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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-8 and 15-20 in the reply filed on 5/15/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 9-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/15/2026.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3-4, 15-17 and 19-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3, 9, and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 9,954,228. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claim 9 of the US 9,954,228 claims a method comprising mixing a spheniscidite, a lithium source, a dopant, and a carbon source; adding a solvent to produce a slurry; milling the slurry; and firing the dried milled slurry to obtain lithium iron phosphate wherein the spheniscidite is derived from an iron source, an ammonium source and an oxidant.
Regarding Claim 3, Claim 3 of the 9,954,228 patent also claims a plate shaped spheniscidite.
Regarding claim 4, Claim 12 claims a method comprising mixing a spheniscidite, a lithium source, a dopant, and a carbon source; adding a solvent to produce a slurry; milling the slurry; and firing the dried milled slurry to obtain lithium iron phosphate wherein the spheniscidite is derived from an iron source, an ammonium source and an oxidant and where the solvent is alcohol.
Regarding claim 15, Claim 12 claims a method comprising mixing a spheniscidite, a lithium source, a dopant, and a carbon source; adding a solvent to produce a slurry; milling the slurry; and firing the dried milled slurry to obtain lithium iron phosphate composed of primary and secondary particles wherein the spheniscidite is derived from an iron source, an ammonium source and an oxidant and where the solvent is alcohol or water.
Regarding claim 16, Claim 12 claims a method comprising mixing a spheniscidite, a lithium source, a dopant, and a carbon source; adding a solvent to produce a slurry; milling the slurry; and firing the dried milled slurry to obtain lithium iron phosphate wherein the spheniscidite is derived from an iron source, an ammonium source and an oxidant and where the solvent is water.
Regarding claim 17, Claim 12 claims where the secondary particles have d50 in the range of 5 µm to 13 µm.
Regarding claim 19, Claim 12 claims a method comprising mixing a spheniscidite, a lithium source, a dopant, and a carbon source.
Regarding claim 20, Claim 12 claims a method where the spheniscidite has the formula NH4Fe2(PO4)2OH.2H2O (i.e. where the iron is 29.75 wt%, phosphorus is 17.58 wt%, and the ammonium group is 4.79%).
Claims 2, 5-8 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 or 12 of U.S. Patent No. 9,954,228 and in further view of Cheng et al (CN 101244813). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claim 9 of the US 9,954,228 encompasses a method comprising mixing a spheniscidite, a lithium source, a dopant, and a carbon source; adding a solvent to produce a slurry; milling the slurry; and firing the dried milled slurry to obtain lithium iron phosphate wherein the spheniscidite is derived from an iron source, an ammonium source and an oxidant. Claim 12 further claims a process selecting a solvent of alcohol or water.
Regarding claim 2, Cheng teaches a method for preparing a lithium iron phosphate, the method comprising mixing an iron phosphate, lithium salt, carbon source and doped compound; adding alcohol; ball milling the mixture to form a slurry; and sintering the mixture under protection of nitrogen or argon so as to prepare a carbon doped LiFePO4 wherein the preparing method of iron phosphate is prepared by drying and firing a basic ammonium ferric phosphate NH4Fe2(OH)(PO4)2.nH2O (i.e., synthesized spheniscidite according to the Instant Specification at Page [0057]) (see Page 2, Top and Examples). 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 producing a lithium iron phosphate according to the 9,954,228 patent where the firing atmosphere is inert as taught by Cheng to prevent side reactions or byproducts.
Regarding claim 5, Cheng teaches where the lithium salt is lithium carbonate or lithium hydroxide. 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 producing a lithium iron phosphate according to the 9,954,228 patent where the lithium source is lithium hydroxide or lithium carbonate as taught by Cheng as suggested lithium sources for producing lithium iron phosphate in a similar process.
Regarding claim 6, Cheng teaches where the dopant is Sn, Mn, Ti, or Zn (see Page 2, ¶2).
Regarding claim 7, Cheng teaches a method comprising a lithium iron phosphate prepared from 1.5 kg of ferric phosphate, 313 g of glucose, 21g of tin oxide corresponding to about 10 mols of LiFePO4 to 0.139 mols of tin (i.e., where the dopant is about 1.139 mol% of the LiFePO4).
Regarding claim 8, Cheng teaches a method where formulating the lithium iron phosphate into an electrode using bonding agent polyvinylidene fluoride and conducting agent acetylene black (see Examples).
Regarding claim 18, Cheng teaches a lithium iron phosphate having a tap density of 1.25 to 1.35 g/ml (see Table 1).
Citation of Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cheng et al (CN 101244813 where citations are from the Machine Translation provided by the Office) teaches a method for preparing a lithium iron phosphate, the method comprising mixing an iron phosphate, lithium salt, carbon source and doped compound; adding alcohol; ball milling the mixture to form a slurry; and sintering the mixture under protection of nitrogen or argon so as to prepare a carbon doped LiFePO4 wherein the preparing method of iron phosphate is prepared by washing, drying and firing a basic ammonium ferric phosphate NH4Fe2(OH)(PO4)2.nH2O (i.e., synthesized spheniscidite according to the Instant Specification at Page [0057]) (see Page 2, Top and Examples). Cheng further teaches where the spheniscidite is derived from an iron salt aqueous solution, a phosphate source aqueous solution, and ammonia water solution (See Page 1, Technical Field). Cheng does not teach a method comprising mixing spheniscidite with the lithium source, carbon source, dopant, and solvent to form a slurry.
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
Prosecution Insights