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 .
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-7, 9, and 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amatucci (US 20080199772 A1) and further in view of Yazami (US 20070231697 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Amatucci discloses a positive electrode material, comprising a composite material, wherein
the composite material comprises a metal fluoride (claim 1, [nanocomposite comprising … a metal fluoride]),
a molar ratio of fluorine F to metal element M in the metal fluoride is y (para. 0083, [a nanocomposite is prepared by … a) combining metal fluoride and a conductive matrix to form a first product b) combining the first product with a phosphate … forming a second product c) fabricating the second product into a nanocomposite …. a suitable conductive matrix may be one selected from CF0.8])(para. 0064 and 0067, provides examples of metal fluorides[CuF2]) (para. 0067, provides examples of metal fluorides [FeF3]) and
a molar ratio of fluorine F to metal element M in the composite material is z, wherein y <z< y + 2 (para. 0083, [a suitable conductive matrix may be one selected from CF0.8]).
M comprises at least one of Ag, Cu, Co, Ni, Mn, or Fe (claim 2, [Fe, Ag, Co, Ni, Mn, Cu, Mn])
a mass ratio of the graphite fluoride to the metal fluoride is w, wherein 0 < w ≤ 0.2 (para. 0074, the nanocomposites of the present invention … includes … 5 to 50% of a conductive matrix [graphite fluoride] to form a first product… then milled with 2-50 weight percent of a phosphate material).
Amatucci does not teach:
the composite material further comprises graphite fluoride, a structural formula of the graphite fluoride is CFX, and a molar ratio of fluorine F to carbon C in CFx is x, wherein 0.8 < x ≤1;
Yazami, in the same field of endeavor, positive electrode materials, teaches
the composite material further comprises graphite fluoride, a structural formula of the graphite fluoride is CFX, and a molar ratio of fluorine F to carbon C in CFx is x, wherein 0.8 < x ≤1 (Yazami, abstract, [subfluorinated carbonaceous materials [have] an average chemical composition CFx in which … 0.7 < x ≤ 0.95]);
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In reWoodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) [MPEP 2144.05].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have utilized a graphite fluoride (CFX ) in the range of 0.7 < x ≤ 0.95 for Amatucci’s positive electrode material, as taught by Yazami. Yazami teaches that subfluorinated carbonaceous materials within the aforementioned range are capable of electrochemical performance superior to commercial CF at relatively high rates of discharge (Yazami, abstract).
Regarding claim 2, Amatucci discloses the positive electrode material according to claim 1, wherein the composite material further comprises graphite fluoride, a structural formula of the graphite fluoride is CFx, and a molar ratio of fluorine F to carbon C in CFx is x, wherein 0 <x<1 (para. 0083, [a suitable conductive matrix may be one selected from CF0.8]).
Regarding claim 3, Amatucci discloses the positive electrode material according to claim 2, wherein a mass ratio of the graphite fluoride to the metal fluoride is w, wherein 0 < w ≤ 0.2 (para. 0074, the nanocomposites of the present invention … includes … 5 to 50% of a conductive matrix [graphite fluoride] to form a first product… then milled with 2-50 weight percent of a phosphate material).
Regarding claim 4, Amatucci discloses the positive electrode material according to claim 1, wherein the metal fluoride comprises at least one of FeF3 or CuF2 (para. 0064 and 0067, provides examples of metal fluorides[CuF2]) (para. 0067, provides examples of metal fluorides [FeF3]).
Regarding claim 5, Amatucci discloses the positive electrode material according to claim 1, wherein 2 ≤z≤ 4 (para. 0067 and 0083, Amatucci teaches that the metal fluoride can be either FeF3 or CuF2 and the conductive matrix can be CF0.8. Table 1 of the instant specification also provides examples using FeF3, CuF2, and one example where the fluorine stochiometric coefficient in CF is equal to 0.8).
Regarding claim 6, Amatucci discloses the positive electrode material according to claim 1, wherein 2 ≤z≤ 3 (para. 0067 and 0083, Amatucci teaches that the metal fluoride can be either FeF3 or CuF2 and the conductive matrix can be CF0.8. Table 1 of the instant specification also provides examples using FeF3, CuF2, and one example where the fluorine stochiometric coefficient in CF is equal to 0.8).
Regarding claim 7, Amatucci discloses the positive electrode material according to claim 1, wherein 3 ≤z≤ 4 (para. 0067 and 0083, Amatucci teaches that the metal fluoride can be either FeF3 or CuF2 and the conductive matrix can be CF0.8. Table 1 of the instant specification also provides examples using FeF3, CuF2, and one example where the fluorine stochiometric coefficient in CF is equal to 0.8).
Regarding claim 9, Amatucci discloses a positive electrode, comprising a positive electrode material (claim 1, [a graphene-enabled hybrid particulate for use as a lithium battery cathode active material])
the positive electrode material comprises a metal fluoride (claim 1, [nanocomposite comprising … a metal fluoride]),
a molar ratio of fluorine F to metal element M in the metal fluoride is y (para. 0083, [a nanocomposite is prepared by … a) combining metal fluoride and a conductive matrix to form a first product b) combining the first product with a phosphate … forming a second product c) fabricating the second product into a nanocomposite …. a suitable conductive matrix may be one selected from CF0.8])(para. 0064 and 0067, provides examples of metal fluorides[CuF2]) (para. 0067, provides examples of metal fluorides [FeF3]) and
a molar ratio of fluorine F to metal element M in the composite material is z, wherein y <z< y + 2 (para. 0083, [a suitable conductive matrix may be one selected from CF0.8]).
M comprises at least one of Ag, Cu, Co, Ni, Mn, or Fe (claim 2, [Fe, Ag, Co, Ni, Mn, Cu, Mn]).
Regarding claim 12, The positive electrode according to claim 9, wherein the metal fluoride comprises at least one of FeF3 or CuF2 (para. 0064 and 0067, provides examples of metal fluorides[CuF2]) (para. 0067, provides examples of metal fluorides [FeF3]).
Regarding claim 13, The positive electrode according to claim 9 wherein 2 ≤z≤ 4 (para. 0067 and 0083, Amatucci teaches that the metal fluoride can be either FeF3 or CuF2 and the conductive matrix can be CF0.8. )
Examiner notes that Table 1 of the instant specification provides examples using FeF3, CuF2, and one example where the fluorine stochiometric coefficient in CF is equal to 0.8. Furthermore, Table 1 indicates that the percentage of carbon fluoride in the composite ranges from 2% to 25%. Similarly, Amatucci teaches that the nanocomposite includes 5 to 50% of a conductive matrix [graphite fluoride] to form the first product.
Regarding claim 14, Amatucci discloses the positive electrode according to claim 9 wherein 2 ≤z≤ 3 (para. 0067 and 0083, Amatucci teaches that the metal fluoride can be either FeF3 or CuF2 and the conductive matrix can be CF0.8.)
Examiner notes that Table 1 of the instant specification provides examples using FeF3, CuF2, and one example where the fluorine stochiometric coefficient in CF is equal to 0.8. Furthermore, Table 1 indicates that the percentage of carbon fluoride in the composite ranges from 2% to 25%. Similarly, Amatucci teaches that the nanocomposite includes 5 to 50% of a conductive matrix [graphite fluoride] to form the first product.
Regarding claim 15, Amatucci discloses the positive electrode according to claim 9 wherein 3 ≤z≤ 4 (para. 0067 and 0083, Amatucci teaches that the metal fluoride can be either FeF3 or CuF2 and the conductive matrix can be CF0.8.)
Examiner notes that Table 1 of the instant specification provides examples using FeF3, CuF2, and one example where the fluorine stochiometric coefficient in CF is equal to 0.8. Furthermore, Table 1 indicates that the percentage of carbon fluoride in the composite ranges from 2% to 25%. Similarly, Amatucci teaches that the nanocomposite includes 5 to 50% of a conductive matrix [graphite fluoride] to form the first product.
Regarding claim 16, Amatucci discloses an electrochemical apparatus, comprising the positive electrode according to claim 9 (claim 18 and para. 0011 [for use in electrochemical cells]).
Regarding claim 17, Amatucci discloses the electrochemical apparatus according to claim 16, wherein the electrochemical apparatus is an all-solid-state lithium secondary battery (para. 0011 [for use in electrochemical cells, such as lithium battery cells]).
Regarding claim 18, Amatucci teaches the electrochemical apparatus according to claim 16, and in the background of the invention, teaches that energy storage and delivery systems [can be used] for all manner of advancing technologies (para. 0006).
Amatucci does not teach an electronic apparatus comprising the electrochemical apparatus according to claim 16.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have utilized the electrochemical apparatus to power an electronic apparatus, such as a portable device, as mentioned by Amatucci in the background of the invention (para. 0006).
Other Pertinent References
US 20180212247 A1
US 20200067080 A1
US 20020061437 A1
CN-110112394-A
NPL: Influence of particle size and fluorination ratio of CFx precursor compounds on the electrochemical performance of C–FeF2 nanocomposites for reversible lithium storage, Anji Reddy, Maximilian Fichtner
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 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.
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 VERITA E GRANNUM whose telephone number is (571)270-1150. The examiner can normally be reached 10-5 EST / 7-2 PST.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303) 297-4684. 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.
/V.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights