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 § 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.
Claim 6 is 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 6 recites the limitation "the filtration” (in line 6) and “the drying” (in lines 8, 10, and 11). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-12 and 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN105206835 (hereinafter CN ‘835) in view of CN101508431 (hereinafter CN ‘431). Both CN '835 and CN'431 are Applicants' submitted art; English translations of these references are provided and relied upon by the Examiner.
With respect to claims 1-3, 6-12 and 14-21, CN ‘835 discloses a method for preparing lithium iron phosphate cathode material comprising:
weighing lithium hydroxide (lithium source), iron phosphate (phosphorus source), and magnesium hydroxide at a molar ratio of Li, Fe, P and Mg of 1:1:1:05, placing same in a beaker, adding an appropriate amount of deionized water to the container, and ultrasonically stirring to make uniformed mixing of same;
adding starch (equivalent to claimed polymer which is a water-soluble polymer) to 20 mol of the above prepared solution (the resulting solution being a mixed solution of a metal-ion containing raw material, a polymer, and a solvent), placing same in a petri dish, seal it with plastic wrap, prick several hole to allow gas diffusion, and then weighing 10 g of ammonium carbonate (ammonium source) and place it in a beaker for later use;
placing the petri dish and the beaker containing ammonium carbonate into a sealed container and placing it in a constant temperature incubator (equivalent to claimed allowing the mixed solution to stand with an ammonium source independently in a same space), adjusting the temperature to 60oC for constant temperature incubation; and
taking the sample out after 72 hours of reaction, rinsing with deionized water, centrifuging (equivalent to claimed solid-liquid separation to obtain a precursor), drying under N2O gas, and then sintering (equivalent to claimed calcination treatment) to obtain lithium iron phosphate material. See specifically [0026]-[0028].
The difference between CN ‘835 and claim 1 of instant invention is claim 1 calls for a preparing a precursor first and then mixing and calcining the precursor with a lithium source.
CN ‘431 discloses a method for preparing lithium iron phosphate wherein a spherical iron phosphate precursor is prepared by means of liquid-phase homogeneous precipitation, then ball milling, and mixing the prepared iron phosphate precursor with a lithium source and a carbon source, pre-decomposing at 350-450oC for 2-8 hours under inert gas, and then reacting at 550-800oC for 2-24 hours to obtain uniformly dispersed spherical lithium iron phosphate. See specifically [0015]-[0018]. Note that pre-decomposing and reacting temperatures are equivalent to claimed “first-stage calcination and a second-stage calcination” as called for in claim 11.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to have modified the process of CN ‘835 by preparing an iron phosphate precursor and then mixing with a lithium source as taught by CN ’841 motivated by the references’ common teachings regarding the preparation of iron phosphate materials. Futher, in general, the transposition of process steps, or the splitting of one step into two, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held to not patentably distinguish the processes. Ex parte Rubin (POBA 1959) 128 U.S.P.Q. 440, Cohn v. Comr. Pats. (DCDC 1966) 251 F Supp 378, 148 U.S.P.Q. 486.
With respect to claim 4, CN ‘431 discloses the metal salt is selected from chloride, sulfate, nitrate, and perchlorate ([0025]).
With respect to claim 5, CN ‘431 discloses surfactant (claimed polymer) is selected from one or more of polyvinylpyrrolidone, polyvinyl alcohol, polyethylene glycol, etc. ([0030].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IN SUK C BULLOCK whose telephone number is (571)272-5954. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-4:30 PM.
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.
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.
/IN SUK C BULLOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights