution concentration has an effect on the morphology of the iron phosphate produced, which is something that Gong also wants to control (a method for preparing disc shaped iron phosphate powder; [0002]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Gong teaches the method of claim 1, where Wei teaches in step (2) the precipitation auxiliary agent is titanium sulfate ([0041]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Gong teaches the method of claim 1, but neither Gong nor Wang explicitly teach adding a precipitating auxiliary agent during step (3).
However, Wei teaches that it is desirable to have uniform doping in the materials being produced and that the titanium source (precipitating auxiliary agent) can be uniformly dispersed using a method where it present in the iron and phosphorus containing solution ([0055] and [0061]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the titanium salt present in both solutions containing iron and phosphorus in the method of modified Gong, including the remaining solution being added in step (3). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to achieve uniform doping of the product iron phosphate.
Regarding claim 18, the instant claim recites only further limitations on an optional limitation of claim 1. Because modified Gong does not fulfil the limitations of claim 1 using “a case where the iron source is elementary iron and/or ferrous salt”, and instead uses only a ferric salt (Fe(NO3)3·9H2O; [0021]), claim 18 provides no further limitations on the method as implemented by modified Gong. Therefore, modified Gong also meets all the limitation of claim 18.
If claim 18 were interpreted as requiring the use of elementary iron and/or a ferrous salt, it is noted that Wang teaches that such cases would require the use of an oxidant (oxidizing agent; [0017]), as required by the instant claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5 June 2026 have been fully considered and they are persuasive in that the previously cited prior art does not specifically teach the details of the dilution step recited in the amended claim, as argued on pp. 6 and 9-10. Therefore, the prior rejections under 35 USC § 103 have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made in further view of Zhang et al. (Cryst. Growth Des. 2013, 13, 1099−1109), as analyzed above.
Applicant's additional arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 1-8 over Zheng (D1) in view of Wang (D2), pages 5-9 of the reply filed 5 June 2026, have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Specifically, Applicant argues on pages 6-7 that Wang (D2) teaches a temperature for the second reaction, 90-100 °C, that is higher than the instant claim, which specifies 30 °C-85 °C. However, generally, differences in temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See MPEP 2144.05 and In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
In the instant case, while the amended claim specifies a range that excludes the prior art, there is no evidence to suggest that the claimed temperature range is critical. While Applicant’s arguments point to [0033] (presumably of the corresponding Pat Pub. US 2024/0317583 A1) to support the importance of this range, said paragraph actually suggests that temperatures in the whole range of 30-95 °C are preferable, with the higher end of the range being more preferable (“Preferably, in step (3), a temperature for the heating for the reaction is 30° C to 95° C… more preferably, the reaction temperature is 40° C to 95° C”).
Applicant further argues that the particles produced at the temperatures taught by Wang would have a distinct morphology from those provided by the instant method, however, it is again noted the temperatures taught by Wang overlap with those taught by the instant specification as providing the claimed morphology. Furthermore, the features of high specific surface area and high compaction density are not recited in the instant claims, and though Wang teaches a secondary structure, these structures are still comprised of plate-like (nano-sheet) ferric phosphate, as required by the instant claim.
Applicant additionally asserts that “Clearly, the timing and function of adding the precipitation aid in the [instant method] are different from those in D1 [Zheng],” page 8 of the reply. However, any differences that may exist are not apparent in the recitation of claim 1. Applicant appears to be arguing that claim 1 requires the addition of the precipitation aid after heating, while Zheng teaches the precipitation aid being added before heating. However, this is not a limitation that appears in the claim, which only requires that the individual steps recited in step (2) -- heating part of the solution containing phosphorus and iron to boiling, adding a precipitation auxiliary agent, and performing dilution for a reaction to obtain a primary ferric phosphate slurry -- occur after those operations recited in step (1). D1 teaches this order of steps (1) and (2).
It is noted that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In particular, the courts have held that it is improper to read a specific order of steps into method claims where, as a matter of logic or grammar, the language of the method claims did not impose a specific order on the performance of the method steps, and the specification did not directly or implicitly require a particular order. Altiris Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1371, 65 USPQ2d 1865, 1869-70 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Therefore, it is improper to interpret step (2) of the instant claim as requiring any particular order of the individual operations recited.
Furthermore, even if step (2) were to require a specific order of operations, the courts have held that selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946). MPEP 2144.04(IV)(C). Applicant points to no evidence that the timing of adding the precipitation aid is critical.
Applicant’s additional argument, p. 8-9, that one of ordinary skill in the art would view Zheng’s disclosure of two embodiments, one with dilution and one without, as a teaching away from the method utilizing dilution is also unpersuasive. Any differences in performance revealed in Table 2 ([0104]) are very minor and Zheng provides no suggestion that Example 1 is inferior or that the method of Example 1 should not be used.
Applicant's additional arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 1-5 and 7-8 over Gong in view of Wei and Wang, pages 10-13 of the reply filed 5 June 2026, have also been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Specifically, Applicant’s arguments regarding the function of the precipitation aid, p. 10, are not persuasive, because while Wei (D4) may have had a different intent when adding the titanium sulfate, the compound itself is the same as the precipitation aid added in the instant invention, and it therefore meets the limitations of the claim.
The arguments regarding timing, order of steps, and the temperature of step (3), as presented on p. 10-12, are also unpersuasive for the same reasons as analyzed above.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas A Piro whose telephone number is (571)272-6344. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8:00 am-5:00 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, Sally Merkling can be reached at (571) 272-6297. 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.
/NICHOLAS A. PIRO/Assistant Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/PAUL A WARTALOWICZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights