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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following:
Reference number 9637 has been used to designate both an operation key (see Fig. 23 A) and a converter (see Fig. 23C). Applicant may overcome this objection by amending the specification.
The specification states that reference number 990 is explicitly in Fig. 17B and 17C ([0191]). However, 990 is only included in Fig. 18C, not in Fig. 17B nor 17C. Applicant may overcome this objection by amending the specification.
Reference number 980 (see Fig. 17C) is included in the drawings but not mentioned in the description. Applicant may overcome this objection by amending the specification.
Reference numbers S201c ([0031]), 7408 ([0221]), 7409 ([0221]), and 8401 ([0264]) are mentioned in the specification but not included in the drawings. Applicant may overcome this objection by amending the specification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length (the current abstract has over 150 words). The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because one of its steps is indented too far (see lines 11 – 12). Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1 – 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanada, et. al. 2013 (JP 2013054922 A), referred to as Hanada from herein, in view of Ellis, et. al. 2007 (Synthesis of Nanocrystals and Morphology Control of Hydrothermally Prepared LiFePO4. Journal of Materials Chemistry 2007, 17, 3248 – 3254), referred to as Ellis from herein, and in view of Yamazaki, 2011 (JP 2011181452 A), referred to as Yamazaki from herein.
Regarding claim 1, Hanada teaches a method for manufacturing a positive electrode active material comprising lithium, phosphorus, iron, and oxygen (see [0001]) comprising steps of:
forming a first mixed solution by mixing a lithium compound, a phosphorus compound, and a first solvent (Example in [0038] describes mixing Li2CO3, a lithium compound, H3PO4, a phosphorous compound, and water, a solvent; while not explicitly called “a first mixed solution”, the resultant mixture may be thought of as a first mixed solution);
forming a second mixed solution by adjusting pH by adding a first aqueous solution to the first mixed solution ([0019] describes adding a base to the solution containing lithium, phosphorus, and water, to adjust the pH; while not explicitly called “a second mixed solution”, the resultant mixture may be thought of as a second mixed solution)
forming a third mixed solution by mixing an iron compound with the second mixed solution after the step of forming the second mixed solution (Example 1 in [0038] describes FeSO4•7H2O being added; while not explicitly called “a third mixed solution”, the resultant mixture may be thought of as a third mixed solution);
and performing heat treatment on the third mixed solution under a pressure more than or equal to 0.1 MPa and less than or equal to 100 MPa (Example 1 in [0038] states the pressure of the autoclave is 1.5 MPa, which is within the claimed range), wherein a pH of the third mixed solution is higher than or equal to 3.0 and lower than or equal to 6.0 (Example 1 in [0038] states that the pH of the resulting slurry before the hydrothermal synthesis is 3.3, which is within the claimed range).
While Hanada teaches a third solution which undergoes a heat treatment at the same pressure as the present invention and has the same pH as the fourth solution of the present invention, Hanada does not explicitly teach forming a fourth mixed solution by mixing the third mixed solution and a second solvent after the step of forming the third mixed solution.
Ellis teaches how experimental parameters of a hydrothermal synthesis reaction influence the formation and morphology of LiFePO4 crystals (see Abstract). More specifically, Ellis teaches that concentration of the precursors affects the overall particle size and morphology [last paragraph of Section titled “a) Reaction mechanism” on Page 3250 describes changing the total concentration yields different nanocrystalline sizes; also see Section titled “b) Factors controlling crystallite size” on Pages 3250 – 3251; also see Section titled “Conclusions” on Page 3254]. Additionally, the specification describes a solvent being added to the third mixed solution to adjust the concentration of the third solution ([0046] describes adding a solvent to the mixed solution C, corresponding to the third mixed solution recited in claim 1, to optionally adjust the concentration), suggesting that the fourth solution of the present invention is formed as a result of adjusting the concentration of the precursors before performing the heat treatment.
However, neither Hanada nor Ellis teaches adding a solvent to adjust the concentration of the precursors before the hydrothermal synthesis.
Yamazaki teaches a similar method for producing a positive electrode active material (see [0001]) comprising of lithium, phosphorous, iron, and oxygen ([0001] describes LiFePO4 as the product; also see “Problem to be Solved” under (57) [Overview]), comprising of forming a first mixed solution by mixing a lithium compound, a phosphorous compound, and a solvent (Example 1 in [0044] – [0046] describes adding LiCl and H3PO4 to water), forming a second mixed solution by adding an iron compound with the first solution (Example 1 in [0044] – [0046] describes adding FeSO4 after mixing LiCl, H3PO4, and water together), and forming a third mixed solution by mixing the second mixed solution and a second solvent (Example 1 in [0044] – [0046] describes adding a solvent mixture of ethylene glycol and water to the slurry containing iron, lithium, and phosphorous before hydrothermal synthesis) and performing a heat treatment on the third, or final, solution under a pressure more than or equal to 0.1 MPa and less than or equal to 100 MPa (Example 1 in [0044] – [0046] describes the undergoing a heat treatment at 180 ºC at a pressure of 1.5 MPa, which is within the claimed range). Yamazaki specifically discloses that the concentration of the Li3PO4 and the iron source may result in larger particles of the final LiFePO4 product (see [0028]). Furthermore, while not explicitly stated, it is suggested that the addition of the second solvent (which is a mixture of ethylene glycol and water in Example 1 in [0044] – [0046]) is to adjust the concentration before performing the heat treatment (the end of [0044] specifically notes that the “concentration of the slurry in terms of LiFePO4 was adjusted” after the addition of the ethylene glycol and water mixture).
Hanada, Ellis, and Yamazaki are all analogous to the present invention as all of them are in the field of preparing electrode materials comprising of lithium, iron, phosphorous, and oxygen.
While neither Hanada, Ellis, nor Yamazaki teaches the formation of a fourth mixed solution, Ellis teaches how concentration can influence the crystal size and general morphology of LiFePO4. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the concentration of the solution to, in turn, optimize the particle size, thereby arriving at the instantly claimed invention. The courts have found that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05 II. Therefore, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form a fourth solution by mixing the third mixed solution of Hanada with a second solvent to adjust the concentrations of the precursors before performing the heat treatment in order to obtain a desirable particle size and morphology as taught by Ellis. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success if the method of Hanada included adding a solvent to the third solution to adjust the concentration before performing the heat treatment as demonstrated by Yamazaki.
Regarding claim 2, Hanada in view of Ellis and in view of Yamazaki teaches a method for manufacturing a positive electrode active material according to claim 1, and Hanada further teaches the first solvent comprises of water (Example in [0038] describes mixing Li2CO3 and H3PO4, with water).
Regarding claim 3, Hanada in view of Ellis and in view of Yamazaki teaches a method for manufacturing a positive electrode active material according to claim 1, and Hanada further teaches the lithium compound may be lithium chloride ([0014] includes a list of lithium compounds, which includes lithium chloride), the first aqueous solution is alkaline ([0019] describes adding a base to the solution containing lithium, phosphorus, and water to adjust the pH), and a base included in the first aqueous solution is ammonia or organic amine ([0020] specifically states that it is preferable to add “ammonia or an organic amine”).
Claims 4 – 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanada in view of Ellis and in view of Yamazaki, as applied in claim 1, and in further view of Futamura, et. al. 2012 (US 2012/0237426 A), referred to as Futamura from herein.
Regarding claim 4, Hanada in view of Ellis and in view of Yamazaki teaches a method for manufacturing a positive electrode active material according to claim 1, and Futamura teaches the third mixed solution is formed in an air atmosphere. Futamura discloses a method for manufacturing a similar lithium-containing composite oxide ([0004] describes LiMPO4 materials that can be manufactured with the disclosed method, including LiFePO4, a material that contains lithium, phosphorous, iron, and oxygen) using a similar method as the present invention including forming a first solution containing a lithium compound, a phosphorous compound, and water (see [0036]; described as solution A), adjusting the pH of the mixture containing lithium and phosphorous (see [0042]), adding an iron compound to the lithium and phosphorus solution (see [0038]; described as mixed solution B), and performing a heat treatment of the final solution under a pressure between 0.1 – 100 MPa (see [0039]). Futamura further teaches and demonstrates that the synthesis of the lithium-containing composite oxide takes place in an air atmosphere (see [0015] and [0041]). Futamura states that conducting the synthesis in an inert atmosphere may require large-scale equipment, suggesting that it would be advantageous to perform the synthesis in an ambient atmosphere, i.e. in air, to avoid using large-scale equipment and ultimately lower manufacture costs (see [0008] – [0009]).
Futamura is analogous to the present invention as both are in the field of manufacturing lithium, transition metal, phosphorous and oxide containing active materials.
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Hanada in view of Ellis and in view of Yamazaki to form the third mixed solution in an air atmosphere to avoid using potentially expensive equipment as taught by Futamura. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success as demonstrated by Futamura.
Regarding claim 5, Hanada in view of Ellis and in view of Yamazaki teaches a method for manufacturing a positive electrode active material according to claim 1, and Futamura teaches the thickness of the positive electrode material is more than or equal to 5 nm and less than or equal to 50 nm ([0046] describes the b-axis, or thickness, between 5 to 50 nm). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method taught by Hanada in view of Ellis and in view of Yamazaki with the thickness taught by Futamura as Futamura teaches that this thickness is known in the art. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143.A.). The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 - 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
The range represented by Futamura overlaps with the range of the present invention. It is noted that the courts have stated where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F2d 775. 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP 2144.05.01). Therefore, the claimed range of more than or equal to 10 nm and less than or equal to 200 nm merely represent an obvious variant and/or routine optimization of the values of the cited prior art.
Furthermore, Ellis teaches that the thickness of the positive electrode material is a result effective variable. Ellis further teaches that the size of the LiFePO4 crystallites determines the distance in which lithium ions and electrons must travel through the lattice, which in turn affects the strain associated with the redox reaction between LiFePO4 and FePO4 and overall electrode performance (see the second to last paragraph of Section titled “Introduction” on Pages 3248 – 3249). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the thickness of the positive electrode material, which in turn affects overall electrode performance, thereby arriving at the instantly claimed invention. The courts have found that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05 II. Therefore, the claimed range of more than or equal to 10 nm and less than or equal to 200 nm merely represents an obvious variant and/or routine optimization of overall electrode performance as taught by Ellis.
Claims 6 - 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanada in view of Ellis and in view of Yamazaki.
Regarding claim 6 Hanada teaches a method for manufacturing a positive electrode active material comprising lithium, phosphorus, iron, and oxygen (see [0001]) comprising steps of:
forming a first mixed solution by mixing a lithium compound, a phosphorus compound, and a first solvent (Example in [0038] describes mixing Li2CO3, a lithium compound, H3PO4, a phosphorous compound, and water, a solvent; while not explicitly called “a first mixed solution”, the resultant mixture may be thought of as a first mixed solution);
forming a second mixed solution by adjusting pH by adding a first aqueous solution to the first mixed solution ([0019] describes adding a base to the solution containing lithium, phosphorus, and water, to adjust the pH; while not explicitly called “a second mixed solution”, the resultant mixture may be thought of as a second mixed solution)
forming a third mixed solution by mixing an iron compound with the second mixed solution after the step of forming the second mixed solution (Example 1 in [0038] describes FeSO4•7H2O being added; while not explicitly called “a third mixed solution”, the resultant mixture may be thought of as a third mixed solution);
and performing heat treatment on the third mixed solution under a pressure more than or equal to 0.1 MPa and less than or equal to 100 MPa (Example 1 in [0038] states the pressure of the autoclave is 1.5 MPa, which is within the claimed range), wherein a pH of the third mixed solution is higher than or equal to 3.0 and lower than or equal to 6.0 (Example 1 in [0038] states that the pH of the resulting slurry before the hydrothermal synthesis is 3.3, which is within the claimed range).
While Hanada teaches a third solution which undergoes a heat treatment at the same pressure as the present invention and has the same pH as the fourth solution of the present invention, Hanada does not explicitly teach forming a fourth mixed solution by mixing the third mixed solution and a second solvent after the step of forming the third mixed solution. Hanada also does not teach the positive electrode active material comprising an olivine structure.
Ellis teaches how experimental parameters of a hydrothermal synthesis reaction influence the formation and morphology of LiFePO4 crystals (see Abstract). More specifically, Ellis teaches that concentration of the precursors affects the overall particle size and morphology [last paragraph of Section titled “a) Reaction mechanism” on Page 3250 describes changing the total concentration yields different nanocrystalline sizes; also see Section titled “b) Factors controlling crystallite size” on Pages 3250 – 3251; also see Section titled “Conclusions” on Page 3254]. Additionally, the specification describes a solvent being added to the third mixed solution to adjust the concentration of the third solution ([0046] describes adding a solvent to the mixed solution C, corresponding to the third mixed solution recited in claim 1, to optionally adjust the concentration), suggesting that the fourth solution of the present invention is formed as a result of adjusting the concentration of the precursors before performing the heat treatment.
However, neither Hanada nor Ellis teaches adding a solvent to adjust the concentration of the precursors before the hydrothermal synthesis.
Yamazaki teaches a similar method for producing a positive electrode active material (see [0001]) comprising of lithium, phosphorous, iron, and oxygen ([0001] describes LiFePO4 as the product; also see “Problem to be Solved” under (57) [Overview]), comprising of forming a first mixed solution by mixing a lithium compound, a phosphorous compound, and a solvent (Example 1 in [0044] – [0046] describes adding LiCl and H3PO4 to water), forming a second mixed solution by adding an iron compound with the first solution (Example 1 in [0044] – [0046] describes adding FeSO4 after mixing LiCl, H3PO4, and water together), and forming a third mixed solution by mixing the second mixed solution and a second solvent (Example 1 in [0044] – [0046] describes adding a solvent mixture of ethylene glycol and water to the slurry containing iron, lithium, and phosphorous before hydrothermal synthesis) and performing a heat treatment on the third, or final, solution under a pressure more than or equal to 0.1 MPa and less than or equal to 100 MPa (Example 1 in [0044] – [0046] describes the undergoing a heat treatment at 180 ºC at a pressure of 1.5 MPa, which is within the claimed range). Yamazaki specifically discloses that the concentration of the Li3PO4 and the iron source may result in larger particles of the final LiFePO4 product (see [0028]). Furthermore, while not explicitly stated, it is suggested that the addition of the second solvent (which is a mixture of ethylene glycol and water in Example 1 in [0044] – [0046]) is to adjust the concentration before performing the heat treatment (the end of [0044] specifically notes that the “concentration of the slurry in terms of LiFePO4 was adjusted” after the addition of the ethylene glycol and water mixture).
While neither Hanada, Ellis, nor Yamazaki teaches the formation of a fourth mixed solution, Ellis teaches how concentration can influence the crystal size and general morphology of LiFePO4. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the concentration of the solution to, in turn, optimize the particle size, thereby arriving at the instantly claimed invention. The courts have found that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05 II. Therefore, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form a fourth solution by mixing the third mixed solution of Hanada with a second solvent to adjust the concentrations of the precursors before performing the heat treatment in order to obtain a desirable particle size and morphology as taught by Ellis. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success if the method of Hanada included adding a solvent to the third solution to adjust the concentration before performing the heat treatment as demonstrated by Yamazaki.
Ellis further teaches the positive electrode active material comprises an olivine structure [Abstract describes LiFePO4, substantially similar to the material of the present invention, as olivine; also see Fig. 1 a); the second paragraph of the Section titled “Introduction” on Page 3248 explicitly describes lithium iron phosphate as adopting an “olivine structure (Pnma)”]. Ellis further teaches that lithium transition metal phosphates are considered as promising candidates for electrode materials due to their energy storage capacity as well as their electrochemical and thermal stability (see Abstract). Therefore, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use the method of Handa to manufacture a positive electrode active material comprising of an olivine structure as taught by Ellis to prepare positive electrode active materials that have desirable energy storage and are electrochemically and thermally stable.
Regarding claim 7, Hanada in view of Ellis and in view of Yamazaki teaches a method for manufacturing a positive electrode active material according to claim 6, and Hanada further teaches the first solvent comprises of water (Example in [0038] describes mixing Li2CO3 and H3PO4, with water).
Regarding claim 8, Hanada in view of Ellis and in view of Yamazaki teaches a method for manufacturing a positive electrode active material according to claim 6, and Hanada further teaches the lithium compound may be lithium chloride ([0014] includes a list of lithium compounds, which includes lithium chloride), the first aqueous solution is alkaline ([0019] describes adding a base to the solution containing lithium, phosphorus, and water, to adjust the pH), and a base included in the first aqueous solution is ammonia or organic amine ([0020] specifically states that it is preferable to add “ammonia or an organic amine”).
Claims 9 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanada in view of Ellis, as applied in claim 6, and in further view of Futamura.
Regarding claim 9, Hanada in view of Ellis and in view of Yamazaki teaches a method for manufacturing a positive electrode active material according to claim 6, and Futamura teaches the third mixed solution is formed in an air atmosphere. Futamura discloses a method for manufacturing a similar lithium-containing composite oxide ([0004] describes LiMPO4 materials that can be manufactured with the disclosed method, including LiFePO4, a material that contains lithium, phosphorous, iron, and oxygen) using a similar method as the present invention including forming a first solution containing a lithium compound, a phosphorous compound, and water (see [0036]; described as mixed solution A), adjusting the pH of the mixture containing lithium and phosphorous (see [0042]), adding an iron compound to the lithium and phosphorus solution (see [0038]; described as mixed solution B), and performing a heat treatment of the final solution under a pressure between 0.1 – 100 MPa (see [0039]). Futamura further teaches and demonstrates that the synthesis of the lithium-containing composite oxide takes place in an air atmosphere (see [0015] and [0041]). Futamura states that conducting the synthesis in an inert atmosphere may require large-scale equipment, suggesting that it would be advantageous to perform the synthesis in an ambient atmosphere, i.e. in air, to avoid using large-scale equipment and ultimately lower manufacture costs (see [0008] – [0009]).
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Hanada in view of Ellis and in view of Yamazaki to form the third mixed solution in an air atmosphere to avoid using potentially expensive equipment as taught by Futamura. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success as demonstrated by Futamura.
Regarding claim 10, Hanada in view of Ellis and in view of Yamazaki teaches a method for manufacturing a positive electrode active material according to claim 6, and Futamura teaches the thickness of the positive electrode material is more than or equal to 5 nm and less than or equal to 50 nm ([0046] describes the b-axis, or thickness, between 5 to 50 nm). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method taught by Hanada in view of Ellis and in view of Yamazaki with the thickness taught by Futamura as Futamura teaches that this thickness is known in the art. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143.A.). The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 - 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
The range represented by Futamura overlaps with the range of the present invention. It is noted that the courts have stated where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F2d 775. 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP 2144.05.01). Therefore, the claimed range of more than or equal to 10 nm and less than or equal to 200 nm merely represent an obvious variant and/or routine optimization of the values of the cited prior art.
Furthermore, Ellis teaches that the thickness of the positive electrode material is a result effective variable. Ellis further teaches that the size of the LiFePO4 crystallites determines the distance in which lithium ions and electrons must travel through the lattice, which in turn affects the strain associated with the redox reaction between LiFePO4 and FePO4 and overall electrode performance (see the second to last paragraph of Section titled “Introduction” on Pages 3248 – 3249). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the thickness of the positive electrode material, which in turn affects overall electrode performance, thereby arriving at the instantly claimed invention. The courts have found that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05 II. Therefore, the claimed range of more than or equal to 10 nm and less than or equal to 200 nm merely represents an obvious variant and/or routine optimization of overall electrode performance as taught by Ellis.
Claims 11 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanada in view of Ellis and in view of Yamazaki.
Regarding claim 11, Hanada teaches a method for manufacturing a positive electrode active material comprising lithium, phosphorus, iron, and oxygen (see [0001]) comprising steps of:
forming a first mixed solution by mixing a lithium compound, a phosphorus compound, and a first solvent (Example in [0038] describes mixing Li2CO3, a lithium compound, H3PO4, a phosphorous compound, and water, a solvent; while not explicitly called “a first mixed solution”, the resultant mixture may be thought of as a first mixed solution);
forming a second mixed solution by adjusting pH by adding a first aqueous solution to the first mixed solution ([0019] describes adding a base to the solution containing lithium, phosphorus, and water, to adjust the pH; while not explicitly called “a second mixed solution”, the resultant mixture may be thought of as a second mixed solution)
forming a third mixed solution by mixing an iron compound with the second mixed solution after the step of forming the second mixed solution (Example 1 in [0038] describes FeSO4•7H2O being added; while not explicitly called “a third mixed solution”, the resultant mixture may be thought of as a third mixed solution);
and performing heat treatment on the third mixed solution under a pressure more than or equal to 0.1 MPa and less than or equal to 100 MPa (Example 1 in [0038] states the pressure of the autoclave is 1.5 MPa, which is within the claimed range), wherein a pH of the third mixed solution is higher than or equal to 3.0 and lower than or equal to 6.0 (Example 1 in [0038] states that the pH of the resulting slurry before the hydrothermal synthesis is 3.3, which is within the claimed range).
While Hanada teaches a third solution which undergoes a heat treatment at the same pressure as the present invention and has the same pH as the fourth solution of the present invention, Hanada does not explicitly teach forming a fourth mixed solution by mixing the third mixed solution and a second solvent after the step of forming the third mixed solution. Hanada also does not teach the positive electrode active material comprising a crystal structure belonging to a space group Pnma.
Ellis teaches how experimental parameters of a hydrothermal synthesis reaction influence the formation and morphology of LiFePO4 crystals (see Abstract). More specifically, Ellis teaches that concentration of the precursors affects the overall particle size and morphology [last paragraph of Section titled “a) Reaction mechanism” on Page 3250 describes changing the total concentration yields different nanocrystalline sizes; also see Section titled “b) Factors controlling crystallite size” on Pages 3250 – 3251; also see Section titled “Conclusions” on Page 3254]. Additionally, the specification describes a solvent being added to the third mixed solution to adjust the concentration of the third solution ([0046] describes adding a solvent to the mixed solution C, corresponding to the third mixed solution recited in claim 1, to optionally adjust the concentration), suggesting that the fourth solution of the present invention is formed as a result of adjusting the concentration of the precursors before performing the heat treatment.
However, neither Hanada nor Ellis teaches adding a solvent to adjust the concentration of the precursors before the hydrothermal synthesis.
Yamazaki teaches a similar method for producing a positive electrode active material (see [0001]) comprising of lithium, phosphorous, iron, and oxygen ([0001] describes LiFePO4 as the product; also see “Problem to be Solved” under (57) [Overview]), comprising of forming a first mixed solution by mixing a lithium compound, a phosphorous compound, and a solvent (Example 1 in [0044] – [0046] describes adding LiCl and H3PO4 to water), forming a second mixed solution by adding an iron compound with the first solution (Example 1 in [0044] – [0046] describes adding FeSO4 after mixing LiCl, H3PO4, and water together), and forming a third mixed solution by mixing the second mixed solution and a second solvent (Example 1 in [0044] – [0046] describes adding a solvent mixture of ethylene glycol and water to the slurry containing iron, lithium, and phosphorous before hydrothermal synthesis) and performing a heat treatment on the third, or final, solution under a pressure more than or equal to 0.1 MPa and less than or equal to 100 MPa (Example 1 in [0044] – [0046] describes the undergoing a heat treatment at 180 ºC at a pressure of 1.5 MPa, which is within the claimed range). Yamazaki specifically discloses that the concentration of the Li3PO4 and the iron source may result in larger particles of the final LiFePO4 product (see [0028]). Furthermore, while not explicitly stated, it is suggested that the addition of the second solvent (which is a mixture of ethylene glycol and water in Example 1 in [0044] – [0046]) is to adjust the concentration before performing the heat treatment (the end of [0044] specifically notes that the “concentration of the slurry in terms of LiFePO4 was adjusted” after the addition of the ethylene glycol and water mixture).
While neither Hanada, Ellis, nor Yamazaki teaches the formation of a fourth mixed solution, Ellis teaches how concentration can influence the crystal size and general morphology of LiFePO4. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the concentration of the solution to, in turn, optimize the particle size, thereby arriving at the instantly claimed invention. The courts have found that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05 II. Therefore, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form a fourth solution by mixing the third mixed solution of Hanada with a second solvent to adjust the concentrations of the precursors before performing the heat treatment in order to obtain a desirable particle size and morphology as taught by Ellis. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success if the method of Hanada included adding a solvent to the third solution to adjust the concentration before performing the heat treatment as demonstrated by Yamazaki.
Ellis further teaches the positive electrode active material comprises a crystal structure belonging to a space group Pnma [see Fig. 1 a) where LiFePO4, substantially similar to the material of the present invention, is described as having a space group of Pnma; the second paragraph of the Section titled “Introduction” on Page 3248 explicitly describes lithium iron phosphate as adopting an “olivine structure (Pnma)”]. Ellis further teaches that lithium transition metal phosphates are considered as promising candidates for electrode materials due to their energy storage capacity as well as their electrochemical and thermal stability (see Abstract). Therefore, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use the method of Handa to manufacture a positive electrode active material comprising of a crystal structure belonging to a space group Pnma as taught by Ellis to prepare positive electrode active materials that have desirable energy storage and are electrochemically and thermally stable.
Regarding claim 12, Hanada in view of Ellis and in view of Yamazaki teaches a method for manufacturing a positive electrode active material according to claim 11, and Hanada further teaches the first solvent comprises of water (Example in [0038] describes mixing Li2CO3 and H3PO4, with water).
Regarding claim 13, Hanada in view of Ellis and in view of Yamazaki teaches a method for manufacturing a positive electrode active material according to claim 11, and Hanada further teaches the lithium compound may be lithium chloride ([0014] includes a list of lithium compounds, which includes lithium chloride), the first aqueous solution is alkaline ([0019] describes adding a base to the solution containing lithium, phosphorus, and water, to adjust the pH), and a base included in the first aqueous solution is ammonia or organic amine ([0020] specifically states that it is preferable to add “ammonia or an organic amine”).
Claims 14 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanada in view of Ellis, as applied in claim 11, and in further view of Futamura.
Regarding claim 14, Hanada in view of Ellis and in view of Yamazaki teaches a method for manufacturing a positive electrode active material according to claim 11, and Futamura teaches the third mixed solution is formed in an air atmosphere. Futamura discloses a method for manufacturing a similar lithium-containing composite oxide ([0004] describes LiMPO4 materials that can be manufactured with the disclosed method, including LiFePO4, a material that contains lithium, phosphorous, iron, and oxygen) using a similar method as the present invention including forming a first solution containing a lithium compound, a phosphorous compound, and water (see [0036]; described as mixed solution A), adjusting the pH of the mixture containing lithium and phosphorous (see [0042]), adding an iron compound to the lithium and phosphorus solution (see [0038]; described as mixed solution B), and performing a heat treatment of the final solution under a pressure between 0.1 – 100 MPa (see [0039]). Futamura further teaches and demonstrates that the synthesis of the lithium-containing composite oxide takes place in an air atmosphere (see [0015] and [0041]). Futamura states that conducting the synthesis in an inert atmosphere may require large-scale equipment, suggesting that it would be advantageous to perform the synthesis in an ambient atmosphere, i.e. in air, to avoid using large-scale equipment and ultimately lower manufacture costs (see [0008] – [0009]).
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Hanada in view of Ellis and in view of Yamazaki to form the third mixed solution in an air atmosphere to avoid using potentially expensive equipment as taught by Futamura. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success as demonstrated by Futamura.
Regarding claim 15, Hanada in view of Ellis and in view of Yamazaki teaches a method for manufacturing a positive electrode active material according to claim 11, and Futamura teaches the thickness of the positive electrode material is more than or equal to 5 nm and less than or equal to 50 nm ([0046] describes the b-axis, or thickness, between 5 to 50 nm). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method taught by Hanada in view of Ellis and in view of Yamazaki with the thickness taught by Futamura as Futamura teaches that this thickness is known in the art. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143.A.). The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 - 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
The range represented by Futamura overlaps with the range of the present invention. It is noted that the courts have stated where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F2d 775. 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP 2144.05.01). Therefore, the claimed range of more than or equal to 10 nm and less than or equal to 200 nm merely represent an obvious variant and/or routine optimization of the values of the cited prior art.
Furthermore, Ellis teaches that the thickness of the positive electrode material is a result effective variable. Ellis further teaches that the size of the LiFePO4 crystallites determines the distance in which lithium ions and electrons must travel through the lattice, which in turn affects the strain associated with the redox reaction between LiFePO4 and FePO4 and overall electrode performance (see the second to last paragraph of Section titled “Introduction” on Pages 3248 – 3249). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the thickness of the positive electrode material, which in turn affects overall electrode performance, thereby arriving at the instantly claimed invention. The courts have found that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05 II. Therefore, the claimed range of more than or equal to 10 nm and less than or equal to 200 nm merely represents an obvious variant and/or routine optimization of overall electrode performance as taught by Ellis.
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 1-4, 6-9, 11-14 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 6-9, and 13-14 of U.S. Patent No. 11936043 A, referred to as Miwa ‘043, in view of Hanada. The claims of the instant application and the claims of the U.S. Patent are compared in the table below where differences are bolded and additional steps are italicized.
Instant Application(18/442,586)
US 11936043 A
1. A method for manufacturing a positive electrode active material comprising lithium, phosphorus, iron, and oxygen, comprising steps of:
forming a first mixed solution by mixing a lithium compound, a phosphorus compound, and a first solvent;
forming a second mixed solution by adjusting pH by adding a first aqueous solution to the first mixed solution;
forming a third mixed solution by mixing an iron compound with the second mixed solution after the step of forming the second mixed solution;
forming a fourth mixed solution by mixing the third mixed solution and a second solvent after the step of forming the third mixed solution; and
performing heat treatment on the fourth mixed solution under a pressure more than or equal to 0.1 MPa and less than or equal to 100 MPa,
wherein a pH of the fourth mixed solution is higher than or equal to 3.0 and lower than or equal to 6.0.
1. A method for manufacturing a positive electrode active material comprising lithium, phosphorus, iron, and oxygen, comprising steps of:
forming a first mixed solution by mixing a lithium compound, a phosphorus compound, and a first solvent;
forming a second mixed solution by adjusting pH by adding a first aqueous solution to the first mixed solution;
forming a third mixed solution by mixing an iron compound with the second mixed solution after the step of forming the second mixed solution;
forming a fourth mixed solution by mixing the third mixed solution and a second solvent after the step of forming the third mixed solution; and
performing heat treatment on the fourth mixed solution at a temperature higher than or equal to 100 ºC and lower than or equal to 350 ºC
wherein a pH of the fourth mixed solution is higher than or equal to 3.0 and lower than or equal to 6.0.
wherein the positive electrode active material belonging to a space group Pnma.
2. The method for manufacturing a positive electrode active material according to claim 1, wherein the first solvent comprises water.
2. The method for manufacturing a positive electrode active material according to claim 1, wherein the solvent comprises water
3. The method for manufacturing a positive electrode active material according to claim 1 wherein the lithium compound is a lithium chloride,
wherein the first aqueous solution is alkaline, and
wherein a base included in the first aqueous solution is ammonia or organic amine.
6. The method for manufacturing a positive electrode active material according to claim 1,
wherein the lithium compound is a lithium chloride,
wherein the first aqueous solution is alkaline, and
wherein a base included in the first aqueous solution is ammonia or organic amine
4. The method for manufacturing a positive electrode active material according to 1 wherein the third mixed solution is formed in an air atmosphere.
7. The method for manufacturing a positive electrode active material according to claim 1. Wherein the third mixed solution is formed in an air atmosphere
6. A method for manufacturing a positive electrode active material comprising lithium, phosphorus, iron, and oxygen, comprising steps of:
forming a first mixed solution by mixing a lithium compound, a phosphorus compound, and a first solvent;
forming a second mixed solution by adjusting pH by adding a first aqueous solution to the first mixed solution;
forming a third mixed solution by mixing an iron compound with the second mixed solution after the step of forming the second mixed solution;
forming a fourth mixed solution by mixing the third mixed solution and a second solvent after the step of forming the third mixed solution; and
performing heat treatment on the fourth mixed solution under a pressure more than or equal to 0.1 MPa and less than or equal to 100 MPa,
wherein a pH of the fourth mixed solution is higher than or equal to 3.0 and lower than or equal to 6.0.
wherein the positive electrode active material comprises an olivine structure.
8. A method for manufacturing a positive electrode active material comprising lithium, phosphorus, iron, and oxygen, comprising steps of:
forming a first mixed solution by mixing a lithium compound, a phosphorus compound, and a first solvent;
forming a second mixed solution by adjusting pH by adding a first aqueous solution to the first mixed solution;
forming a third mixed solution by mixing an iron compound with the second mixed solution after the step of forming the second mixed solution;
forming a fourth mixed solution by mixing the third mixed solution and a second solvent after the step of forming the third mixed solution; and
performing heat treatment on the fourth mixed solution at a temperature higher than or equal to 100 ºC and lower than or equal to 350 ºC
wherein a pH of the fourth mixed solution is higher than or equal to 3.0 and lower than or equal to 6.0.
wherein the positive electrode active material comprises an olivine structure.
7. The method for manufacturing a positive electrode active material according to claim 6, wherein the first solvent comprises water.
9. The method for manufacturing a positive electrode active material according to claim 8, wherein the first solvent comprises water.
8. The method for manufacturing a positive electrode active material according to claim 6 wherein the lithium compound is a lithium chloride,
wherein the first aqueous solution is alkaline, and
wherein a base included in the first aqueous solution is ammonia or organic amine.
13. The method for manufacturing a positive electrode active material according to claim 8 wherein the lithium compound is a lithium chloride,
wherein the first aqueous solution is alkaline, and
wherein a base included in the first aqueous solution is ammonia or organic amine.
9. The method for manufacturing a positive electrode active material according to claim 6 wherein the third mixed solution is formed in an air atmosphere.
14. The method for manufacturing a positive electrode active material according to claim 8 wherein the third mixed solution is formed in an air atmosphere.
11. A method for manufacturing a positive electrode active material comprising lithium, phosphorus, iron, and oxygen, comprising steps of:
forming a first mixed solution by mixing a lithium compound, a phosphorus compound, and a first solvent;
forming a second mixed solution by adjusting pH by adding a first aqueous solution to the first mixed solution;
forming a third mixed solution by mixing an iron compound with the second mixed solution after the step of forming the second mixed solution;
forming a fourth mixed solution by mixing the third mixed solution and a second solvent after the step of forming the third mixed solution; and
performing heat treatment on the fourth mixed solution under a pressure more than or equal to 0.1 MPa and less than or equal to 100 MPa,
wherein a pH of the fourth mixed solution is higher than or equal to 3.0 and lower than or equal to 6.0.
wherein the positive electrode active material belongs to a space group Pnma.
1. A method for manufacturing a positive electrode active material comprising lithium, phosphorus, iron, and oxygen, comprising steps of:
forming a first mixed solution by mixing a lithium compound, a phosphorus compound, and a first solvent;
forming a second mixed solution by adjusting pH by adding a first aqueous solution to the first mixed solution;
forming a third mixed solution by mixing an iron compound with the second mixed solution after the step of forming the second mixed solution;
forming a fourth mixed solution by mixing the third mixed solution and a second solvent after the step of forming the third mixed solution; and
performing heat treatment on the fourth mixed solution at a temperature higher than or equal to 100 ºC and lower than or equal to 350 ºC
wherein a pH of the fourth mixed solution is higher than or equal to 3.0 and lower than or equal to 6.0.
wherein the positive electrode active material belonging to a space group Pnma.
12. The method for manufacturing a positive electrode active material according to claim 1, wherein the first solvent comprises water.
2. The method for manufacturing a positive electrode active material according to claim 1, wherein the solvent comprises water
13. The method for manufacturing a positive electrode active material according to claim 1 wherein the lithium compound is a lithium chloride,
wherein the first aqueous solution is alkaline, and
wherein a base included in the first aqueous solution is ammonia or organic amine.
6. The method for manufacturing a positive electrode active material according to claim 1,
wherein the lithium compound is a lithium chloride,
wherein the first aqueous solution is alkaline, and
wherein a base included in the first aqueous solution is ammonia or organic amine
14. The method for manufacturing a positive electrode active material according to 1, wherein the third mixed solution is formed in an air atmosphere.
7. The method for manufacturing a positive electrode active material according to claim 1, wherein the third mixed solution is formed in an air atmosphere
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of Miwa ‘043 recites all of the limitations of claim 1 of the instant application except “under a pressure more than or equal to 0.1 MPa and less than or equal to 100 MPa”. Hanada teaches a similar method to the instant application (see Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103 for claims 1, 6, and 11 above for more details on the method of Hanada) where the pressure of heat treatment is at 1.5 MPa (see Example 1 in [0038]). It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the heat treatment of Miwa ‘043 with the pressure of Hanada due to the substantial similarities in the methods for producing a positive electrode active material. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143.A.). The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 - 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success as demonstrated by Hanada.
Regarding claims 2 – 4, claim 2 of Miwa ‘043 recites all of the limitations of claim 2 of the instant application, claim 6 of Miwa ‘043 recites all of the limitations of claim 3 of the instant application, and claim 7 of Miwa ‘043 recites all of the limitations of claim 2 of the instant application.
Regarding claim 6, claim 8 of Miwa ‘043 recites all of the limitations of claim 6 of the instant application except “under a pressure more than or equal to 0.1 MPa and less than or equal to 100 MPa”. Hanada teaches a similar method to the instant application (see Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103 for claims 1, 6, and 11 above for more details on method of Hanada) including the pressure of heat treatment is at 1.5 MPa (see Example 1 in [0038]) and 200 ºC (see Example 1 in [0038]). It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the heat treatment of Miwa ‘043 with the pressure of Hanada due to the substantial similarities in the methods for producing a positive electrode active material. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143.A.). The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 - 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success as demonstrated by Hanada.
Regarding claims 7 – 9, claim 9 of Miwa ‘043 recites all of the limitations of claim 7 of the instant application, claim 13 of Miwa ‘043 recites all of the limitations of claim 8 of the instant application, and claim 14 of Miwa ‘043 recites all of the limitations of claim 9 of the instant application.
Regarding claim 11, claim 1 of Miwa ‘043 recites all of the limitations of claim 11 of the instant application except “under a pressure more than or equal to 0.1 MPa and less than or equal to 100 MPa”. Hanada teaches a similar method to the instant application (see Claim Rejections – 35 USC 103 for claims 1, 6, and 11 above for more details on method of Hanada) including the pressure of heat treatment is at 1.5 MPa (see Example 1 in [0038]) and 200 ºC (see Example 1 in [0038]). It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the heat treatment of Miwa ‘043 with the pressure of Hanada due to the substantial similarities in the methods for producing a positive electrode active material. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143.A.). The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 - 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success as demonstrated by Hanada.
Regarding claims 12 – 14, claim 2 of Miwa ‘043 recites all of the limitations of claim 12 of the instant application, claim 6 of Miwa ‘043 recites all of the limitations of claim 13 of the instant application, and claim 7 of Miwa ‘043 recites all of the limitations of claim 12 of the instant application.
Citation of Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Goodenough, et. al. 1999 (US 5910382 A) teaches the crystal structure and morphology of NASICON and NASICON-type material, including LiFePO4.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIVIAN F CRUM whose telephone number is (571)270-0554. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30AM-5:00PM, Friday 7:30AM-4:00PM.
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 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.
/V.F.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/MICHAEL FORREST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights