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 .
Response to Amendment
This Final Rejection is in response to the Amendment dated May 21, 2026 filed in response to the Non-final Rejection dated March 13, 2026.
Cancelation of claims 11 and 17 is acknowledged.
The claim objection in the previous Office action is withdrawn in view of cancelation of claim 17.
The 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection in the previous Office action is withdrawn in view of the amendment of claim 1 distinguishing the claim from the rejection. However, the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103 as explained below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues, starting at the top of page 6 of the Amendment, claim 1 as amended is not obvious over the combination of Kikuchi (WO 2021/065229 A1) and Bai (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2021/0322996 A1). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
While it is true Kikuchi does not specifically state the temperature range argued by applicant, paragraphs [0047], [0060] and [0071] of Kikuchi specifically teach the temperature range employed is dependent upon the kind and amount of material milled. This teaching, coupled with the use of the temperature control jacket taught by Bai, would lead a person of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the temperature range used in Kikuchi’s method to the range of 20°C to 180°C when the kind and amount of material milled dictate such a range and control that range using Bai’s temperature control jacket. Accordingly, Examiner does not find the argument persuasive.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-7, 10, 13-15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over World Intellectual Property Organization Publication No. WO 2021/065229 A1 by Kikuchi et al., hereinafter “Kikuchi”, in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2021/0322996 A1 by Bai et al., hereinafter “Bai”. Citation is made to Kikuchi equivalent U.S. publication, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2022/0352488 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Kikuchi discloses a method comprising:
milling a microscopic lithium containing material (LCM) powder with a milling device while the milling device is in a first position (¶[0064] and [0065] disclose milling the lithium-containing material referenced in ¶[0062] in a ball mill as shown in Fig. 1. ¶[0075], [0076] and [0114] disclose cylinder 100 in Fig. 1 is reciprocated up and down perpendicularly to its longitudinal axis X as shown between first and second positions.);
turning the milling device, so that the milling device is in a second position (container 100 is reciprocated such that it is turned about its midpoint between the first and second positions shown in Fig. 1);
agitating the microscopic LCM powder while the milling device is in the second position (¶[0114] discloses cylindrical container 100 is placed on rotating table 101 in Fig. 1 which rotates cylinder 100 about axis X while it was being reciprocated to agitate the powder);
cooling the microscopic LCM powder while the milling device is in the second position (¶[0069] and [0070] disclose the milling is carried out in a cooled, inert atmosphere which cools the material while it is being milled);
returning the milling device to the first position (the reciprocation disclosed in ¶[0075] reciprocates the longitudinal ends of cylinder 100 in Fig. 1 up and down as shown in the figure such that cylinder 100 is repeatedly returned to the first position); and
repeating the milling, turning, agitating, cooling, and returning steps until the microscopic LCM powder is converted into LCM nano powder (¶[0066] discloses the steps of the method may be either continuously or intermittently performed to obtain the second material referenced in ¶[0064]).
Kikuchi does not specifically disclose a temperature range inside the milling device ranges from 20°C to 180°C as claim 1 has now been amended to claim. Paragraphs [0059], [0070] and [0093] of Kikuchi disclose using cooled inert gas to establish an inert atmosphere with a temperature below the dewpoint of the gas inside the milling device but are silent regarding a temperature range maintained inside the milling device during milling. Paragraphs [0047], [0060] and [0071] teach the temperature range employed inside the milling device is dependent upon the kind and amount of material to be milled but are also silent regarding a range.
In the same field of preparing nanometer powders, Bai teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control the temperature inside milling devices during milling by using a temperature control jacket on the milling device. See paragraphs [0012] and [0034] through at least [0037].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to maintain the temperature inside Kikuchi’s disclosed milling device within the range of 20°C and 180°C when the type and amount of material requires such a range by using a temperature control mill jacket as Bai teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Bai to the method of Kikuchi would achieve the predictable result of controlling the temperature inside Kikuchi’s disclosed milling device using a temperature control mill jacket taught by Bai.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art reference combination of Kikuchi in view of Bai renders the method of claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. Kikuchi further discloses the milling device is a ball mill comprising:
a milling chamber (¶[0064] discloses a cylindrical container chamber); and
a plurality of milling balls (¶[0064] discloses the ball mill includes a plurality of crushing balls).
Regarding claim 3, the prior art reference combination of Kikuchi in view of Bai renders the method of claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. Kikuchi further discloses the microscopic LCM powder has an average particle size of 1 to 1000 microns. ¶[0085] discloses the particle size is not particularly limited and gives an average preferred particle size of 0.01 to 20 microns which overlaps with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art reference combination of Kikuchi in view of Bai renders the method of claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. Paragraphs [0025] through [0041] of Kikuchi further discloses the inorganic material being synthesized by ball milling may contain a plurality of metals, such as lithium and aluminum (¶[0029) or lithium and titanium (¶[0032]).
Regarding claim 5, the prior art reference combination of Kikuchi in view of Bai renders the method of claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. Kikuchi further discloses where milling the microscopic LCM powder comprises rotating the milling device about an axis of the milling device at a rotational speed of 100 rpm to 3000 rpm. Paragraph [0072] discloses the rotation speed is dependent upon the kind and amount of material being processed and gives an example range of 30 rpm to 200 rpm which overlaps with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art reference combination of Kikuchi in view of Bai renders the method of claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. Paragraph [0114] discloses horizontally-oriented cylindrical container 100 in Fig. 1 was vertically oscillated with both ends of the container being reciprocated perpendicularly to the X-direction shown, such that a first position of the disclosed method may be reasonable interpreted as a vertical position.
Regarding claim 7, the prior art reference combination of Kikuchi in view of Bai renders the method of claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. Paragraph [0114] discloses horizontally-oriented cylindrical container 100 in Fig. 1 was vertically oscillated with both ends of the container being reciprocated perpendicularly to the X-direction shown, such that a second position of the disclosed method may be reasonable interpreted as a horizontal position.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art reference combination of Kikuchi in view of Bai renders the method of claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. Kikuchi further discloses where the LCM nano powder has an average particle size of 1 nm to 500 nm. ¶[0085] discloses the particle size is not particularly limited and gives an average preferred particle size of 0.01 to 20 microns which overlaps with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 13, the prior art reference combination of Kikuchi in view of Bai renders the method of claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. Paragraph [0072] discloses the rotation speed is dependent upon the kind and amount of material being processed and gives an example range of 30 rpm to 200 rpm which overlaps with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 14, the prior art reference combination of Kikuchi in view of Bai renders the method of claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. Paragraph [0067] discloses the milling is preferably carried out in a dry state, such that the powder is not contacted with a liquid.
Regarding claim 15, the prior art reference combination of Kikuchi in view of Bai renders the method of claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. Paragraph [0067] discloses the milling is preferably carried out in a dry state, such that the powder is not contacted with a solvent.
Regarding claim 19, the prior art reference combination of Kikuchi in view of Bai renders the method of claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. Paragraph [0032] of Kikuchi further discloses the inorganic solid material milled in the disclosed method may be lithium titanate, LiTi2(PO4). Paragraph [0040] disclose one or more of the other compositions recited in the claim.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi in view of Bai and further in view of Japanese Patent Publication No. JP 6777299 B1 by Fumiyoshi et al., hereinafter “Fumiyoshi”.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, the prior art reference combination of Kikuchi in view of Bai renders the method of claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. However, Kikuchi does not disclose the turning and returning of the milling device to the second and first positions comprise turning the milling device 90°.
In the same field of ball mills, Fumiyoshi teaches a ball mill capable of turning the milling container through a 360° range of motion about a turning axis while being rotated about an axis perpendicular to the turning axis. See Figs. 1-6 and the written description at least at paragraphs [0036] through [0051].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the ball mill taught by Fumiyoshi for the ball mill disclosed in Kikuchi to allow Kikuchi’s disclosed method to include turning and returning the milling device container through 90° in Kikuchi’s disclosed step of turning the milling device. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Fumiyoshi to the method disclosed by Kikuchi would achieve the predictable result of more complete milling as Fumiyoshi teaches in paragraph [0004].
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi in view of Bai and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 3,645,458 to Tobe, hereinafter “Tobe”.
Regarding claim 12, the prior art reference combination of Kikuchi in view of Bai renders the method of claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. However, Kikuchi does not disclose the agitating of the microscopic LCM powder inside the milling device comprises striking the milling device with an impact rod.
In the same field of grinding material into powder, Tobe teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an impact rod in the grind chamber of a grinding mill to grind material into powder. See column 2, line 4-35.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Tobe’s impact rod vibratory grinding mill for Kikuchi’s disclosed ball mill milling device to grind material into powder as Tobe teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Tobe to the method disclosed by Kikuchi would achieve the predictable result of using an impact rod vibratory grinding mill as the milling device in Kikuchi’s disclosed method.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi in view of Bai and further in view of W.I.P.O. Publication No. WO 2019/102345 A1 by Dossi et al., hereinafter “Dossi”.
Regarding claim 16, the prior art reference combination of Kikuchi in view of Bai renders the method of claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. However, Kikuchi is silent regarding the production yield of the LCM nano powder.
In the same field of ball milling powders, Dossi teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust parameters of the milling process, such as time, to increase production yield to close to 100%. See page 39, lines 1-7.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the milling time in Kikuchi’s method to achieve a production yield of 98% to 100% as Dossi teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Dossi to the method disclosed by Kikuchi would achieve the predictable result of adjusting Kikuchi’s method to achieve a production yield of 98% to 100%.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi in view of Bai and further in view of Chinese Patent Publication No. CN 109046618 A by Xiaolan et al., hereinafter “Xiaolan”.
Regarding claim 18, the prior art reference combination of Kikuchi in view of Bai renders the method of claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. However, Kikuchi is silent regarding the particle density of the LCM nano powder.
In the same field of milling lithium containing material, Xiaolan teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mill lithium containing material to a density of 1.2 to 1.5 g/cm3. See the abstract.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Kikuchi’s disclosed method to mill lithium containing material nano powder such that it has a particle density of 1.2 to 1.5 g/cm3 as Xiaolan teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Xiaolan to the method disclosed by Kikuchi would achieve the predictable result of Kikuchi’s method where the resulting LCM nano powder has a particle density of 0.1 g/cm3 to 5.0 g/cm3 as claimed.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi in view of Bai and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2024/0198419 A1 by Rupert et al., hereinafter “Rupert”.
Regarding claim 20, the prior art reference combination of Kikuchi in view of Bai renders the method of claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. However, Kikuchi is silent regarding the use of dopants as claimed in claim 20.
In the same field of ball milling lithium-containing powder, Rupert teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use iron (Fe) as a dopant in the production of lithium-containing powders. See paragraphs [0055] through [0058].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add Fe3+ to Kikuchi’s disclose lithium-containing material as a dopant is the same way Rupert teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Rupert to the method disclosed by Kikuchi would achieve the predictable result of improving the conductivity of the lithium-containing material produced in Kikuchi’s method by incorporating a dopant into the material.
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 PAUL DEREK PRESSLEY whose telephone number is (313)446-6658. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am to 3:30pm Eastern.
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, Christopher Templeton can be reached at (571) 270-1477. 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.
/P DEREK PRESSLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/JARED O BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725 16 September 2026
Prosecution Insights