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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 9/22/23, 4/12/24, and 10/2/24 have been considered by the examiner.
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.
Language from the reference(s) is shown in quotations. Limitations from the claims are shown in quotations within parentheses. Examiner explanations are shown in italics.
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 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 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 1-3, 6-8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yue et al. (US 20220102773 A1), in view of Yu et al. (US 20150030517 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Yue teaches “a method for recycling waste lithium iron phosphate by selective oxidation-reduction” (which reads upon “a recycling and reworking method of a lithium iron phosphate cathode material, comprising steps of”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0002]). Yue teaches “recycling waste lithium iron phosphate” (which reads upon “(a) providing a lithium iron phosphate recycled material”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0007]). Yue teaches that “waste lithium iron phosphate LiFePO4 (hereinafter referred simply to as LFP) is used as a raw material and primarily sintered in a mild oxidizing gas selected from water vapor and/or CO2” (which reads upon “(b) oxidizing the lithium iron phosphate recycled material in an atmosphere”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0079]). Yue teaches that “a temperature is maintained at 300° C. to 700° C. for 0.5 hours to 15 hours, and preferably the temperature is maintained at 400° C. to 600° C. for 4 hours to 8 hours” (which reads upon “wherein the lithium iron phosphate recycled material is treated at an oxidation temperature ranged from 300°C to 400°C for 1 hour to 5 hours to form a raw material powder”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0023]). Yue teaches that “the step of separating a lithium iron phosphate powder material from a material obtained by the primary sintering is specifically performed by: pulverizing and then separating the material obtained by the primary sintering” (which reads upon “wherein the raw material powder is composed of LiFePO4”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0024]). Yue teaches that “a trace amount of Fe2+ is oxidized to Fe3+ by mild oxidation during primary sintering” (which reads upon “wherein the raw material powder is composed of Fe2O3”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0013]). Yue teaches that “the residual coating carbon is graphitized to an increased to degree” (which reads upon “wherein the raw material powder is composed of a residual carbon”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0013]). Yue teaches that “the step of separating a lithium iron phosphate powder material from a material obtained by the primary sintering is specifically performed by: pulverizing and then separating the material obtained by the primary sintering” (which reads upon “(c) grinding the raw material powder”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0024]). Yue teaches that “the step of supplementing lithium and supplementing carbon to the lithium iron phosphate powder material and regulating the composition of the lithium iron phosphate powder material using a lithium source and a carbon source” (which reads upon “(d) adjusting the composition of the raw material powder to form a precursor, wherein a carbon source is added”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0040]). Yue teaches that “in the secondary sintering, a temperature is maintained at 700° C. to 800° C. for 2 hours to 20 hours” (which reads upon “(e) heat-treating the precursor at a sintering temperature ranged from 500 °C to 800 °C for 8 hours to 12 hours to form a lithium iron phosphate regenerated material”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0048]). Yue teaches that “the secondary sintering is performed under an inert gas” (which reads upon “in an inert gas”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0113]).
Yue teaches that “the residual coating carbon is graphitized to an increased to degree” (which reads upon “wherein the raw material powder is composed of a residual carbon”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0013]). Yue teaches that “the carbon source is added in an amount calculated such that the carbon content in the resulting recycled lithium iron phosphate will be from 1.0 wt % to 6.0 wt %, and that preferably, the carbon content in the resulting recycled lithium iron phosphate is from 1.5 wt % to 2.5 wt %” (which reads upon “wherein the lithium iron phosphate regenerated material has a carbon content less than or equal to 1.6 wt.%”, as recited in instant claim 7; paragraph [0107]). Yue is silent regarding the weight percentage of the residual carbon in the raw material powder, and specifically that it is ranged from 0.07 wt.% to 0.6 wt.%. However, since the final carbon content in the lithium iron phosphate regenerated material is within the range claimed in claim 7, it is more likely than not that the weight percentage of the residual carbon in the raw material powder is also within the claimed range. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control the weight percentage of the residual carbon in the raw material powder, such as within the claimed range in order to control the final carbon content in the lithium iron phosphate regenerated material.
Yue teaches that “a lithium iron phosphate powder material from a material obtained by the primary sintering” (paragraph [0010]; raw material powder is mostly lithium iron phosphate, LiFePO4). LiFePO4 has a molar ratio of Li:Fe:P of 1:1:1. Yue teaches that “lithium was supplemented to reach a molar ratio of Li:Fe of 1.05:1” (which reads upon “which has the molar ratio of Li:P = 0.99~1.05:1, and the molar ratio of Fe:P= 0.98~1.02:1”, as recited the instant claim; paragraph [0157]; with P set at 1, Li:P = 0.99~1.05:1, times the inverse of Fe:P= 0.98~1.02:1, gives the molar ratio of Li:Fe of 0.97 – 1.10, accordingly the art (1.05) falls within the claimed ratio).
Yue is silent regarding wherein the raw material powder is composed of Fe7(PO4)6.
Yu is similarly concerned with a preparation method of battery composite material and a precursor thereof (paragraph [0001]). Yu teaches that “an object of the present invention provides a preparation method of a battery composite material and a precursor thereof for reducing the grinding time and the costs per unit of time and money in manner of preparing the battery composite material through the precursor produced via reactions” (paragraph [0007]). Yu teaches that “another object of present invention provides a preparation method of a battery composite material and a precursor thereof in order to reduce the waste of materials and totally enhance the product qualities” (paragraph [0008]). Yu teaches that “the Lithium Ferric Phosphate (LiFePO4, hereinafter referred as “LFP”) composite batteries are widely accepted by the market because of the large current and long life cycle” (paragraph [0003]). Yu teaches “calcining the first product to produce a precursor, among which the formula of the precursor is written by Fe7(PO4)6” (which reads upon “wherein the raw material powder is composed of, Fe7(PO4)6”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0009]). Yu teaches that “the preparation method includes steps of processing a reaction of a precursor and a first reactant and calcining the reaction mixture to produce the battery composite material, among which the formula of the precursor is written by Fe7(PO4)6, the formula of the battery composite material is written by LiFePO4” (paragraph [0012]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the material obtained by the primary sintering of Yue to include Fe7(PO4)6, as taught by Yu to because Yu teaches that Fe7(PO4)6 is a known precursor for LiFePO4. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), and MPEP § 2144.07.
Regarding claim 2, modified Yue teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Yue teaches that “the material is pulverized to have a median particle diameter ranging from 0.2 μm to 10.0 μm, preferably from 0.5 μm to 3.0 μm” (paragraph [0026]). It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Here, the claimed range of 0.4 μm to 1.2 μm overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art of 0.5 μm to 3.0 μm. Accordingly, the prior art renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 3, modified Yue teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Yue teaches that “the lithium source used for supplementation of lithium in step S300 includes, but is not limited to, any one or a combination of at least two of Li2CO3, LiOH.H2O, Li3PO4, or LiNO3, and may preferably be Li2CO3” (paragraph [0100]). Yue teaches that “the lithium source is added in an amount calculated according to a molar ratio of Li:Fe, and that an excess amount of Li ranges from 0.1% to 10.0%, for example, 0.1%, 0.5%, 1%, 2%, 3%, 5%, 6%, 7%, 8%, or 10%, preferably from 2% to 5%” (paragraph [0104]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Yue teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Yue teaches that “in the primary sintering, a temperature is maintained at 300° C. to 700° C. for 0.5 hours to 15 hours, and preferably the temperature is maintained at 400° C. to 600° C. for 4 hours to 8 hours” (paragraph [0023]). Yue teaches that “in the secondary sintering, a temperature is maintained at 700° C. to 800° C. for 2 hours to 20 hours” (paragraph [0048]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Yue teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Yue teaches “determining the content of Li, Fe, and C in a sieved out powder material by ICP and high-frequency infrared carbon and sulfur analysis” (paragraph [0055]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Yue teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Yue teaches that “the carbon source includes any one or a combination of at least two of glucose, sucrose, citric acid, acetylene black, polypropylene, or polyethylene glycol” (paragraph [0035]).
Claims 1-5, 7, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (CN 114824546 A), as machine translated, in view of Yu et al. (US 20150030517 A1).
Regarding claims 1-5, 7, and 9-10, Cheng teaches “a method for recycling waste lithium iron phosphate” (which reads upon “a recycling and reworking method of a lithium iron phosphate cathode material, comprising steps of”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [n0001]). Cheng teaches “(1) Calcine waste high-carbon lithium iron phosphate powder or lithium iron phosphate electrode to obtain oxidized lithium iron phosphate” (which reads upon “(a) providing a lithium iron phosphate recycled material; (b) oxidizing the lithium iron phosphate recycled material in an atmosphere, wherein the raw material powder is composed of LiFePO4”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [n0009]; oxidized lithium iron phosphate reads on LiFePO4). Cheng teaches that “the calcination in step (1) is sintering in an air or oxygen atmosphere, the calcination temperature is 300-450℃, and the calcination time is 3-6h” (which reads upon “wherein the lithium iron phosphate recycled material is treated at an oxidation temperature ranged from 300°C to 400°C for 1 hour to 5 hours to form a raw material powder”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [n0012]). Cheng teaches that “the iron source is one or more of the following: iron phosphate, iron(II) oxide, iron(III) hydroxide, iron(II) oxide, and iron(II) hydroxyl oxide” (which reads upon “wherein the raw material powder is composed of Fe2O3”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [n0015]). Cheng teaches that “the mass fraction of carbon in the low-carbon lithium iron phosphate precursor is 0.1-0.4%” (which reads upon “and a residual carbon, and the weight percentage of the residual carbon in the raw material powder is ranged from 0.07 wt.% to 0.6 wt.%”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [n0023]). Cheng teaches that “the material was removed, crushed, and 300g of lithium iron phosphate precursor with a carbon content of 0.2wt% was obtained” (which reads upon “and a residual carbon, and the weight percentage of the residual carbon in the raw material powder is ranged from 0.07 wt.% to 0.6 wt.%”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [n0047]). Cheng teaches that “the grinding refers to first coarsely grinding the mixed slurry until the particle size of the slurry is D<sub>50</sub><1µm, and then finely grinding until the particle size of the slurry is 350~500nm” (which reads upon “(c) grinding the raw material powder”, as recited in the instant claim; which reads upon “wherein the raw material power after grinding in the step (c) has an average particle diameter ranged from 0.4 µm to 1.2 µm”, as recited in instant claim 2; which reads upon “wherein the step (c) is implemented through a wet grinding process”, as recited in instant claim 9; paragraph [n0029]; 0.4 µm is 400 nm). Cheng teaches that “the molar ratio of lithium, iron, and phosphorus in the recycled lithium iron phosphate/carbon composite material is 1-1.1:0.9-1.05:1-1.08” (which reads upon “(d) adjusting the composition of the raw material powder to form a precursor, which has the molar ratio of Li:P = 0.99~1.05:1, and the molar ratio of Fe:P = 0.98~1.02:1”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [n0034]). Cheng teaches that “the oxidized lithium iron phosphate was coated and sintered twice with carbon source material to obtain a regenerated lithium iron phosphate/carbon composite material” (which reads upon “wherein a carbon source is added”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [n0010]). Cheng teaches that “the drying is static drying or spray drying” (which reads upon “the step (d) further comprises a step of (dl) drying the precursor”, as recited in instant claim 9; which reads upon “the step (dl) is implemented through a spray granulation process”, as recited in instant claim 10; paragraph [n0030]). Cheng teaches that “the resulting dried powder was placed in a tube furnace under a nitrogen atmosphere for sintering at a temperature of 740℃ for 10h, and that after the tube furnace cooled naturally to 80℃, the material was removed, graded, and crushed to obtain a recycled lithium iron phosphate/carbon composite material with a carbon content of 1.5wt%” (which reads upon “(e) heat-treating the precursor in an inert gas at a sintering temperature ranged from 500 °C to 800 °C for 8 hours to 12 hours to form a lithium iron phosphate regenerated material”, as recited in the instant claim; which reads on claim 7; paragraph [n0049]; nitrogen atmosphere reads on an inert gas). Cheng teaches that “preparation of lithium iron phosphate precursor: 46.95g of lithium carbonate (99.5wt%), 180g of iron phosphate, 120g of oxidized lithium iron phosphate, and 16g of rock sugar were added to a 2L basket mill” (which reads upon instant claims 3-5; paragraph [n0056]; 13% lithium carbonate reads on lithium salt).
Cheng is silent regarding wherein the raw material powder is composed of Fe7(PO4)6.
Yu is similarly concerned with a preparation method of battery composite material and a precursor thereof (paragraph [0001]). Yu teaches that “an object of the present invention provides a preparation method of a battery composite material and a precursor thereof for reducing the grinding time and the costs per unit of time and money in manner of preparing the battery composite material through the precursor produced via reactions” (paragraph [0007]). Yu teaches that “another object of present invention provides a preparation method of a battery composite material and a precursor thereof in order to reduce the waste of materials and totally enhance the product qualities” (paragraph [0008]). Yu teaches that “the Lithium Ferric Phosphate (LiFePO4, hereinafter referred as “LFP”) composite batteries are widely accepted by the market because of the large current and long life cycle” (paragraph [0003]). Yu teaches “calcining the first product to produce a precursor, among which the formula of the precursor is written by Fe7(PO4)6” (which reads upon “wherein the raw material powder is composed of, Fe7(PO4)6”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0009]). Yu teaches that “the preparation method includes steps of processing a reaction of a precursor and a first reactant and calcining the reaction mixture to produce the battery composite material, among which the formula of the precursor is written by Fe7(PO4)6, the formula of the battery composite material is written by LiFePO4” (paragraph [0012]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the material obtained by the primary sintering of Cheng to include Fe7(PO4)6, as taught by Yu to because Yu teaches that Fe7(PO4)6 is a known precursor for LiFePO4. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), and MPEP § 2144.07.
Regarding claim 11, modified Cheng teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Cheng teaches that “the carbon source 1 is selected from one or more of glucose, rock sugar, sucrose, fructose, cyclodextrin, and starch” (paragraph [n0017]). Cheng teaches that “the carbon source 2 is selected from one or more of glucose, rock sugar, sucrose, fructose, cyclodextrin, starch, polyethylene glycol, polyvinyl alcohol, ascorbic acid, citric acid, and amino acids” (paragraph [n0018]).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA JANSSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5434. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 10-7 and alternating Fri 10-6.
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. The Examiner requests that interviews not be scheduled during the last week of each fiscal quarter or the last half of September, which is the end of the fiscal year. Q2: 3/30-4/3/26; Q3: 6/22-6/26/26; Q4: 9/21-9/30/26.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Hendricks can be reached on (571)272-1401. 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.
/REBECCA JANSSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733