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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 9-12 and 18-22 have been cancelled; Claim 1 has been amended; claims 1-8 and 13-17 remain for examination, wherein claim 1 is an independent claim
Previous Rejections/Objections
Previous rejection of Claims 10-11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends is withdrawn since these claims have been cancelled in view of the Applicant’s “Arguments/Remarks with amendment” filed on 11/24/2025.
Previous rejection of Claims 1-4, 8-9, and 18-22 under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al (CN 114920226 A, with on-line translation, thereafter CN’226) is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s “Arguments/Remarks with amendment” filed on 11/24/2025.
Previous rejection of Claims 18-21 under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al (CN 112010277 A, with on-line translation, thereafter CN’277) is withdrawn since these claims have been cancelled in view of the Applicant’s “Arguments/Remarks with amendment” filed on 11/24/2025.
Previous rejection of Claims 6-7 and 10-12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN’226 is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s “Arguments/Remarks with amendment” filed on 11/24/2025.
Previous rejection of Claims 5, 13-15, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN’226 in view of Zhen et al (CN 112678791 A, with on-line translation, thereafter CN’791) is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s “Arguments/Remarks with amendment” filed on 11/24/2025.
Previous rejection of Claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN’226 in view CN’791 and evidenced by Cardarell et al (wo 2009/114925 A1, thereafter WO’925) is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s “Arguments/Remarks with amendment” filed on 11/24/2025.
However, in view of the Applicant’s “Arguments/Remarks with amendment” filed on 11/24/2025, newly recorded reference(s), and reconsideration, a new ground rejection has listed as following:
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al (CN 112010277 A, with on-line translation, thereafter CN’277).
Regarding claim 1, CN’277 teaches a method for preparing high quality sodium ion battery positive electrode material by metallurgy thought (Abstract of CN’277), CN’277 teaches a method for preparing battery-grade fluorine oxygen vanadium phosphate by using slag in vanadium iron ore. (par.[0001] of CN’277), and CN’277 teaches that sodium agent is sodium flux for promoting reduction, preferably, the sodium agent is non-oxidizing sodium salt and/or oxidizing sodium salt (par.[0020] of CN’277), which reads on the claimed process as claimed in the instant claim. Overlapping in pH range creates a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP) 2144 05 I. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the pH value in the leaching process since CN’277 teaches the same method for leaching iron bearing material throughout whole disclosing range (Abstract of CN’277).
Regarding claims 2 and 4, CN’277 specify that the fluorine source including ammonium fluoride, hydrogen fluoride (par.[0047] of CN’277)(par.[0037] of CN’277), which reads on the claimed limitations as claimed in the instant claims.
Regarding claim 5, CN’277 specify including sodium fluorophosphate in the leaching process (par.[0047] of CN’277).
Regarding claims 6-7, CN’277 specify that the mol ratio of the fluorine source F, sodium source sodium, vanadyl phosphate is 1 ~ 1.05: 2 ~ 3: 2 (par.[0039] and examples of CN’277). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the fluorine containing component amount in the leaching solution as claimed in the leaching process since CN’277 teaches the same method for leaching iron bearing material throughout whole disclosing range (Abstract of CN’277).
Regarding claim 8, CN’277 specify applying iron ore as raw material (par.[0001] and [0010] of CN’277).
Claim(s) 13-15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN’277 in view of Zhen et al (CN 112678791 A, with on-line translation, thereafter CN’791).
Regarding claims 13-15, CN’277 does not specify the claimed iron salt in the process as claimed in the instant claims. CN’791 teaches a recycling method of lithium in lithium iron phosphate waste and application thereof (abstract of CN’791). CN’791 teaches that the oxidant is at least one of oxygen, ozone, hydrogen peroxide, sodium hypochlorite or sodium chlorate (par.[0017] of CN’791). CN’791 teaches including soluble iron salt conversion including FeCl3 and FeCl2 in the leaching process “for (1) soluble iron salt belongs to strong acid weak base salt; the water solution dissolved in water is acidic, accelerating the conversion of lithium iron phosphate; (2) the trivalent iron ion of the trivalent soluble iron salt in the lithium iron phosphate conversion process can be directly combined with phosphate to generate iron phosphate precipitate; there is no process of redox reaction; (3) there is no acid and alkali consumption.” (par.[0020]-[0021] of CN’791). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply proper iron salt including FeCl2 in the leaching process as demonstrated by CN’791 in the leaching process of CN’277 since CN’791 and CN’277 teaches the same method for leaching iron bearing material throughout whole disclosing range (Abstract of CN’226) and CN’791 teaches high recovery rate of leaching iron phosphate (par.[0028] and par.[0020]-[0021] of CN’791).
Regarding claim 17, CN’791 teaches a multi-stage countercurrent circulation leaching (Fig.1 and par.[0024] of CN’791). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to recycle the leaching solution as demonstrated by CN’791 in the leaching process of CN’277 since CN’791 and CN’277 teaches the same method for leaching iron bearing material throughout whole disclosing range (Abstract of CN’226) and CN’791 teaches high recovery rate of leaching iron phosphate (par.[0028] and par.[0020]-[0021] of CN’791).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN’277 in view CN’791 and evidenced by Cardarell et al (wo 2009/114925 A1, corresponding to US-PG-pub 2011/0114500 A1, thereafter WO’925).
Regarding claim 16, CN’791 teaches including iron salt including FeCl3 in the leaching process (par.[0013] of CN’791), which can be used as a corrosion inhibitor as evidenced by WO’925. WO’925 teaches a manufacturing process for recovery of iron and chlorine gas from an iron-rich metal chloride solution (abstract of WO’925). WO’925 teaches that ferric iron (Fe3+) can be applied as corrosion inhibitor (par.[0094 of WO’925). Therefore, the FeCl3 in the leaching process (par.[0013] of CN’791) evidenced by WO’925 reads on the claimed corrosion inhibitor as claimed in the instant claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments to the art rejection to Claims 1-8 and 13-17 have been considered but they are moot in view of the new ground rejection as stated as above. Regarding the arguments related to the amended features in the instant claims, the Examiner’s position has been stated as above.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIE YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1884. The examiner can normally be reached on IFP.
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, Jonathan J Johnson can be reached on 571-272-1177. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JIE YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734