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. 112, 102, and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 102, and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of the International Application PCT/FR2022/052495. A Notice of Acceptance of Application under 35 U.S.C. 371 and 37 CFR 1.495 was mailed 17 December 2024.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in France on 23 December 2021. It is noted that applicant has filed a certified copy of the FR 2114403 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) submitted 18 June 2024 and 28 August 2026 have been considered by the Examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0018] on page 7 of the instant specification recites in lines 8-11:
“-the mass content of alkali metal oxides in said porous ceramic body is less than 1%. In particular, that of Na2O is less than 0.5%;
-the mass content of alkaline-earth oxides in said porous ceramic body is less than 1%. In particular, that of K2O or CaO is less than 0.5%;”
This is objected to for the following reasons: 1) the term “alkaline-earth oxides” should read “alkaline-earth metal oxides” and 2) K2O is grouped with CaO and recited as being an alkaline-earth metal oxide, however, K2O is an alkali metal oxide.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The original drawings received on 18 June 2024 are accepted by the Examiner.
Claim Comment
The claims recite limitations for several components, and the components are recited using the following terminology:
In claim 1: “A kiln furniture” (line 1), “a powder” (line 1), “an alkali metal” (line 1), “a porous ceramic body” (line 2), “a cavity” (line 2), “a container” (line 2), “a ceramic coating” (line 3), “said coating” (line 8), “the coating” (line 9), “a layer” (line 9), “a compound” (line 9), “a lithium aluminate optionally comprising silicon” (line 10), and “a magnesia-alumina spinel” (line 11).
In claim 11: “a ceramic matrix” (line 2).
In claim 13: “a wall thickness” (line 2).
In claim 14: “ a kiln furniture” (line 1).
In claim 16: “the heat treatment” (line 2), “the powders” (Line 2), and “an alkali metal” (line 2).
In claim 18: “said layer” (line 1).
In claim 19: “the lithium aluminate optionally comprising silicon” (lines 1-2).
In claim 20: “the zirconia” (line 1).
The Examiner is reading these terms, absent evidence to the contrary, in the broadest reasonable interpretation, where the use of the articles: “a”, “an”, “the”, and “said”, is not read as a limiting factor meaning one or singular, but that the term could include multiple or plural of the item. For example, “A kiln furniture” could include multiple pieces of kiln furniture, “a powder” could mean more than one powders, “an alkali metal” could include multiple alkali metals, “a ceramic coating” or “the coating” could include multiple coatings, and “a layer” or “the layer” could include multiple layers.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: minor typographical errors.
In claim 1, lines 9-13 recite “a compound selected from alumina, a lithium aluminate optionally comprising silicon, a magnesia-alumina spinel, zirconia, hafnia, yttria;” The phrase is missing its conjunction before the last item. One example of how the phrase might be amended is “a compound selected from alumina, a lithium aluminate optionally comprising silicon, a magnesia-alumina spinel, zirconia, hafnia, and/or yttria;”.
In claim 8, line 2 recites the phrase “Al2O3, MgO, Li2O, Y2O3, ZrO2, HfO2”. The phrase is missing its conjunction before the last item. One example of how the phrase might be amended is “Al2O3, MgO, Li2O, Y2O3, ZrO2, and HfO2”.
In claim 15, line 1, the phrase “a kiln furniture” should read “the kiln furniture”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) or second paragraph
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 13, and 15 recite several limitations that recite a range in the format of “between X and Y”. This renders the claim indefinite since it is not clear if the claim limits the range to the values between the numbers or if the range is meant to include the recited endpoints of the range. For example, claim 1 recites “an open porosity of between 10 and 40%” Does that include an open porosity of 10% and 40%? Numerically, does between 10 and 40 mean a) 10%≥open porosity≥40% or b) 10%>open porosity>40%? This is also true for ranges pertaining to the amounts of an equivalent pore diameter, an average thickness, a median pore diameter d50, a median grain size of grains, a wall thickness, and a median diameter of a population of said ceramic particles as recited in claims 1, 2, 4, 13, and 15.
Claims 1 and 14 recite limitations to “a porous ceramic body” (claim 1), “said ceramic body” (claim 1), “said porous ceramic body” (claims 1 & 10-13), and “the porous ceramic body” ( claim 14), this is confusing and renders the claims indefinite. The claim would be clear if only “a porous ceramic body ” and “said porous ceramic body” were recited throughout the claims.
Claims 1-9, 14, and 18 recite limitations to “a ceramic coating” (claim 1), “said coating” (claims 1, 7, & 14) “the coating” (claims 1 & 18), and “said ceramic coating” (claims 2-6, 8, & 9), this is confusing and renders the claim indefinite. The claims would be clear if only “a ceramic coating” and “said ceramic coating” were recited throughout the claims.
Claim 1, lines 9-13 recites “the coating comprises a layer comprising a compound selected from alumina, a lithium aluminate optionally comprising silicon, a magnesia-alumina spinel, zirconia, hafnia, yttria:”. The claim is rendered indefinite since the phrase as a whole is confusing for at least the following reasons:
The use of the claim language “the coating comprises a layer” is open claim language that allows for additional components in the ceramic coating beyond “a layer”. It is not clear if the ceramic coating can comprise only one layer or multiple layers or even other materials beyond the layer.
The phrase “a layer comprises a compound” utilizes open claim language which allows for additions beyond “a compound” in the layer.
The claim language “a compound selected from alumina, a lithium aluminate optionally comprising silicon, a magnesia-alumina spinel, zirconia, hafnia, yttria:” does not define if only one or multiple of the listed compounds can be included.
For the purposes of examination, the examiner will read this portion of the claim using the broadest and reasonable interpretation. Hence, “the coating comprises a layer comprising a compound selected from alumina, a lithium aluminate optionally comprising silicon, a magnesia-alumina spinel, zirconia, hafnia, yttria:”, is read to mean that the ceramic coating comprises at least one layer comprising at least one compound of the following but could include multiple compounds from the list and additional compounds as well. For example, “the ceramic coating comprises at least one layer comprising at least one compound selected from alumina, a lithium aluminate optionally comprising silicon, a magnesia-alumina spinel, zirconia, hafnia, and/or yttria:”.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the median pore diameter d50 of said ceramic coating" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the pore diameter d90 of said ceramic coating" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites “a mass content of oxides other than Al2O3, MgO, Li2O, Y2O3, ZrO2, HfO2” in said ceramic coating is less than 1%”. This renders the claim indefinite since it is not clear if the claim is limiting each individual oxide other than those listed to less than 1% or if the sum of all other oxides other than those listed is limited to less than 1%.
Claim 9 recites “wherein said porous ceramic body comprises alumina, zirconia, magnesia, mullite, cordierite, carbide and/or silicon oxynitride or oxynitride, boron nitride, boron carbide or molybdenum disilicide”. The claim is rendered indefinite since the phrase as a whole is confusing for at least the following reasons:
The claim is not clear if the porous ceramic body can comprise one or more of the listed materials as well as additional materials since the claim utilizes the open claim language “comprises”.
The list portion of the claim “alumina, zirconia, magnesia, mullite, cordierite, carbide and/or silicon oxynitride or oxynitride, boron nitride, boron carbide or molybdenum disilicide” uses multiple conjunctions which renders the claim indefinite since it is not clear how to interpret the list. For example, is “carbide and/or silicon oxynitride or oxynitride” considered a singular item? Does “boron carbide or molybdenum disilicide” mean that if you have boron carbide you can’t have molybdenum disilicide?
For the purposes of examination, the examiner will read this portion of the claim using the broadest and reasonable interpretation. Hence, “wherein said porous ceramic body comprises alumina, zirconia, magnesia, mullite, cordierite, carbide and/or silicon oxynitride or oxynitride, boron nitride, boron carbide or molybdenum disilicide”, is read to mean that the porous ceramic body comprises at least one of the following but could include multiple materials from the list and additional materials as well. For example, “wherein said porous ceramic body comprises at least one of alumina, zirconia, magnesia, mullite, cordierite, carbide, silicon oxynitride, oxynitride, boron nitride, boron carbide, and/or molybdenum disilicide”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the population" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the heat treatment" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the powders of an alkali metal" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is noted that claim 1 recites “a powder of an alkali metal” but does not specifically recite multiples of powder.
Claim 19 recites “The kiln furniture according to claim 1,wherein the lithium aluminate optionally comprising silicon is LiAlO2, LiAlSi2O6, Li3AlSi5, LiAlSi4O10, LiAlSiO4”. The claim is rendered indefinite since the phrase as a whole is confusing for at least the following reasons:
It is not clear if the kiln furniture of claim 19 positively requires that the ceramic coating comprises the lithium aluminate optionally comprising silicon.
The claim is not clear if the lithium aluminate optionally comprising silicon can comprise one or more of the listed materials.
The list portion of the claim “is LiAlO2, LiAlSi2O6, Li3AlSi5, LiAlSi4O10, LiAlSiO4” fails to use a conjunction, which renders the claim indefinite since it is not clear how to interpret the list. For example, is the phrase read as “is LiAlO2, LiAlSi2O6, Li3AlSi5, LiAlSi4O10, and LiAlSiO4” , “is LiAlO2, LiAlSi2O6, Li3AlSi5, LiAlSi4O10, or LiAlSiO4” , or “is LiAlO2, LiAlSi2O6, Li3AlSi5, LiAlSi4O10, and/or LiAlSiO4”?
For the purposes of examination, the examiner will read the claim such that the lithium aluminate optionally comprising silicon is a required component of the ceramic coating. Hence, the claim is read as “The kiln furniture according to claim 1, comprises the lithium aluminate optionally comprising silicon, wherein the lithium aluminate optionally comprising silicon is at least one of LiAlO2, LiAlSi2O6, Li3AlSi5, LiAlSi4O10, and/or LiAlSiO4”.
Claim 20 recites “The kiln furniture according to claim 1, wherein the zirconia is stabilized. This renders the claim indefinite since it is not clear if the kiln furniture of claim 20 positively requires that the ceramic coating comprises the zirconia, let alone that the zirconia be stabilized.
For the purposes of examination, the examiner will read the claim such that the zirconia is a required component of the ceramic coating. Hence, the claim is read as “The kiln furniture according to claim 1, comprises the zirconia, wherein the zirconia is stabilized.
Claims 10-12 and 17 are rejected as indefinite since they depend either directly or indirectly from a claim rejected as indefinite without correcting the issue.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-5, 7-12, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al., Chinese Patent Publication CN 108302942 A.
A machine-generated translation of CN 108302942 A accompanies this action. In reciting this rejection, the examiner will cite this translation.
Li et al. teach a crucible or saggar (which reads on kiln furniture) for preparing lithium-ion battery electrode materials, where the crucible or saggar has a protective layer (which reads on ceramic coating), and a method for producing the crucible or saggar. See Abstract and the entire specification, specifically, paragraphs [0000]-[0002], [0004], and [0009]. Li et al. teach that the crucible or saggar body (kiln furniture) comprises a protective layer (ceramic coating) which covers at least the bottom of the inner surface of the crucible or saggar and preferably, the protective layer covers the entire inner surface of the crucible or saggar body. See paragraphs [0010] and [0014]. Li et al. teach that the crucible or saggar body is a porous ceramic body which can be made of materials composed of cordierite, mullite, or mixtures thereof as well as other materials. See paragraphs [0013] and [0032]. Li et al. teach that the inner surface of the crucible or saggar body is the surface which supports the raw materials for preparing electrode materials. See paragraph [0014]. Li et al. teach that the raw materials for preparing electrode materials can include lithium oxide metal salts. See paragraph [0015]. Li et al. teach that the crucible’s or saggar’s protective layer comprises LiAlSiO4. See paragraph [0016]. Li et al. teach that the protective coating is applied to the saggar body by dip coating, spray coating, or brush coating. See paragraphs [0019] and [0020]. Li et al. teach that the protective coating comprising LiAlSiO4 penetrates well into the surface of the saggar through the surface pores. See paragraph [0032]. Li et al. further teach that the protective layer may comprise MgO, SnO2, Al2O3, ZrO2, ZrSiO4, MgAl2O4, LiAlO2, Li2ZrO2, LiAlSi2O6. See paragraph [0032]. Li et al. teach that the protective coating has an approximate thickness of 100 µm. See paragraph [0056].
Li et al. fail to specifically disclose or teach that the kiln furniture (crucible or saggar) which is the porous ceramic body (the crucible or saggar body) has an open porosity of between 10 and 40% and an equivalent pore diameter of between 0.5 and 25 micrometers. Li et al. also fail to teach that the ceramic coating has a total porosity that is less than 15% by volume and a volume fraction of pores with a diameter greater than or equal to 2 µm that is less than 2.5%.
Specifically, as to claim 1, Li et al. teach a crucible or saggar (which reads on kiln furniture) for preparing lithium-ion battery electrode materials, that the raw materials for preparing electrode materials can include lithium oxide metal salts, and where the crucible or saggar has surface pores, (see paragraphs [0000]-[0002], [0004], [0009], [0015], and [0032]), which reads on the kiln furniture for a powder comprising an alkali metal, comprising a porous ceramic body forming a cavity or a container for said powder, as recited in instant claim 1, lines 1 and 2. Li et al. teach that the crucible or saggar body (kiln furniture) comprises a protective layer (ceramic coating) which covers at least the bottom of the inner surface of the crucible or saggar and preferably, the protective layer covers the entire inner surface of the crucible or saggar body (see paragraphs [0010] and [0014]), which reads on said porous ceramic body is coated on at least part of its inner surface with a ceramic coating, as recited in instant claim 1 line 3. Li et al. teach that the crucible’s or saggar’s protective layer comprises LiAlSiO4 (see paragraph [0016]), which reads on the coating comprises a layer comprising a compound selected from alumina, a lithium aluminate optionally comprising silicon, a magnesia-alumina spinel, zirconia, hafnia, yttria, as recited in instant claim 1, lines 8-12. Li et al. teach that the protective coating has an approximate thickness of 100 µm (see paragraph [0056]), which reads on the coating having an average thickness that is between 50 and 500 µm, as recited in instant claim 1, line 13.
In addition, as to claim 1, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the crucible or saggar of Li et al., made from cordierite, mullite, or a combination thereof, and having a protective coating of LiAlSiO4 would have the open porosity of between 10 and 40% and the equivalent pore diameter of between 0.5 and 25 µm for the porous ceramic body as recited in lines 5-7 and a total porosity that is less than 15%, by volume, and a volume fraction of pores with a diameter greater than or equal to 2 µm that is less than 2.5% for the ceramic coating as recited in lines 14-16 of instant claim 1.
It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971).
Products of identical composition may not have mutually exclusive properties. In re Spada 15 USPQ2d 1655,1658 (Fed. Circ. 1990).
As to claim 2, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the protective coating of Li et al. would have the median pore diameter d50 for the ceramic coating of between 0.1 and 5 µm, as recited in instant claim 2.
As to claim 3, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the protective coating of Li et al. would have the pore diameter d90 for the ceramic coating of less than 2.5 µm, as recited in instant claim 3.
As to claim 4, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the protective coating of Li et al. would have a median grain size of grains of said ceramic coating of between 5 and 100 µm, as recited in instant claim 4.
As to claim 5, Li et al. teach that the protective coating comprises LiAlSiO4, which does not teach the inclusion of other alkali metal oxides (see paragraph [0016]), which reads on a mass content of alkali metal oxides except Li2O in the ceramic coating being less than 0.5%, as recited in instant claim 5.
As to claim 7, Li et al. is silent to the inclusion of Cr2O3+ZnO+Fe2O3+CuO in the protective coating which can be read that there is 0 Cr2O3+ZnO+Fe2O3+CuO, which reads on the mass content of the sum of the oxides Cr2O3+ZnO+Fe2O3+CuO in the ceramic coating being less than 0.5%, as recited in instant claim 7.
As to claim 8, Li et al. teach that the protective coating comprising LiAlSiO4 and that the protective layer may comprise MgO, SnO2, Al2O3, ZrO2, ZrSiO4, MgAl2O4, LiAlO2, Li2ZrO2, LiAlSi2O6, which means the amount of MgO, SnO2, Al2O3, ZrO2, ZrSiO4, MgAl2O4, LiAlO2, Li2ZrO2, LiAlSi2O6 can be 0% (see paragraph [0032]), which reads on a mass content of oxides other than Al2O3, MgO, Li2O, Y2O3, ZrO2, and HfO2, in said ceramic coating is less than 1%, as recited in instant claim 8.
As to claim 9, Li et al. teach that the protective coating comprising LiAlSiO4 and that the protective layer may comprise MgO, SnO2, Al2O3, ZrO2, ZrSiO4, MgAl2O4, LiAlO2, Li2ZrO2, LiAlSi2O6, (see paragraph [0032]), which reads on a mass content of Al2O3 in said ceramic coating being greater than 98%, as recited in instant claim 9.
As to claim 10, Li et al. teach that the crucible or saggar body is a porous ceramic body which can be made of materials composed of cordierite, mullite, or mixtures thereof as well as other materials (see paragraphs [0013] and [0032]), which reads on said porous ceramic body comprises alumina, zirconia, magnesia, mullite, cordierite, carbide and/or silicon oxynitride or oxynitride, boron nitride, boron carbide or molybdenum disilicide, as recited in instant claim 10.
As to claim 11, Li et al. teach that the crucible or saggar body is a porous ceramic body which can be made of materials composed of cordierite, mullite, or mixtures thereof as well as other materials (see paragraphs [0013], [0032], and [0047]), which reads on said porous ceramic body comprises a ceramic matrix composite, as recited in instant claim 11.
As to claim 12, Li et al. teach that the crucible or saggar body is a porous ceramic body which can be made of materials composed of cordierite (Mg,Fe)2Al3(Si5AlO18) to (Fe,Mg)2Al3(Si5AlO18), mullite (3Al2O3•2SiO2 or 2Al2O3•SiO2), or mixtures thereof as well as other materials (see paragraphs [0013], [0032], and [0047]), which reads on said porous ceramic body comprises a mass content of a sum of the oxides ZrO2+Al2O3+SiO2+MgO of greater than 95%, as recited in instant claim 12.
As to claim 16, Li et al. teach a crucible or saggar (which reads on kiln furniture) for preparing lithium-ion battery electrode materials, where the crucible or saggar has a protective layer (which reads on ceramic coating), and the electrode materials of the lithium battery is sintered at high temperatures using the saggar (see paragraphs [0000]-[0002], [0004], [0009], and [0023]), which reads on a method comprising the kiln furniture according to claim 1 for the heat treatment of the powders of an alkali metal intended for the manufacture of batteries, as recited in instant claim 16.
As to claim 17, Li et al. teach a crucible or saggar (which reads on kiln furniture) for preparing lithium-ion battery electrode materials, where the crucible or saggar has a protective layer (which reads on ceramic coating), and the electrode materials of the lithium battery is sintered at high temperatures using the saggar (see paragraphs [0000]-[0002], [0004], [0009], and [0023]), which reads on the alkali metal being Li, as recited in instant claim 17.
As to claim 18, Li et al. teach that the crucible or saggar body (kiln furniture) comprises a protective layer (ceramic coating) which covers at least the bottom of the inner surface of the crucible or saggar and preferably, the protective layer covers the entire inner surface of the crucible or saggar body (see paragraphs [0010] and [0014]), which reads on the ceramic coating consists of said layer, as recited instant claim 18.
As to claim 19, Li et al. teach that the protective coating comprising LiAlSiO4 and that the protective layer may comprise MgO, SnO2, Al2O3, ZrO2, ZrSiO4, MgAl2O4, LiAlO2, Li2ZrO2, LiAlSi2O6, (see paragraph [0032]), which reads on wherein the lithium aluminate optionally comprising silicon is LiAlO2, LiAlSi2O6, Li3AlSiO5, LiAlSi4O10, LiAlSiO4, as recited in instant claim 19.
As to claim 20, Li et al. teach that the protective coating comprising LiAlSiO4 and that the protective layer may comprise MgO, SnO2, Al2O3, ZrO2, ZrSiO4, MgAl2O4, LiAlO2, Li2ZrO2, LiAlSi2O6, (see paragraph [0032]), which reads on wherein zirconia is stabilized, as recited in instant claim 20.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al., Chinese Patent Publication CN 108302942 A in view of Kato et al., Japanese Patent Publication JP 2014-228239 A.
Machine-generated translations of CN 108302942 A and JP 2014-228239 A accompany this action. In reciting this rejection, the examiner will cite these translations.
Li et al. teach a crucible or saggar (which reads on kiln furniture) for preparing lithium-ion battery electrode materials, where the crucible or saggar has a protective layer (which reads on ceramic coating), and a method for producing the crucible or saggar. See Abstract and the entire specification, specifically, paragraphs [0000]-[0002], [0004], and [0009]. Li et al. teach that the crucible or saggar body (kiln furniture) comprises a protective layer (ceramic coating) which covers at least the bottom of the inner surface of the crucible or saggar and preferably, the protective layer covers the entire inner surface of the crucible or saggar body. See paragraphs [0010] and [0014]. Li et al. teach that the crucible or saggar body is a porous ceramic body which can be made of materials composed of cordierite, mullite, or mixtures thereof as well as other materials. See paragraphs [0013] and [0032]. Li et al. teach that the inner surface of the crucible or saggar body is the surface which supports the raw materials for preparing electrode materials. See paragraph [0014]. Li et al. teach that the raw materials for preparing electrode materials can include lithium oxide metal salts. See paragraph [0015]. Li et al. teach that the crucible’s or saggar’s protective layer comprises LiAlSiO4. See paragraph [0016]. Li et al. teach that the protective coating is applied to the saggar body by dip coating, spray coating, or brush coating. See paragraphs [0019] and [0020]. Li et al. teach that the protective coating comprising LiAlSiO4 penetrates well into the surface of the saggar through the surface pores. See paragraph [0032]. Li et al. further teach that the protective layer may comprise MgO, SnO2, Al2O3, ZrO2, ZrSiO4, MgAl2O4, LiAlO2, Li2ZrO2, LiAlSi2O6. See paragraph [0032]. Li et al. teach that the protective coating has an approximate thickness of 100 µm. See paragraph [0056].
Li et al. fail to teach the wall thickness of the porous ceramic body (crucible or saggar) as recited in claim 13.
Kato et al. teach a similar saggar used to heat treat lithium containing compounds. See Abstract and the entire specification, specifically paragraphs [0010], [0017]-[0021], and [0028]. Kato et al. teach that the saggar body is formed from molded ceramic powders, and the powders can include one or more powders of alumina, mullite, cordierite, spinel, magnesia, natural clay, fused silica, silicon carbide, silicon nitride, zirconia, and zircon. See paragraphs [0017] and [0021]. Kato et al. teach that the saggar porous ceramic bodies can have porosities of 29.8%, 29.4% and 29.1%. See paragraph [0037]. Kato et al. teach that the wall thickness of the saggar at its thinnest part is 5-22 mm, the wall thickness is not limited other than the tinniest part, but it is preferably 25 mm or less, and teach specific wall thickness at 12 mm. See paragraphs [0020] and [0036].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have a porous ceramic body of Li et al. as suggested by Kato et al. because the resultant porous ceramic body or saggar would have the heat transfer properties of Li et al. while having excellent thermal shock resistance related to the wall thicknesses of Kato et al. See paragraphs [0003] and [0017]-[0021] of Kato et al.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al., Chinese Patent Publication CN 108302942 A in view of Zhang, Chinese Patent Publication CN 104987094 A.
Machine-generated translations of CN 108302942 A and CN 104987094 A accompany this action. In reciting this rejection, the examiner will cite these translations.
Li et al. teach a crucible or saggar (which reads on kiln furniture) for preparing lithium-ion battery electrode materials, where the crucible or saggar has a protective layer (which reads on ceramic coating), and a method for producing the crucible or saggar. See Abstract and the entire specification, specifically, paragraphs [0000]-[0002], [0004], and [0009]. Li et al. teach that the crucible or saggar body (kiln furniture) comprises a protective layer (ceramic coating) which covers at least the bottom of the inner surface of the crucible or saggar and preferably, the protective layer covers the entire inner surface of the crucible or saggar body. See paragraphs [0010] and [0014]. Li et al. teach that the crucible or saggar body is a porous ceramic body which can be made of materials composed of cordierite, mullite, or mixtures thereof as well as other materials. See paragraphs [0013] and [0032]. Li et al. teach that the inner surface of the crucible or saggar body is the surface which supports the raw materials for preparing electrode materials. See paragraph [0014]. Li et al. teach that the raw materials for preparing electrode materials can include lithium oxide metal salts. See paragraph [0015]. Li et al. teach that the crucible’s or saggar’s protective layer comprises LiAlSiO4. See paragraph [0016]. Li et al. teach that the protective coating is applied to the saggar body by dip coating, spray coating, or brush coating. See paragraphs [0019] and [0020]. Li et al. teach that the protective coating comprising LiAlSiO4 penetrates well into the surface of the saggar through the surface pores. See paragraph [0032]. Li et al. further teach that the protective layer may comprise MgO, SnO2, Al2O3, ZrO2, ZrSiO4, MgAl2O4, LiAlO2, Li2ZrO2, LiAlSi2O6. See paragraph [0032]. Li et al. teach that the protective coating has an approximate thickness of 100 µm. See paragraph [0056].
Li et al. fail to teach the ceramic coating (protective coating) has a mass content of SiO2 of less than 0.5% as recited in claim 6. Li et al. fail to teach the method for manufacturing a kiln furniture according to claim 1 comprising coating the porous ceramic body with said ceramic coating by thermal spraying, wherein ceramic particles used for spraying having a mass content of the sum of the oxides Al2O3+MgO+Li2O+Y2O3+ZrO2+HfO2 of greater than 99.9%, as recited in claim 14.
Zhang teaches a similar coated saggar used in the preparation method to make lithium batteries. See Abstract and the entire specification, specifically paragraphs [0002], [0004], [0008], [0016], and [0028]. Zhang teaches that the coating on saggar body is composed of an alkali resistant material system including zirconium oxide system, calcium magnesium zirconium system (Ca0.3Mg0.2Zr2(PO4)3), and barium titanium silicon system (BaO-TiO2-SiO2) and composite powder selected from lithium-containing compounds (g-LiAlO2), spodumene, spinel (MA), a-Al2O3, ZrO2, and SiO2. See paragraphs [0004] and [0028].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have a ceramic coating of the porous ceramic body (coated saggar) of Li et al. as suggested by Zhang because the resultant coated porous ceramic body (coated saggar) would have the heat transfer properties of Li et al. while having excellent alkali-resistant ceramic coating of Zhang. See paragraphs [0004] and [0027]-[0030] of Zhang.
Specifically, as to claim 6, the ceramic coating on the porous ceramic body (coated saggar) of Li et al. in view of Zhang (see above, specifically paragraphs [0004] and [0028] of Zhang), read on a mass content of SiO2 of less than 0.5% in the ceramic coating, as recited in instant claim 6.
As to claim 14, the method of making the ceramic coated porous ceramic body (coated saggar) of Li et al. in view of Zhang (see above and paragraphs [0002], [0004], [0010], [0016], [0019], [0020] of Li et al. and paragraphs [0002], [0004], [0008], [0016], and [0028] of Zhang), read on a method for manufacturing a kiln furniture (saggar) according to claim 1 comprising coating the porous ceramic body (saggar) with said ceramic coating by thermal spraying, wherein ceramic particles used for spraying having a mass content of the sum of the oxides Al2O3+MgO+Li2O+Y2O3+ZrO2+HfO2 of greater than 99.9%, as recited in instant claim 14.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elizabeth A. Bolden whose telephone number is (571)272-1363. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 am to 6:30 pm 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, Amber R. Orlando can be reached at 571-270-3149. 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.
/Elizabeth A. Bolden/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
EAB
12 September 2026
Prosecution Insights