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
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.
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al (CN 110803691 A) in view of Guo et al (CN 1897333 A).
Machine translations are being used as the English translations for Guo et al (CN 110803691 A) and Guo et al (CN 1897333 A).
Regarding claim 1, Guo ‘691 discloses a method for preparing lithium manganese iron phosphate comprising steps of:
S1: mixing a manganese source and an iron source in solid phase to obtain a first mixture (dissolving manganese sulphate and ferrous sulphate in water to obtain mixed solution A; pg. 2 of Guo ‘691 translation);
dissolving sodium carbonate in water to obtain mixed solution B (pg. 2 of Guo ‘691 translation), stirring mixed solution A with mixed solution B to obtain manganese iron carbonate (pg. 2 of Guo ‘691 translation);
S3: mixing manganese iron oxide with a lithium source and a phosphorus source in solid phase to obtain a second mixture (mixing iron manganese carbonate, formed from stirring mixed solution A with mixed solution B, with the lithium source and the phosphorus source; pg. 2 of Guo ‘691 translation)
S4: sintering the second mixture in solid phase at 700 °C to 750 °C to obtain lithium manganese iron phosphate LiMn1-x-y-FexPO4 where 0 ≤ x ≤ 1 and 0 ≤ y ≤ 1 (pg. 3 of Guo ‘691 translation)
Guo ‘691 does not disclose the method comprising step S2 of sintering the first mixture in solid phase at 300 °C to 1200 °C to obtain a manganese iron oxide (MnxFe1-x-y)mOn where 1:2 ≤ m:n ≤ 1.1 and 0 < n ≤ 4.
However, Guo ‘333 discloses a method comprising mixing manganese powder doped with a metal element (pg. 3 of Guo ‘333) and sintering the first mixture in solid phase at 300 °C to 1200 °C to obtain a manganese iron oxide (MnxFe1-x-y)mOn where 1:2 ≤ m:n ≤ 1.1 and 0 < n ≤ 4 (pg. 3 of Guo ‘333 translation).
Since the sintering temperature is within the claimed range for step 2, the values of 1:2 ≤ m:n ≤ 1.1 and 0 < n ≤ 4 would inherently be met.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Guo ‘691 to include the step of sintering of Guo ‘333 after the step of forming mixed solution A of Guo ‘691 because doing so provides a doped manganese oxide precursor of high density and good appearance (pg. 3 of Guo ‘333 translation).
Regarding claim 2, Guo ‘691 discloses the method for preparing lithium manganese iron phosphate of claim 1 as noted above and Guo’ 691 discloses the method comprising the manganese source being manganese sulfate (pg. 2 of Guo ‘691 translation).
Regarding claim 3, Guo ‘691 discloses the method for preparing lithium manganese iron phosphate of claim 1 as noted above and Guo’ 691 discloses the method comprising the iron source being ferrous sulfate (pg. 2 of Guo ‘691 translation).
Regarding claim 4, Guo ‘691 discloses the method for preparing lithium manganese iron phosphate of claim 1 as noted above and Guo’ 691 discloses the method comprising the lithium source being one of lithium carbonate and lithium hydroxide (pg. 3 of Guo ‘691 translation).
Regarding claim 5, Guo ‘691 discloses the method for preparing lithium manganese iron phosphate of claim 1 as noted above and Guo’ 691 discloses the method comprising the iron source being one of ammonium dihydrogen phosphate, diammonium phosphate and lithium dihydrogen phosphate (pg. 3 of Guo ‘691 translation).
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al (CN 110803691 A) in view of Guo et al (CN 1897333 A) in further view of Hu et al (CN 104868123 A).
Machine translations are being used as the English translations for Guo et al (CN 110803691 A), Guo et al (CN 1897333 A) and Hu et al (CN 104868123 A).
Regarding claim 6, Guo ‘691 and Guo ‘331 disclose the method for preparing the lithium manganese iron phosphate of claim 1 as noted above and Guo ‘691 discloses the method comprising a carbon source added during step S3 (carbon source added during step S03; pg. 3 of Guo ‘691 translation).
Guo ‘691 and Guo ‘331 do not disclose the method comprising a carbon source added during step S1.
However, Hu discloses a method comprising a carbon source added during step S1 where the carbon source is glucose (pgs. 2-3 of Hu translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Guo ‘691 and Guo ‘333 to include the step of adding carbon of Hu for the mixed solution A of Guo ‘691 because adding carbon provides a lithium manganese iron phosphate with high energy density (pg. 3 of Hu translation).
Regarding claim 7, Guo ‘691 and Guo ‘331 and Hu disclose the method for preparing the lithium manganese iron phosphate of claim 6 as noted above and Guo ‘691 discloses the method comprising the carbon source added during step S3 being carbon black (pg. 3 of Guo ‘691 translation).
Guo ‘691 and Guo ‘331 do not disclose the method comprising a carbon source added during step S1 being one selected from sucrose, glucose and fructose.
However, Hu discloses a method comprising a carbon source added during step S1 where the carbon source is one selected from sucrose, glucose and fructose (pgs. 2-3 of Hu translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Guo ‘691 and Guo ‘333 to include the step of adding carbon of Hu for the mixed solution A of Guo ‘691 because adding carbon provides a lithium manganese iron phosphate with high energy density (pg. 3 of Hu translation).
Regarding claim 8, Guo ‘691, Guo ‘333 and Hu disclose the method for preparing lithium manganese iron phosphate of claim 6 as noted above and that this claim is met due to the carbon source being selected from the group of materials during the solid-phase mixing for steps S1 and S3.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SATHAVARAM I REDDY whose telephone number is (571)270-7061. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM-6:00 PM EST.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571)-272-1291. 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.
/SATHAVARAM I REDDY/Examiner, Art Unit 1785