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
The amendment filed on March 16th 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1 & 6 remain pending in the application. Claims 7 & 12-14 remain withdrawn. Claims 2-5 & 8-11 were cancelled by the Applicant. Applicant’s arguments to the previous rejections of the claims were fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 rejections of the claims are withdrawn due to the Applicant’s amendments. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in over Fukazawa ‘690 and Fukazawa ‘735 in further view of Liu et al. CN 109437141 A and Yamashita at el. US 2018/0083285 A1. New rejections follow.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukazawa et al. WO 2020/031690 A1 (herein referred to as Fukazawa ‘690), further in view of Fukazawa et al. JP 2020/055735 A (herein referred to as Fukazawa ‘735), Liu et al. CN 109437141 A, and Yamashita at el. US 2018/0083285 A1. Citations are mapped to the English machine translations.
Regarding Claim 1, Fukazawa ‘690 discloses a production method of lithium cobalt pyrophosphate [Page 1 Lines 41-44]. Fukazawa ‘690 discloses that the method comprises a first step of mixing raw materials and an aqueous solvent to create an aqueous slurry, pulverizing the aqueous slurry to create a pulverized slurry, spray drying the pulverized slurry to obtain a reaction precursor, and then firing the reaction precursor to a temperature of 600°C or higher [Page 1 Line 60 – Page 2 Line 6].
Fukazawa ‘690 discloses that the first step of mixing raw materials comprises first mixing an organic acid and cobalt hydroxide, which is commonly in powder form, with a water solvent [Page 3 Line 29] at a temperature of 20-80°C while stirring [Page 3 Lines 53-54], by weighing out 5-30 parts by weight of cobalt hydroxide and adding it to the water [Page 3 Lines 49-50], which creates aqueous slurry (A) [Page 2 Lines 55-56]. Fukazawa ‘690 discloses that the first step further comprises adding the aqueous slurry (A) to lithium hydroxide and phosphoric acid [Page 4 Lines 4-5], wherein the lithium hydroxide, which is commonly is powder form, and the phosphoric acid in the aqueous slurry (A) are stirred at the same temperature of 20-80°C [Page 4 Lines 21-23] to create a first material (aqueous slurry 1) containing lithium phosphate [Page 4 Line 21]. Fukazawa further discloses that the phosphoric acid is an 85% by mass solution of solid phosphoric acid dissolved in 15% by mass water [Example 1 Page 8 Lines 43-44]. Thus, Fukazawa ‘690 discloses preparing (weighing and adding to the aqueous slurry) powders of lithium hydroxide, powders of cobalt hydroxide, and powders of phosphoric acid (solid phosphoric acid in water) at a first temperature below 40°C (20-80°C which overlaps with the claimed value) and mixing while adding water (water of the phosphoric acid) at a first temperature (20-80°C) to obtain a first material (aqueous slurry 1).
Fukazawa ‘690 discloses that in Example 1, the following amounts of the raw materials were added [Page 8 Lines 41-45]:
1200 g of cobalt hydroxide
2922.4 g phosphoric acid (85% by mass phosphoric acid, 15% by mass water)
2484.04 g phosphoric acid powder with 438.36 g water.
1068.8 g of lithium hydroxide monohydrate
Thus, the total weight of the powders in the first material is 4752.84 g.
Weight of water/weight of powders = 438.36 g/4752.84 g = 0.0922
Thus, Fukazawa discloses that, with respect to the total weight of the powders, water (from the phosphoric acid) was added in an amount of 9.22 wt%, which falls within the claimed range.
Fukazawa ‘690 discloses a third step before the fourth firing step of spray drying [Page 3 Lines 21-22]. Fukazawa discloses that the hot air inlet temperature is 150-350°C and the hot air outlet is 80-200°C [Page 6 Lines 21-22], thus modified Fukazawa ‘690 discloses drying the second material (reaction precursor) at a third temperature of 90°C (spray drying at 80-350°C which overlaps with the claimed value).
As mentioned above, Fukazawa ‘690 discloses a later firing step wherein the reaction precursor is fired at a temperature of 600°C or higher [Page 2 Line 6]. Thus, Fukazawa ‘690 discloses firing a second material (reaction precursor) at a fourth temperature between 650°C and 690°C (600°C or higher which overlaps with the claimed range). Fukazawa additionally discloses that the firing atmosphere is an air atmosphere or a non-oxidizing (an inert gas) atmosphere [Page 6 Line 49].
Fukazawa ‘690 is silent as to how the phosphoric acid is added with the lithium hydroxide, and thus silent as to adding the water “little by little”.
Liu discloses a lithium transition metal phosphate and a method of making it [Page 1 Lines 57-60] for a positive electrode material [Page 1 Line 19], wherein the transition metal can be cobalt and forms a lithium cobalt phosphate compound [Page 8 Lines 17-18], similar to that of Fukazawa ‘690. Liu discloses that in the method of making, the phosphoric acid was added gradually in a dropwise manner [Page 11 Lines 7-11], thus added “little by little”.
Additionally, Yamashita discloses making a lithium metal phosphate (in this case, a lithium iron phosphate) positive electrode material [Abstract], similar to the lithium metal phosphates of Fukazawa (lithium cobalt pyrophosphate) and Liu (lithium cobalt phosphate). Yamashita further discloses that the phosphate source is phosphoric acid which is added to a mixture comprising lithium hydroxide [0050-0055], similar to that of Fukazawa and Liu, and discloses that it is preferable to add the phosphoric acid to the mixture in a dropwise manner by dropping little by little [0055].
Yamashita discloses that adding phosphoric acid in this manner leads to the reaction progressing well and uniform dispersion in the mixture [0055].
In the absence of a specific teaching by Fukazawa of how the phosphoric acid is added to the lithium source and cobalt source, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to the analogous art such as Liu to find a suggestion of how to add phosphoric acid to a mixture of a cobalt source and a lithium source (lithium hydroxide), similar to the mixture of Fukazawa, as further supported by the disclosure of Yamashita suggesting adding phosphoric acid to a mixture comprising lithium hydroxide in a dropwise manner for beneficial reaction results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to use the suggested manner of adding phosphoric acid of Liu further supported by Yamashita in the method of Fukazawa, thus adding phosphoric acid in a dropwise manner or “little by little”.
Modified Fukazawa ‘690 is silent as to mixing the first material at a second temperature higher than the first temperature to obtain a second material.
In a later similar disclosure by shared inventors, Fukazawa ‘735 discloses a method of preparing a metal pyrophosphate compound (titanium pyrophosphate) [Page 1 Lines 42-43] wherein the method comprises similar steps to that of Fukazawa ‘690 such as a first raw material preparation step, a spray drying step, and a final firing step [Page 1 Line 60-Page 2 Line 8]. Fukazawa ‘735 discloses an additional intermediate heating step wherein the first material (raw material mixed slurry), obtained in the initial preparation step, is subjected to a heating treatment [Page 5 Lines 14-16] to dry the slurry to reduce the viscosity of the slurry [Page 5 Line 26-35], which ultimately becomes the second material (reaction precursor). Fukazawa ‘735 discloses that this heat treatment is at a temperature of 50-120°C [Page 5 Line 37].
Fukazawa ‘735 discloses that by incorporating this intermediate step of heating the first material, the spray drying step can be performed more easily and the reactivity is improved due to the heating step reducing the viscosity of the slurry to obtain the reaction precursor (second material) [Page 5 Line 26-35], which would benefit the method of Fukazawa ‘690 which also comprises a spray drying step as the third step in the method as mentioned previously.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the intermediate heating step as suggested by Fukazawa ‘735 in the method of modified Fukazawa ‘690 to reduce the viscosity of the slurry for easier spray drying and improved reactivity.
Thus, modified Fukazawa ‘690 discloses mixing the first material (slurry) at a second temperature between 40°C and 60°C (50-120°C as suggested by Fukazawa ‘735), which overlaps with the claimed range, to obtain a second material (reaction precursor).
Examiner notes that the claim limitation of “adding water little by little” was given its broadest reasonable interpretation, which in this case is provided by the instant specification paragraph [0042] with the line “Water can be added by, for example, dropping or spraying water onto the powders…”.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukazawa et al. WO 2020/031690 A1, Fukazawa et al. JP 2020/055735 A, Liu et al. CN 109437141 A, and Yamashita at el. US 2018/0083285 A1 as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Mao et al. CN 103928682 A, Kono et al. JP 2017/182949 A, Hida et al. JP 2017/228453 A, and Kim et al. “Neutron and X-ray Diffraction Study of Pyrophosphate-Based Li2–xMP2O7 (M = Fe, Co) for Lithium Rechargeable Battery Electrodes”. Citations are mapped to the English machine translations.
Regarding Claim 6, as mentioned with regards to Claim 1, modified Fukazawa ‘690 discloses that the first material (slurry) comprises lithium phosphate. However, Fukazawa ‘690 fails to specifically disclose that the second material (reaction precursor) comprises ammonium cobalt phosphate.
Mao discloses a method of making a lithium cobalt phosphate [0008], wherein the phosphorus source can be either phosphoric acid (similar to Fukazawa ‘690) or ammonium dihydrogen phosphate [0019].
Additionally, it is shown to be common in the art to use ammonium dihydrogen phosphate as a phosphorus source in the production of lithium metal phosphate and lithium cobalt pyrophosphate, as disclosed by Kono et al. [0014], Wu et al [Page 2 Lines 43-50], and Hida et al. [0050] further evidenced by Kim et al. [Page 1 Right Column Lines 11-21].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to substitute one known phosphorus source, i.e. ammonium dihydrogen phosphate of Mao as further supported by Kono, Wu, Hida, and Kim, for another phosphorus source, i.e. phosphoric acid of Fukazawa ‘690, with reasonable expectation of success. The simple substitution of one phosphorus source for another to obtain predictable results is not patentable. See KSR International Co v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007); MPEP 2143 B.
Thus, modified Fukazawa ‘690 discloses that the raw materials comprise cobalt hydroxide and ammonium dihydrogen phosphate in solution (replacing phosphoric acid in solution), and after heating at the second temperature, the cobalt hydroxide and ammonium dihydrogen phosphate would react to form ammonium cobalt phosphate. Thus, modified Fukazawa ‘690 discloses that the second material comprises ammonium cobalt phosphate.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1, more specifically the limitation “adding water little by little while mixing the powders”, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that Fukazawa ‘690 includes more water in the slurry than the claimed invention, and therefore fails to read on the claim. Examiner respectfully points out that the claim as presently written is currently open to the first material comprising additional components, such as additional water, as the first material is not limited in a manner which excludes additional water to make a slurry. Therefore, as claim 1 is read broadly, Examiner maintains that Fukazawa ‘690 discloses the claimed water content, provided by the addition of phosphoric acid (solid phosphoric acid in water). Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that Fukazawa ‘690 fails to disclose a third temperature of 90°C. Examiner respectfully points out as stated in the rejection above that Fukazawa ‘690 does disclose a third temperature, in the spray drying step, of 80-350°C, which overlaps with the claimed value. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, this argument is unpersuasive.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following claims drafted by the examiner and considered to distinguish patentably over the art of record in this application, are presented to applicant for consideration:
Claim 1 – at line 9, insert “that is a powder” after the words “to obtain a first material”.
Claim 13 – at line 15, insert “that is a powder” after the words “to obtain a first material”.
It is noted that if Applicant adds the above amendments to Claims 1 & 13 and additionally cancels Claims 7, 12, & 14, the application would be in condition for allowance. Claim 13 would be rejoined with Claims 1 & 6 as being allowable because it includes all limitations of an allowable claim. Claims 7, 12, & 14 would not be rejoined as they pertain to separate subject matter.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANNA E GOULD whose telephone number is (571)270-1088. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Jeffrey T. Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
/A.E.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/JEFFREY T BARTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1726 28 May 2026
Prosecution Insights