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 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) 1,5,12, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tahara (US 20120292560 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tahara discloses a process of manufacturing iron phosphate by utilizing an iron powder with an apparent density of 2.47 g/cm3 with an average particle size of 70µm (Tahara[0081]). Phosphoric acid is also added to the mixture while the reaction takes place, at a temperature of 25°C to 30°C under an air atmosphere (Tahara[0075]). All powders have a particle size distribution, including the iron powder of Tahara, which is why there is an average particle size associated with the powder. Since no particle specific size is required for each range, the particle size distribution of the iron powder Tahara can be divided where the first particle range is larger than the second particle range with the second range making up 10-30 wt.% of the powder.
Therefore, the prior art fulfills the limitations set in the instant claim requiring an iron powder with two ranges of particle sizes where the smaller second particle range makes up 10-30 wt.% of the iron powder and has an apparent density of 2.3 g/cm3 to 2.6 g/cm3 . Furthermore, it fulfills the limitation requiring that a phosphoric acid is added to the iron powder to generate a product that is then heat treated in an air atmosphere to form an iron phosphate precursor.
Regarding claim 5, Tahara discloses that the initial reaction between iron powder and iron powder produces an iron phosphate with the formula as Fe3(PO4)2 · 8H2O (Tahara[0038]). This disclosure fulfills the limitations set in the instant claim requiring the first product to have a formula of Fe3(PO4)2 · xH2O where x>0.
Regarding claim 12, Tahara discloses a preparation method where the particles would have a size of 50 µm or less (Tahara[0056]). Further on, the prior art discloses another reaction/baking step where the precursor is heated for 10 hours (Tahara[0075]). Therefore, the prior art fulfills the limitations set in the instant claim requiring the length of the first product to be less than 100 µm with the next baking phase to occur from 6 to 12 hours.
Regarding claim 17, Tahara discloses a process where the iron precursor is heat treated with a lithium compound (Tahara[0057]) to form a battery composite material of LiFePO4 (Tahara[Table 1]). This disclosure fulfills the limitations set in the instant claim requiring the heat treatment of the battery composite material to include a lithium containing compound where the product is LiFePO4.
Regarding claim 18, Tahara discloses a process where the prior art states that the lithium source can be lithium hydroxide or lithium carbonate (Tahara[0048]), afterwards the precursor has an olivine structure (Tahara[0057]). Therefore, the prior art fulfills the limitations set in the instant claim requiring the iron phosphate precursor to have a lithium containing compound of lithium hydroxide or lithium carbonate, where the resulting structure is a nano-co-crystalline olivine.
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.
Claim(s) 3 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tahara (US 20120292560 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Tahara discloses a preparation process for a precursor where heat is applied in multiple steps, one of which applies heat at a range of 350°C to 700°C (Tahara[0057]) , further down in another example the baking temperature for primary baking is 5 hours(Tahara[0075]). With an overlap in the claimed ranges, a prima facie case exists. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to manufacture an iron phosphate precursor with a baking temperature between 610°C to 670°C for at least an hour.
Regarding claim 11, Tahara discloses a process of synthesizing an iron phosphate precursor where the first product undergoes baking and is milled (Tahara[0056]). The product undergoes another baking step (Tahara[0057]). While the prior art does not mention that the particle size is smaller than the initial particle size, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that after a material is crushed the product is smaller as it is being broken down.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2,4,6-10,13-16, and 19 are 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.
Reasons for Indicating Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2, Tahara suggests the use of an iron powder with a size of 70µm (Tahara[0081]). However, the prior art does not teach nor suggest the BET surface area of said particles, nor do they suggest the presence of particles smaller than 45 µm.
Regarding claim 4, Tahara teaches a process of manufacturing iron phosphate by utilizing an iron powder with an average particle size of 70µm (Tahara[0081]). However, the prior art does not teach nor suggest the percentage of particles that have a size less than 45 µm.
Regarding claim 6, Tahar teaches a method of iron phosphate synthesis where iron powder is dissolved in distilled water and mixed with phosphoric acid (Tahara[0075]). However, the prior art does not teach nor suggest the use of deionized water, nor do they teach the application of three phases of heating for the reaction.
Regarding claim 7, Tahara teaches an iron phosphate precursor synthesis process which requires the use of distilled water, phosphoric acid, and iron powder. However, the prior art does not teach nor suggest the weight ratio of the first amount to the second amount.
Regarding claim 8, Tahara teaches the application of heating at temperatures such as Tahara, but the prior art does not teach nor suggest the decrease in temperature in the fourth phase of the process where the temperature is equal or less than 35°C.
Regarding claim 9, Tahara teaches that phosphoric acid at 85% concentration (Tahara[0075]) is the preferred phosphate source. However, the prior art does not teach nor suggest a titration rate for the acid.
Regarding claim 10, Tahara teaches that the precursor is prepared in the first stage for 5 hours and later processed for 10 hours (Tahara[0075]), both are out of range of the 3 hours and 5-9 hours required in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 13, Tahara teaches a process where the precursor solution includes adding carbon (Tahara[0061]). However, the prior art does not mention the application of a second grinding action where the particles size D70 is less than the second length.
Regarding claim 14, Tahara teaches a process that includes a spray dryer at an inlet of 150°C to 250 °C (Tahara[0056]). However, the prior art does not teach nor suggest the rotational speed of the rotary spray dryer.
Regarding claim 15, Tahara teaches a process where the particles are milled down (Tahara[0056]). However, the prior art does not teach nor suggest the second length range of the precursor to be between 1 µm to 10µm.
Regarding claim 16, Tahar teaches that the product of the reaction is milled (Tahara[0056]). However, the prior art does not teach nor suggest the rpm of the first grinding action.
Regarding claim 19, Tahara teaches the method of precursor synthesis in multiple steps (Tahara[0075]). However, the prior art does not teach nor suggest that the heating steps take place in intervals between 0.5 to 1 hour. It is for these reasons that the claims are considered novel and nonobvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNETTE H PHAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4520. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-6:30 EST.
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 5712703591. 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.
/ANNETTE PHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights