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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of claims 1-8 and 15-18 in the reply filed on 6/23/26 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 9-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected groups, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/23/26.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 8, 15 and 18 are 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.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "as electrode material" in line 2 of the claim. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. While it appears the use of “as” is a typographical error, it is noted that since the electrode material of claim 1 is being referred to that the claim should refer back to “the” or “said” electrode material as claimed in claim 1.
Claim 15 refers back to the electrode material of claim 1 and then requires the electrode material to be “comprising a mixture of ion sieves” (see claim 15). However, claim 1 already sets forth that the electrode material comprises “at least one ion sieve” (see claim 1 lines 2-3). As such, it is unclear how the mixture of ion sieves as set forth in claim 15 relates to the previously set forth limitation requires at least one ion sieve. For example, it is unclear whether it is referring to the same ion sieves or if a new set of ion sieves is being set forth.
Claim 18 states that “the at least one ion sieve comprises particles coated with a porous carbon layer” (see claim 18 at lines 1-2). However, claim 1 already sets forth that the at least one ion sieve is “coated with carbon” (see claim 1 at lines 4-5). As such, it is unclear how the porous carbon layer of claim 18 relates to the previously set forth coated with carbon from independent claim 1. For example, it is unclear whether the carbon coating is being further limited or if a new porous carbon layer is being required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-8 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “In Situ Catalytic Synthesis of High-Graphitized Carbon-Coated LiFePO4 Nanoplates for Superior Li-Ion Battery Cathodes” by Ma et al., ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 7, pages 2937-2943 (2015) (hereinafter referred to as “MA”).
Regarding claim 1, MA teaches an electrode material for extracting an element ion from a liquid medium (see MA at Abstract and Experimental Section 2 teaching the material preparation of the LiFePO4 nanoplates that are used to make electrodes which would be capable of acting to extract Li ions as claimed), comprising:
at least one electrode material comprising at least one ion sieve configured to intercalate or release an element ion (see MA at section 2.1 titled “Material Preparation and Characterization” teaching the formation of LiFePO4 nanoplates; see also MA at “Introduction” section, first paragraph, teaching LiFePO4 as a material that allows for Li+ ion insertion/extraction);
the at least one ion sieve being coated with carbon (see MA at section 2.1 titled “Material Preparation and Characterization” teaching the formation of carbon-coated LiFePO4; see also MA at Fig. 1 depicting the synthesis route for the carbon-coated LiFePO4).
Regarding claim 2, MA teaches the electrode material wherein the element ion is a lithium ion (see teachings of MA cited above in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, MA teaches the electrode material wherein the at least one ion sieve after uptake of the element ion is a lithium-containing metal oxide or a lithium-containing metal phosphate (see teachings of MA cited above in the rejection of claim 1 setting forth the ion sieve being LiFePO4).
Regarding claim 4, MA teaches the electrode material wherein the at least one ion sieve comprises a complex oxide containing lithium and at least one further element comprising Co, Mg, Mn, Ni, Fe, Al, Mo, V, W or Ti or is a lithium iron phosphate (see teachings of MA cited above in the rejection of claim 1 teaching the ion sieve being a lithium iron phosphate, i.e. LiFePO4).
Regarding claim 5, MA teaches the electrode material wherein the at least one ion sieve comprises LiFePO4 as claimed (see teachings of MA cited above in the rejection of claim 1 teaching the ion sieve being a lithium iron phosphate, i.e. LiFePO4).
Regarding claim 6, MA teaches the electrode material wherein the carbon comprises a carbon layer obtained by carbonization (see teachings of MA in section 2.1 titled “Material Preparation and Characterization” teaching the LiFePO4 being carbon-coated via being carbonized for 6 hours at 700 °C).
Regarding claim 7, MA teaches the electrode material wherein the at least one ion sieve is in the form of particles (see MA at section 2 titled “Experimental Section” and Fig. 1 depicting the LiFePO4 material being nanoplates).
Regarding claim 8, MA teaches an electrode for extracting an element ion from a liquid medium comprising the electrode material as claimed in claim 1 (see teachings of MA cited above in the rejection of claim 1; and also MA at section 2.2 titled “Cell Fabrication and Electrochemical Analysis” teaching the formation of an electrode from the carbon-coated LiFePO4).
Regarding claim 16-17, MA teaches the electrode material wherein the at least one ion sieve comprises a lithium-intercalated ion sieve and a de-lithiated ion sieve (see MA at page 2940, left-hand paragraph and Fig. 5 depicting charge and discharge and cycling of the electrode which would include the lithium filling, i.e. lithiated, and un-filling, i.e. de-lithiated, as claimed).
Regarding claim 18, MA teaches the electrode material wherein the at least one ion sieve comprises particles coated with a porous carbon layer (see MA at section 2.1 titled “Material Preparation and Characterization” teaching the formation of the carbon layer via a similar process, i.e. coating with a polyester through reaction of citric acid with ethylene glycol which is then heated for 6 hours at 700 °C which mirrors the process disclosed in the Specification and so would be reasonably expected to result in a similar coating having a similar structure, i.e. a porous layer, to at least some degree).
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) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MA in view of US Pub. No. 2013/0186760 to Zhao et al., (hereinafter referred to as “ZHAO”).
Regarding claim 15, while MA teaches the electrode material comprising one ionic sieve material (see teachings of MA cited above with respect to the rejection of claim 1), MA fails to explicitly teach the electrode material comprising a mixture of ion sieve materials.
However, ZHAO teaches the use of ion sieve containing electrode for extracting and enriching lithium (see ZHAO at Absract). Moreover, the ion sieve materials that ZHAO teaches includes a host of lithium ion sieve materials including lithium iron phosphates, and even carbon coated lithium iron phosphates, i.e. LiFePO4/C (see ZHAO at ¶14). Furthermore, ZHAO teaches the ion sieve materials including mixtures of the lithium iron phosphate and LiMn2O4 and also mixtures of other combinations of lithium ion sieve materials (see ZHAO at ¶14).
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that multiple types of ion sieve materials could be mixed and the mixture used as the ion sieve material for the electrode material. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that instead of a single ion sieve material, several types of ion sieve materials could be used to make the electrode material.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the single carbon coated LiFePO4 ion sieve material so as to include the lithium iron phosphate that is carbon coated in addition to other lithium ion sieve materials, such as LiMn2O4, as taught by ZHAO as the electrode material of MA.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bryan D. Ripa whose telephone number is (571)270-7875. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM-4:00PM ET.
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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/BRYAN D. RIPA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights