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
This application is a 371 of PCT/EP2022/079277 (filed 10/22/22), which application claims priority to EPO 21204489.5 (filed 10/25/21).
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Amendment(s)
The Preliminary Amendment filed 04/22/24 is entered.
Claims 16-30 are pending.
Drawings
The Drawing filed 04/22/24 is objected to:
37 CFR 1.84(u)(1) states (emphasis added):
The different views must be numbered in consecutive Arabic numerals, starting with 1, independent of the numbering of the sheets and, if possible, in the order in which they appear on the drawing sheet(s). Partial views intended to form one complete view, on one or several sheets, must be identified by the same number followed by a capital letter. View numbers must be preceded by the abbreviation "FIG." Where only a single view is used in an application to illustrate the claimed invention, it must not be numbered and the abbreviation "FIG." must not appear.
Accordingly, applicant should submit a corrected Drawing without “Figure 1” and amend the specification to –-the Drawing-—(each occurrence).
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS statements filed 04/22/24, 08/20/25 and 02/24/26 have been considered. Initialed copies accompany this action.
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892 or by applicant on form PTO-1449, they have not been considered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species I without traverse in the Reply filed 02/24/26 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and/or 103
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed 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.
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.
Claim Construction
As no special definition appears in the instant specification, the examiner construes the claim terminology “precursor material” to require it’s normal meaning in the art (i.e. any material which requires additional processing/reaction/modification to form a final product). Additionally, the preamble terminology “…for a Li-containing cathode…” is considered a statement of intended utility.
Claim(s) 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 104934572 (PTO-892) or Taniguchi et al (Powder Tech 2008).
CN 104934572 discloses a preparation method of Li(Ni,Co,Al)/TiO composite. The method includes (page 2 of translation):
PNG
media_image1.png
506
1112
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Disclosed steps (2) and (4) meet the claimed “spray pyrolysis” and “spray dries” (dependent claim 2). Additionally, the examiner notes that elected species I utilizes open claim terminology “comprising” which does not exclude the lithium salt disclosed in the reference. Also, as the reference teaches a heating step after spray-drying, the material meets the instant claim terminology “precursor material” (see discussion above). With respect to dependent claim 19, the reference teaches use of chloride salt reactant (page 2).
Taniguchi (Powder Technology 2008) discloses (Abstract):
PNG
media_image2.png
340
1390
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The disclosed process meets the claimed “spray pyrolysis” and “spray dries” (dependent claim 2) (Section 2: Experimental). As above, the examiner notes that elected species I utilizes open claim terminology “comprising” which does not exclude the lithium salt disclosed in the reference. Also, as the reference teaches a heating step after spray-drying, the material meets the instant claim terminology “precursor material” (see discussion above).
The references each disclose the claimed invention in an anticipatory manner.
Claim(s) 21-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over either CN 104934572 (PTO-892) or Taniguchi et al (Powder Tech 2008).
Both references are relied upon as set forth above.
With respect to dependent claims 21-25, the examiner respectfully submits that additional steps such as rinsing/washing of the particles and size control/reduction are each well known in the art, and well within the purview of the skilled artisan to determine the workable parameters of such in order to tailor the resultant properties of the cathode materials. Likewise, with respect to dependent claims 26-30, control of both particle size (e.g. D50), bulk density and Mn:Co ratio are result effective variables which are obvious optimizations to the skilled artisan. In re "[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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
In view of the foregoing, the above claims have failed to patentably distinguish over the applied art.
The remaining references listed on forms 892 and 1449 have been reviewed by the examiner and are considered to be cumulative to or less material than the prior art references relied upon in the rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK T KOPEC whose telephone number is (571)272-1319. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00a-5:00p EST.
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, Robert Jones can be reached at 5712707733. 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.
/MARK KOPEC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762
MK
April 18, 2026
Prosecution Insights