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 Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: “transition metal” in line 6 should be “transition metal ions”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 3 recites the broad recitation “the fluoride in step (1) comprise any one or a combination of at least two of fluoride containing alkali metal ions, fluoride containing alkaline earth metal ions, fluoride containing transition metal or fluoride containing ammonium ions”, and the claim also recites “the fluoride in step (1) comprises any one or a combination of at least two of a potassium fluoride, lithium fluoride, sodium fluoride, rubidium fluoride, cesium fluoride, magnesium fluoride, calcium fluoride or barium fluoride” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 5 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Waki et al (US 2010/0322838).
Regarding claim 5, the claim is a product-by-process claim directed to a phosphorus pentafluoride product. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
As a practical matter, the Patent Office is not equipped to manufacture products by the myriad of processes put before it and then obtain prior art products and make physical comparisons therewith. A lesser burden of proof is required to make out a case of prima facie obviousness for product-by-process claims because of their particular nature than when a product is claimed in the conventional fashion. In re Brown, 59 CCPA 1063, 173 USPQ 685 (1972); In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324 (CCPA 1974).
Here, Waki discloses a high purity, low moisture hexafluorophosphate (AF6) where A is at least one of Li, Na, K, Rb, Cs, NH4; and Ag (see [0066-0067]). The prior art Waki therefore discloses a hexafluorophosphate salt that is identical in chemical composition to the claimed product (i.e., hexafluorophosphate salt) even if produced by a different method since the instant claim implies the identical chemical structure of [cation]+[PF6]-. In the event any slight differences can be shown between the two phosphorus pentafluorides, the burden is on Applicant to provide concrete evidence that the difference exhibits unexpected properties compared to the prior art Waki which appears to disclose an identical product. See Ex parte Gray, 10 USPQ2d 1922.
Regarding claim 11, Waki further teaches a process for producing an electrolyte for lithium secondary batteries (i.e., lithium-ion batteries) using the hexafluorophosphate salt (see [0001-0002])
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al (CN-101391760).
Regarding Claim 9, the claim is a product-by-process claim directed to a phosphorus pentafluoride product. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
As a practical matter, the Patent Office is not equipped to manufacture products by the myriad of processes put before it and then obtain prior art products and make physical comparisons therewith. A lesser burden of proof is required to make out a case of prima facie obviousness for product-by-process claims because of their particular nature than when a product is claimed in the conventional fashion. In re Brown, 59 CCPA 1063, 173 USPQ 685 (1972); In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324 (CCPA 1974).
Li teaches a highly pure phosphorus pentafluoride containing more than 99.9% pure PF5 (see Abstract).
Here, the prior art Li discloses a phosphorus pentafluoride product that is identical in chemical composition, phosphorus pentafluoride (PF5) and comprises a purity of greater than 99.9%. The instant claim implies the identical structure of PF5 having a purity of more than or equal to 99.9% In the event any slight differences can be shown between the two phosphorus pentafluorides, the burden is on Applicant to provide concrete evidence that the difference exhibits unexpected properties compared to the prior art Li which appears to disclose an identical product. See Ex parte Gray, 10 USPQ2d 1922.
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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waki and in further view of Yang et al (CN 104261369 submitted in the IDS filed 8/9/2023 but where citations are from the Machine Translation provided by the Examiner) and in further view of Luly et al (US 2015/0093316).
Waki discloses a method of manufacturing phosphorus pentafluoride, the process comprising introducing hydrogen fluoride and hexafluorophosphate (MPF6) to a container and producing phosphorus pentafluoride according to the reaction of MPF6 + HF [Wingdings font/0xE0] PF5 + MF + HF (see [0056-0058]). The HF therefore acts as a catalyst solution in the reaction since it promotes the chemical reaction without itself changing. Waki does not disclose a process subjecting the crude phosphorus pentafluoride gas to condensation, pressurizing liquefaction and adsorption impurity removal in sequence to obtain the phosphorus pentafluoride.
First regarding subjecting the crude phosphorus pentafluoride gas to condensation and pressurized liquefaction, Yang teaches a method for producing phosphorus pentafluoride, the method comprising condensing the phosphorus pentafluoride gas and refining the crude product by compressing and liquefying pressure (i.e., subjecting the condensed PF6 to pressurized liquefaction), then rectifying in the rectifying in the rectifying tower, obtaining high purity pentafluoride (see [0031-0033]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to perform a method for producing high-purity phosphorus pentafluoride as taught by Waki where the crude phosphorus pentafluoride gas is subjected to condensing, compressive liquefaction, and rectification in sequence as taught by Yang because it is a known technique for isolating and purifying the phosphorus pentafluoride produced.
Regarding a process where rectification comprises absorption impurity removal, Luly teaches a process for purification of PF5 comprising (a) contacting a composition comprising PF5 and an impurity with a superabsorbent polymer or a NaF, and (b) removing the composition form the superabsorbent polymer or NaF wherein the amount of the impurity is reduced (see [0020-0022]). Luly teaches that the process greatly reduces impurities and more effective than techniques which cause PF5 hydrolysis (see [0006-0007] and [0050]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to
perform a method for producing high-purity phosphorus pentafluoride as taught by Waki and Yang where rectification comprises contacting with an absorbent of impurities as taught by Luly because it is a known effective technique for greatly purifying the phosphorus pentafluoride without reacting with the PF5.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li as applied to claim 9, and in further view of Waki.
As applied to claim 9, Li discloses a high-purity phosphorus pentafluoride. Li does not disclose a preparation method of lithium hexafluorophosphate or lithium difluorophosphate for lithium-ion batteries, comprising using the high-purity phosphorus pentafluoride.
Waki teaches a method for preparing high purity hexafluorophosphate by using high purity phosphorus pentafluoride (see Abstract and [0090]). Waki teaches a process producing lithium hexafluorophosphate from the phosphorus pentafluoride and produced at a low price while having low moisture content and low free acid concentration (See [0090] and [0096]). Waki discloses the hexafluorophosphate having industrial applicability as an electrolyte for a battery (see [0121-0122]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to use the high-purity phosphorus pentafluoride as disclosed by Li in a preparation method of lithium hexafluorophosphate for lithium ion batteries as taught by Waki because it produces an industrial useful electrolyte for lithium ion batteries with low impurities and low price.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2 and 4 are allowed.
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 1-2 and 4, the closest prior art of record, namely Nickerson (US 3,634,304) does not teach or fairly suggest a process for preparing hexafluorophosphate salt comprising all of the cumulative limitations of claim 1.
Nickerson teaches a method for preparing phosphorus pentafluoride, the method comprising:
Mixing and heating a phosphoric acid solution of sulfur trioxide, and a fluoride salt to evolve phosphorus pentafluoride gas, and recovering the gas.
The phosphorus acid containing 65-82 percent P2O5;
Where if the reactant ratio is 1:2:4 (P:SO2:F) for a less concentrated phosphoric acid, i.e., 65 percent P2O5 acid at a 1:3:6 (P:SO3:F) ratio, the product liquid phase is predominantly hexafluorophosphoric acid (see Col 1, ln 49 to Col 2, Ln 31).
Nickerson therefore discloses a process mixing a phosphoric acid solution of phosphorus pentoxide, sulfur trioxide, and a fluoride producing a hexafluorophosphoric acid (i.e., a hexafluorophosphate salt precursor).
Nickerson does not teach or suggest a method comprising subjecting the hexafluorophosphoric salt precursor to evaporation and concentration, dissolution, filtration and drying in sequence to obtain the hexafluorophosphate salt. Nickerson also does not disclose where mixing comprises an inert gas atmosphere.
Regarding claim 8, as applied above Waki, Yang, and Luly suggest a method for preparing phosphorus pentafluoride comprising mixing a hexafluorophosphate salt and a catalyst solution, and performing catalytic reaction to obtain a crude phosphorus pentafluoride gas; and subjecting the crude phosphorus pentafluoride gas to condensation, pressurizing liquefaction, and adsorption impurity removal in sequence to obtain the phosphorus pentafluoride. Waki teaches a method where the phosphorus pentafluoride reaction is at 20 to 120°C (see [0067]) and the HF that is used is in an amount that the concentration of the MPF6 is 1 to 50 wt% (See [0075]) (where based on this wt% range a molar ratio of LiPF6:HF would range from 1:0.076 to 1:7.6). Yang discloses a pressurizing liquefaction is performed at 0.6-1.0 MPa (see [0032]). Luly discloses an absorbent used in the adsorption impurity removal comprising NaF (see Abstract).
However, Waki, Yang, and Luly do not teach or suggest a method where the catalyst is any one or a combination of at least two of sulfuric acid, sulfur trioxide, sulfuric acid solution of sulfur trioxide, sulfuric acid solution of phosphorus pentoxide, a phosphoric acid solution of sulfur trioxide, or crown ether as claimed or the catalytic reaction is performed at 150-400°C; condensation performed at 0.1-0.2 MPa and at -50°C to -40°C as required in claim 8.
Smith (US-6322764) is also relevant as teaching a method for preparation of anhydrous high purity phosphorus pentafluoride in high yield, the process comprising reacting hexafluorophosphoric acid with a fuming sulfuric acid while in contact with hydrogen fluoride; and recovering phosphorus pentafluoride, hydrofluoric acid and sulfuric acid (see Col 3, Ln 3-26). Smith further teaches a process where the sulfuric acid is added to the hexafluorophosphoric acid in a weight ratio of 1.0:1 to 1.8:1 and the reaction temperature is 25°C to 32°C (See Col 3, LN 63 to Col 4, Ln 1). Smith further discloses a method comprising atmospheric condensing at a temperature of 0 to -80°C to condense any phosphoryl trifluoride 15 (Col 4, Ln 1-15). Smith does not disclose a process comprising hexafluorophosphate salt at a mol ratio of hexafluorophosphate salt: catalyst of 1:5.0-20, a catalytic reaction is performed at 150-400°C; condensation performed at 0.1-0.2 MPa as required in claim 8.
Conclusion
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