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 1-17 in the reply filed on 9/1/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 18-24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/1/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8-10 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 limits the method of claim 1 to wherein the lithium salt comprises at least one of LiOH and LiCO3. The claim is indefinite since LiCO3 does not exist since the lithium ion carries a single positive charge and the CO3 ion carries a double negative charge such as in lithium carbonate, Li2CO3. Therefore a person of ordinary skill in the art is not reasonably apprised of the boundaries of infringement in the practice of claim 8.
Claim 9 limits the method of claim 1 to wherein an iron ore comprises the metal carbonyl complex. It is unclear whether the limiting effect of this language on claim 1 is to change the starting material of the process or to a property of the metal carbonyl complex as being derived from iron ore. Therefore a person of ordinary skill in the art is not reasonably apprised of the boundaries of infringement in the practice of claims 14-16.
Claim 10 depends on claim 9.
Claim 14 claims wherein reacting a metal carbonyl complex with an acid decomposes the metal carbonyl complex into fine particle sized metal powders. This claim is unclear because it depends on claim 12 where a metal carbonyl complex is heated to form a metal powder and therefore contradicts claim 12. Therefore a person of ordinary skill in the art is not reasonably apprised of the boundaries of infringement in the practice of claims 14-16.
Claims 15-16 depend on claim 14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada et al (US 7,491,468) and in further view of Bramnik et al (US 9,023,523).
Regarding claim 1, Okada teaches a method for producing a cathode material for secondary battery, the method comprising:
admixing a compound liberating a phosphate ion in a solution, water, and metallic iron where the primary reaction product is iron phosphate (see Col 7, Ln 22 to Col 8, Ln 29);
adding lithium carbonate, lithium hydroxide or a hydrate thereof to the resultant mixture where the primary reaction product is lithium phosphate;
firing the resultant reaction product to thereby synthesis LiFePO4 cathode material.
Okada further teaches a method where the iron source is metal iron with a diameter of 200 µm or smaller (i.e., iron powder) (see Col 7, Ln 17-21). Okada further teaches where the phosphate source is preferably phosphoric acid, H3PO4 (see Col 6, Ln 64 to Col 7, Ln 4). Okada teaches a method where the generation of phosphate ions and the dissolution and first reaction of the iron source and the phosphorus source is completed to improve the yield of cathode material (see Col 7, Ln 22-39).
Okada therefore teaches a method where cathode material precursor, namely iron phosphate, is produced by the reaction of an iron source and a phosphate source comprising phosphoric acid. Okada does not teach a method where the iron source reacting with the phosphoric acid is a metal carbonyl.
Bramnik teaches a method for synthesis of lithium-iron-phosphate for the preparation of cathodes of lithium iron batteries, the method comprising:
Mixing a lithium-comprising compound and at least one iron-comprising compound having an oxidation state of 0 and at least one compound comprising at least one phosphorous atom in oxidation state +5 (See Col 2, Ln 13-42);
The iron comprising compound having an oxidation state of 0 is elemental iron powder or an iron-carbonyl-compounds, wherein CO is present as a ligand (i.e., an iron carbonyl complex (see Col 3, Ln 50-64);
The compound comprising at least one phosphorous atom in oxidation state +5 is preferably H3PO4 (i.e., phosphoric acid) (see Col 6, Ln 9-15); and
The mixture is reacted to produce LiFePO4 (see Col 10, Ln 38-31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to perform a method as taught by Okada where the iron compound is iron carbonyl complex instead of iron powder as taught by Bramnik since it is a known equivalent for forming iron phosphates in lithium iron phosphate as suggested by Bramnik.
Regarding claim 2, as applied above Okada and Bramnik teaches where the metal is Fe.
Regarding claim 3, as applied above Bramnik teaches where the metal carbonyl complex is Fe(CO)5.
Regarding claim 4, as applied above Okada and Bramnik teach where the acid is H3PO4.
Regarding claim 5, Bramnik teaches a method where the mixture is heated at 100 to 500°C (see Col 9, Ln 14).
Regarding claim 6, Bramnik teaches a method comprising separating the LiFePO4 is separated (see Col 10, Ln 55-59).
Regarding claim 7, Bramnik and Okada as applied above both teach the addition of a lithium salt to the cathode precursor material.
Regarding claim 8, Okada as applied above teaches a method comprising LiOH and Li2CO3. Bramnik teaches LiOH and Li2CO3 (see Col 3, Ln 20-23).
Regarding claim 11, as applied above, Okada teaches a method producing a metal phosphate.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada and Bramnik, as applied to claim 1 and in further view of Mittasch et al (US 1,759,658).
As applied to claim 1, Okada and Bramnik teach a method for making a cathode material precursor comprising reacting a metal carbonyl complex with an acid to form a cathode material precursor.
Regarding claims 9-10, Okada and Bramnik do not teach a method wherein an iron ore comprises the metal carbonyl complex.
Mittasch teaches a method for producing pure iron by bringing iron carbonyl into contact with heated bodies at 100°C or more (see Page 1, LN 1-5). Mittasch teaches the method comprising iron carbonyl formed as an intermediate from iron ores of little value and producing pure iron (see Page 1, Ln 25-29). 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 as taught by Okada and Bramnik where the iron carbonyl is an iron carbonyl formed in a low value iron ore as taught by Mittasch to obtain economic value from a low value iron ore.
Claim(s) 12-13 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada and Bramnik and in further view of Schlecht et al (US 2,851,347).
Regarding claim 12, Okada teaches a method for producing a cathode material for secondary battery, the method comprising:
admixing a compound liberating a phosphate ion in a solution, water, and metallic iron where the primary reaction product is iron phosphate (see Col 7, Ln 22 to Col 8, Ln 29);
adding lithium carbonate, lithium hydroxide or a hydrate thereof to the resultant mixture where the primary reaction product is lithium phosphate;
firing the resultant reaction product to thereby synthesis LiFePO4 cathode material.
Okada further teaches a method where the iron source is metal iron with a diameter of 200 µm or smaller (see Col 7, Ln 17-21). Okada further teaches where the phosphate source is preferably phosphoric acid, H3PO4 (see Col 6, Ln 64 to Col 7, Ln 4). Okada teaches a method where the generation of phosphate ions and the dissolution and first reaction of the iron source and the phosphorus source is completed to improve the yield of cathode material (see Col 7, Ln 22-39).
Okada therefore teaches a method where cathode material precursor, namely iron phosphate, is produced by the reaction of an iron source and a phosphate source comprising phosphoric acid. Okada does not teach a method where the iron source reacting with the phosphoric acid is a metal carbonyl.
Bramnik teaches a method for synthesis of lithium-iron-phosphate for the preparation of cathodes of lithium iron batteries, the method comprising:
Mixing a lithium-comprising compound and at least one iron-comprising compound having an oxidation state of 0 and at least one compound comprising at least one phosphorous atom in oxidation state +5 (See Col 2, Ln 13-42);
The iron comprising compound having an oxidation state of 0 is elemental iron powder or an iron-carbonyl-compounds, wherein CO is present as a ligand (i.e., an iron carbonyl complex (see Col 3, Ln 50-64);
The compound comprising at least one phosphorous atom in oxidation state +5 is preferably H3PO4 (i.e., phosphoric acid) (see Col 6, Ln 9-15); and
The mixture is reacted to produce LiFePO4 (see Col 10, Ln 38-31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to perform a method as taught by Okada where the iron compound is iron carbonyl complex as taught by Bramnik as a known equivalent for forming iron phosphates in lithium iron phosphate.
Okada and Bramnik also do not specifically teach a method where iron carbonyl is heated to produce iron powder by decomposition.
Schlecht teaches a method of producing iron powder comprising:
Thermally decomposing nickel carbonyl vapor in the hot free space of a decomposition chamber or vessel to produce nickel powder (i.e., heating a metal carbonyl to form a metal powder) (See Col 1, Ln 40-48);
That the method produces iron powder in quantities greater than prior methods (see Col 1, Ln 65-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to perform a process as taught by Bramnik where the iron powder is produced by thermal decomposition (i.e., heating of iron carbonyl complex) as taught by Schlecht, since it is a process producing iron powder in high quantity.
Regarding claim 13, Schlecht teaches a method where the temperature for thermal decomposition is in a range of 200°C to 300°C (See Col 1, Ln 58). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, 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). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to perform a method as suggested by Bramnik and Schlecht where the thermal decomposition is in any workable or overlapping range including the claimed range.
Regarding claim 17, Schlecht teaches a method where the thermal decomposition of nickel carbonyl is performed in a gas phase (see Col 2, Ln 33-53).
Claim(s) 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada, Bramnik, and Schlecht as applied to claim 12 and in further view of Wallis et al (US 2,776,200).
As applied to claim 12, Okada, Bramnik, and Schlecht teach a method for preparing a cathode material comprising heating a metal carbonyl to thermally decompose the metal carbonyl to a metal powder and reacting the metal powder with an acid to form a cathode material precursor.
Regarding claim 14, Okada, Bramnik, and Schlecht do not further teach reacting a metal carbonyl complex with an acid decomposes the metal carbonyl complex into fine particle sized metal powders
Wallis teaches a method for producing metal powder from carbonyl comprising thermal decomposition of the metal carbonyl where a small amount of a reactant capable of reacting substantially instantaneously with carbonyl vapor to produce nuclei to give powder of small and uniform particle size (see Col 1, Ln 45-66). Wallis teaches where the reagents reacting with the carbonyl vapor comprises nitric acid and hydrochloric acid (See Col 2, Ln 15-17). Wallis further teaches that the process produces fine powders of very regular particle size and enables the powders to be made at lower temperatures (see Col 3, Ln 62-72). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to perform a method as taught by Bramnik, Okada, and Schlecht where the metal carbonyl complex is reacted with nitric acid or hydrochloric acid to produce nuclei and thus producing fine powders as taught by Wallis in order to produce fine powder of very regular size and reduce the energy requirements of thermal decomposition.
Regarding claim 15, Wallis teaches a method producing particles of the order of 3 to 4 microns or less. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, 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).
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 as taught by Wallis where the fine particle is in any range overlapping with 3 microns or less including nano-sized.
Regarding claim 16, Wallis teaches a method producing particles of the order of 3 to 4 microns or less. 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 as taught by Wallis where the fine particle is in any range overlapping with 3 microns or less including the claimed range.
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