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 Group III, claims 52-55, in the reply filed on 12/22/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-51 are withdrawn.
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)).
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 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 52-55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishima et al. (WO2011115211A1 English) in view of Elgammal (US20170244100A1).
Regarding claim 1, Mishima teaches a method of producing lithium manganese iron phosphate particulate powder (Title; Abstract).
Mishima teaches the method includes a first step of preparing a reaction mixture comprising a metal salt, a phosphorous compound, a lithium compound, and an alkali source by dissolving each component in an aqueous solution prior to mixing to provide an aqueous slurry (Pg. 2, par. 18-Pg. 3, par. 2; Abstract; Pg. 7, Example 1). Mishima teaches the phosphorous compound includes H3PO4, (NH4)H2PO4, (NH4)2HPO4, NaH2PO4, Na2HPO4, and Na3PO4 and the alkali source used in the first step is LiOH, NaOH, Na2CO3, NH3, urea, ethanolamine or the like (Pg. 4, par. 2 and 5). The components (NH4)H2PO4, (NH4)2HPO4, NaH2PO4, Na2HPO4, and Na3PO4 taught by Mishima are consistent with the claimed “first and second basic solution where the first or second basic solution comprises a phosphate containing compound to the metal compound solution” components (see Claim 53 and at least [0134] in the instant specification) and meet the limitation of providing these required by the claim.
Mishima further teaches the aqueous reaction mixture is heated while having the pH maintained at a range of 5.5 to 12.5 (Pg. 2, par. 18-Pg. 3, par. 2). Maintaining a pH at a certain range is equivalent to “a predetermined pH range” and this limitation is considered met by Mishima. Mishima teaches that after heating, the reaction mixture can be collected or can be maintained as a slurry prior to adding an organic substance that includes oil and fat compounds such as stearic acid and oleic acid (Pg. 3, par. 16-20; Pg. 7-8, Examples 3 and 4). Mishima teaches after performing heating and optional addition of organic substance to the reaction mixture (rather than at a later time), the reaction mixture is subjected to filtration, washing, and drying (Pg. 2, par. 18-Pg. 3, par. 2; Pg. 7, Example 1). Mishima teaches after drying the powder obtained from the reaction, the powder is fired at a temperature of 250 to 850 °C for 1 to 10 hours in an inert atmosphere to provide the lithium manganese iron phosphate particulate powder (Pg. 4, par. 1; Pg. 5, par. 1-2). Mishima teaching the calcination is performed for a limited duration followed by further use of the material in batteries at, at least room temperature (see Pg. 6, Action section; Pg. 5, par. 2) requires the material is at a lower temperature than during calcination and was necessarily cooled after calcination, meeting the limitation “cooling the calcined lithium metal phosphate”. Mishima further teaches the obtained powder is set to a particular particle diameter to optimize mass-production and battery performance variables (Pg. 5, par. 11-12).
Mishima differs from the instant claim in that Mishima adds the lithium compound along with the metal compound and first and second basic solutions, rather than explicitly adding lithium compound after heating and pH maintenance. However, the selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04.IV.C. In this regard, the instant invention describes instances where lithium salt may be “pre-mixed before addition to the reaction mixture or may be added in a sequential manner. The addition of the compounds may be added in one portion or may be added over a predetermined period of time” [094]). Accordingly, barring new or unexpected results, the order of mixing the lithium compound is not viewed as critical and the process of Mishima, teaching all the required chemical components being mixed, is considered to render obvious the limitation.
The claim further requires the first and second basic solution are added “simultaneously at predetermined rates in a reaction vessel containing heated water to form a reaction mixture.” As stated above, Mishima teaches adding the first and second basic solutions however Mishima does not teach adding the first and second basic solutions to a reaction vessel containing heated water at a predetermined rate.
Elgammal teaches a process of preparing lithium iron phosphate materials by a process that includes dissolving a metal salt in an aqueous solution, warming to 60 °C, and adding separate solutions of ammonium dihydrogen phosphate (i.e. (NH4)H2PO4) and lithium salt at rates of 1 mmol/mL dropwise with stirring (Abstract; [0021]; [0029]).
Advantageously, the process taught by Elgammal allows for control of particle size and morphology in addition to being able to be performed at lower reaction temperatures ([0027]).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the basic solutions to a heated solution at a dropwise rate of 1 mmol/mL in the method of Mishima in order to allow for control over the particle size and morphology while conducting the reaction at lower reaction temperatures, as taught by Elgammal.
Regarding claim 53, Mishima in view of Elgammal teach the process of claim 52.
Mishima further teaches the phosphorous compound includes H3PO4, (NH4)H2PO4, (NH4)2HPO4, NaH2PO4, Na2HPO4, and Na3PO4 and the alkali source used in the first step is LiOH, NaOH, Na2CO3, NH3, urea, ethanolamine or the like (Pg. 4, par. 2 and 5).
Regarding claim 54, Mishima in view of Elgammal teach the process of claim 52. Mishima further teaches the metal salt can include manganese and iron and that at least the iron in the raw material is predominately Fe2+ (Claims; Pg. 4, par. 3; Pg. 5, par. 2)
Regarding claim 55, Mishima in view of Elgammal teach the process of claim 52. Mishima further teaches the lithium compound is preferably LiOH or Li3PO4 (Pg. 4, par. 2).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Liu et al. (CN102874788A English); Liu teaches a process of making a lithium iron phosphate material that includes making solutions of iron, phosphorous and lithium separately prior to mixing in water at 120-180 °C (Abstract; Claim 1). Chang et al. (KR20140060929A English); Chang teaches preparing a lithium electrode material comprising a lithium compound, transition metal, and fatty acid component (Abstract; Title).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jordan Wayne Taylor whose telephone number is (571)272-9895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 AM - 5 PM EST; Second Fridays Off.
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 on (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.
/JORDAN W TAYLOR/Examiner, Art Unit 1738