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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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.
Specifically, the present rejection cites Yue et al (CN 1022227024) and in further view of Tao et al (“Preparation of composite electrodes with carbon nanotubes for lithium-ion batteries by low-energy ball milling”, RSC Adv., (2014), 4, pp. 36649-36655) for teaching room temperature grinding of lithium iron phosphate precursor and carbon source at room temperature.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5 and 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al (CN103208614 where citations are from the Machine Translation provided by the Examiner) and in further view of Yue et al (CN 102227024) and in further view of Tao et al (“Preparation of composite electrodes with carbon nanotubes for lithium-ion batteries by low-energy ball milling”, RSC Adv., (2014), 4, pp. 36649-36655) and in further view of Hu et al (CN113651304 submitted in the IDS filed 6/14/2024 where citations are from the Machine Translation provided by the Examiner).
Huang teaches a method for synthesis of lithium iron phosphate (LFP), the method comprising adding phosphoric acid and water to prepare a phosphoric acid solution adding iron powder and reacting and adding the obtained product (i.e., an iron and phosphorous source) into a ball mill to obtain precursor A, adding lithium hydroxide (i.e., a lithium source) and sucrose (i.e., a carbon source), stirring in the ball mill (i.e., where stirring using a ball mill is a grinding process) obtaining a precursor B; spray drying precursor B to obtain spherical iron lithium phosphate powder, then placing the iron lithium phosphate powder in a vacuum furnace at 600-750°C (i.e., sintering) to obtain the LFP battery material.
Regarding the first slurry, since precursor A is a ball-milled reaction product of a phosphoric acid solution (i.e., a liquid) and an iron powder (i.e., solid particles), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it is a slurry comprising solid particles in a liquid medium.
One of ordinary skill in the art would also recognize that stirring precursor A, the lithium source, and the sucrose in the ball mill would first mix then grind the mixture in progression.
Regarding grinding in a tank, since Huang teach a ball mill, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that the slurry is in a mill pot or container (i.e., a tank) in order for the balls to perform a grinding process on the slurry.
Huang does not teach a method where grinding is at a temperature between 25 and 40°C. Huang does not teach that a carbon-coated LFP is formed including a core layer and a coating layer coated on the LFP (i.e., the core layer wherein the core layer is formed from the lithium source, iron source and phosphorus source) and wherein the coating layer is formed from the carbon source.
Regarding a grinding temperature from 25 to 35°C, Yue teaches a method for preparing a carbon-coated lithium iron phosphate composite material comprising mixing in a ball-milling mixer a lithium source, iron source, phosphorous source at room temperature, doping by adding doped elements and stirring in a ball-milling mixer at room temperature, coating carbon by adding a carbon precursor in an amount of 0.01 to 20% of the positive electrode lithium iron phosphate raw material, and mixing with a ball milling mixer at room temperature (see [0032-0046]).
Tao teaches a method for preparing composite electrodes of LiFeTiO4 with carbon nanotubes where low energy ball milling at room temperature is used for preventing dramatic modification or damaging of ingredients during milling (see 2.1. Materials and synthesis).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to perform a step of ball-milling (i.e., grinding) the carbon source and lithium source where the temperature for grinding is room temperature (i.e., 25°C) as taught by Yue in order to prevent dramatic modification or damaging of ingredients during the grinding step as suggested by Tao.
Regarding forming a carbon coated LFP comprising a coating layer formed from the carbon source, Hu teaches a method for preparing organic carbon-coated LFP comprising ball-milling an iron phosphate, lithium carbonate and organic carbon, drying the mixed solution, and sintering at high temperature to obtain an organic carbon-coated LFP positive electrode material (i.e., a core LFP layer with a carbon coating layer) where the carbon coating improves the electronic conductivity, reduces agglomeration, improves the electrochemical performance, and improve cycle stability and power performance (see Abstract and Background). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to perform the method as taught by Huang where the method comprises forming a coating layer on the LFP from the carbon source as taught by Hu to improve electrical conductivity, reduce agglomeration, and improve cycle stability and performance of the LFP electrode material.
Regarding claim 5, as applied above, Huang teaches a ball milling method.
Regarding claim 7, as applied above, Huang teaches a method comprises reacting iron powder and phosphoric acid to form the first slurry.
Regarding claim 8, as applied above, Huang teaches spray-drying.
Regarding claim 9, as applied above Huang teaches sintering at temperature of 600 to 750°C.
Regarding claim 10, as applied above Huang teaches sintering in a vacuum furnace (i.e., a non-oxidizing atmosphere).
Regarding claim 11, Yue teaches a method where the carbon-coated lithium manganese iron phosphate has a carbon content of 0.01% to 20% (see [0046]).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, 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). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to perform the method for preparing carbon coated LFP as taught by Huang, Yue, Tao,, and Hu where the coating carbon is in any workable or overlapping range with 0.01 to 20% as taught by Yue including 1% to 1.6% to have suitable range for coating with carbon.
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang, Yue, Tao and Hu as applied to claim 1 and in further view of Kaneko et al (JP H0440245 submitted in the IDS filed 2/27/2025 as JPH0679655B2 where citations are from the Machine Translation provided by the Examiner).
As applied to claim 1, Huang, Yue, Tao, and Hu teach a method for preparing a carbon coated LFP comprising providing to a ball mill a first slurry containing the reaction product of an iron source and a phosphate source, a carbon source, and a lithium source; mixing to form a second slurry and grinding to form a third slurry in a tank of the ball mill where the grinding temperature is 25°C and drying and sintering the third slurry to form a carbon-coated LFP material comprising a LFP core layer and a carbon coating layer.
Regarding claim 2, Huang, Yue, Tao, and Hu do not teach a method wherein a liquid cooling method is performed to control the first temperature.
Kaneko teaches a planetary ball mill that provides for removing generated grinding friction heat to prevent heat generation and maintain the grinding conditions at a constant temperature to prevent the quality of the crushed product from being altered or chemical reactions from occurring to cause quality defects (see [Problems to be Solved]). Kaneko teaches a planetary ball mill that comprises a cooling liquid that flows into an annular hollow portion between the mill case and the mill pot and acts so as to maintain the grinding conditions at a constant temperature (see [Means for Solving the Problem] and [Function]). Kaneko teaches operation of the cooling by water which has better cooling effect and is cheap (see [Function]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to perform the method for preparing carbon coated LFP by grinding with a controlled temperature as taught by Huang, Yue, Tao, and Hu where the ball mill comprises an annular hollow portion with a flowing cooling liquid water as taught by Kaneko, since ball milling can generate friction heat and liquid cooling can maintain consistent grinding conditions constant to prevent alteration of the quality of the grinding products as suggested by Kaneko.
Regarding claim 3, Kaneko teaches a method where the ball mill comprises a mill pot for holding the grinding products (i.e., the first chamber) and an annular hollow between the mill pot and mill case (i.e., a cooling jacket around the ball mill) where the cooling liquid flows (see [Function]).
Regarding claim 4, Kaneko teaches a method where the annular hollow portion is formed between the outer peripheral portion of the mill pot and an inner peripheral portion of the mill case (i.e., a cooling jacket that comprises a second chamber that surrounds the first chamber) and inlet 81 and outlet 72 (i.e., two channels) for carrying the fluid to and from the annular hollow portion (see [Function] and Figure 1).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang, Yue, Tao, and Hu as applied to claim 1 and in further view of Zhou et al (CN113772650 where citations are from the Machine Translation provided by the Examiner).
Regarding claim 6, Huang, Yue, Tao, and Hu do not teach a method where the second slurry and the third slurry are alkaline.
Zhou teaches a process for preparing carbon-coated LFP wherein iron phosphate is synthesized, the iron phosphate is added to Li3PO3 (a lithium source and glucose (a carbon source) to obtain a mixed slurry, grinding the mixed slurry, drying the mixed slurry to obtain a dried mixed powder material, and roasting the dried mixed powder to obtain the LFP with good carbon coating layer (see Page 3, Middle and Page 5, Bottom). Zhou further teaches that in step(b), the pH of the mixed slurry is preferably 8.0-10.0 (see Page 5, Middle). One of ordinary skill in the art would also reasonably expect that the pH after grinding in Zhou is unchanged or close to 8.0-10.0 since grinding is a physical process. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to perform the method for preparing carbon coated LFP comprising preparing a second slurry of iron, phosphate, lithium, and carbon sources and grinding the second slurry to obtain a third slurry, as taught by Huang, Yue, Tao, and Huo where the second slurry has a pH of 8.0-10.0 and the third slurry also has a pH of 8.0-10.0 since Zhou suggests that the pH of 8.0-10.0 is preferable in a similar process.
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 MICHAEL FORREST whose telephone number is (571)270-5833. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (10AM-6PM).
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, Sally A Merkling can be reached at (571)272-6297. 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.
/MICHAEL FORREST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights