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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 10 be found allowable, claim 17 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claims 1-7, 10, 13-15, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by World Intellectual Property Organization Publication No. WO 2021/065229 A1 by Kikuchi et al., hereinafter “Kikuchi”. Citation is made to its equivalent U.S. publication, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2022/0352488 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Kikuchi discloses a method comprising:
milling a microscopic lithium containing material (LCM) powder with a milling device while the milling device is in a first position (¶[0064] and [0065] disclose milling the lithium-containing material referenced in ¶[0062] in a ball mill as shown in Fig. 1. ¶[0075], [0076] and [0114] disclose cylinder 100 in Fig. 1 is reciprocated up and down perpendicularly to its longitudinal axis X as shown between first and second positions.);
turning the milling device, so that the milling device is in a second position (container 100 is reciprocated such that it is turned about its midpoint between the first and second positions shown in Fig. 1);
agitating the microscopic LCM powder while the milling device is in the second position (¶[0114] discloses cylindrical container 100 is placed on rotating table 101 in Fig. 1 which rotates cylinder 100 about axis X while it was being reciprocated to agitate the powder);
cooling the microscopic LCM powder while the milling device is in the second position (¶[0069] and [0070] disclose the milling is carried out in a cooled, inert atmosphere which cools the material while it is being milled);
returning the milling device to the first position (the reciprocation disclosed in ¶[0075] reciprocates the longitudinal ends of cylinder 100 in Fig. 1 up and down as shown in the figure such that cylinder 100 is repeatedly returned to the first position); and
repeating the milling, turning, agitating, cooling, and returning steps until the microscopic LCM powder is converted into LCM nano powder (¶[0066] discloses the steps of the method may be either continuously or intermittently performed to obtain the second material referenced in ¶[0064]).
Regarding claim 2, Kikuchi anticipates the method of claim 1 as explained above. Kikuchi further discloses the milling device is a ball mill comprising:
a milling chamber (¶[0064] discloses a cylindrical container chamber); and
a plurality of milling balls (¶[0064] discloses the ball mill includes a plurality of crushing balls).
Regarding claim 3, Kikuchi anticipates the method of claim 1 as explained above. Kikuchi further discloses the microscopic LCM powder has an average particle size of 1 to 1000 microns. ¶[0085] discloses the particle size is not particularly limited and gives an average preferred particle size of 0.01 to 20 microns which overlaps with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 4, Kikuchi anticipates the method of claim 1 as explained above. Paragraphs [0025] through [0041] of Kikuchi further discloses the inorganic material being synthesized by ball milling may contain a plurality of metals, such as lithium and aluminum (¶[0029) or lithium and titanium (¶[0032]).
Regarding claim 5, Kikuchi anticipates the method of claim 1 as explained above. Kikuchi further discloses where milling the microscopic LCM powder comprises rotating the milling device about an axis of the milling device at a rotational speed of 100 rpm to 3000 rpm. Paragraph [0072] discloses the rotation speed is dependent upon the kind and amount of material being processed and gives an example range of 30 rpm to 200 rpm which overlaps with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 6, Kikuchi anticipates the method of claim 1 as explained above. Paragraph [0114] discloses horizontally-oriented cylindrical container 100 in Fig. 1 was vertically oscillated with both ends of the container being reciprocated perpendicularly to the X-direction shown, such that a first position of the disclosed method may be reasonable interpreted as a vertical position.
Regarding claim 7, Kikuchi anticipates the method of claim 1 as explained above. Paragraph [0114] discloses horizontally-oriented cylindrical container 100 in Fig. 1 was vertically oscillated with both ends of the container being reciprocated perpendicularly to the X-direction shown, such that a second position of the disclosed method may be reasonable interpreted as a horizontal position.
Regarding claim 10, Kikuchi anticipates the method of claim 1 as explained above. Kikuchi further discloses where the LCM nano powder has an average particle size of 1 nm to 500 nm. ¶[0085] discloses the particle size is not particularly limited and gives an average preferred particle size of 0.01 to 20 microns which overlaps with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 13, Kikuchi anticipates the method of claim 1 as explained above. Paragraph [0072] discloses the rotation speed is dependent upon the kind and amount of material being processed and gives an example range of 30 rpm to 200 rpm which overlaps with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 14, Kikuchi anticipates the method of claim 1 as explained above. Paragraph [0067] discloses the milling is preferably carried out in a dry state, such that the powder is not contacted with a liquid.
Regarding claim 15, Kikuchi anticipates the method of claim 1 as explained above. Paragraph [0067] discloses the milling is preferably carried out in a dry state, such that the powder is not contacted with a solvent.
Regarding claim 17, Kikuchi anticipates the method of claim 1 as explained above. Kikuchi further discloses where the LCM nano powder has an average particle size of 1 nm to 500 nm. ¶[0085] discloses the particle size is not particularly limited and gives an average preferred particle size of 0.01 to 20 microns which overlaps with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 19, Kikuchi anticipates the method of claim 1 as explained above. Paragraph [0032] of Kikuchi further discloses the inorganic solid material milled in the disclosed method may be lithium titanate, LiTi2(PO4). Paragraph [0040] disclose one or more of the other compositions recited in the claim.
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 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi in view of Japanese Patent Publication No. JP 6777299 B1 by Fumiyoshi et al., hereinafter “Fumiyoshi”.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Kikuchi anticipates the method of claim 1 as explained above. However, Kikuchi does not disclose the turning and returning of the milling device to the second and first positions comprise turning the milling device 90°.
In the same field of ball mills, Fumiyoshi teaches a ball mill capable of turning the milling container through a 360° range of motion about a turning axis while being rotated about an axis perpendicular to the turning axis. See Figs. 1-6 and the written description at least at paragraphs [0036] through [0051].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the ball mill taught by Fumiyoshi for the ball mill disclosed in Kikuchi to allow Kikuchi’s disclosed method to include turning and returning the milling device container through 90° in Kikuchi’s disclosed step of turning the milling device. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Fumiyoshi to the method disclosed by Kikuchi would achieve the predictable result of more complete milling as Fumiyoshi teaches in paragraph [0004].
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2021/0322996 A1 by Bai et al., hereinafter “Bai”.
Regarding claim 11, Kikuchi anticipates the method of claim 1 as explained above. Paragraphs [0059], [0070] and [0093] of Kikuchi disclose using cooled inert gas to establish an inert atmosphere with a temperature below the dewpoint of the gas inside the milling device but are silent regarding a temperature range maintained inside the milling device during milling. Paragraphs [0047], [0060] and [0071] teach the temperature range employed inside the milling device is dependent upon the kind and amount of material to be milled but are also silent regarding a range.
In the same field of preparing nanometer powders, Bai teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control the temperature inside milling devices during milling by using a temperature control jacket on the milling device. See paragraphs [0012] and [0034] through at least [0037].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to maintain the temperature inside Kikuchi’s disclosed milling device within the range of 20°C and 180°C when the type and amount of material requires such a range by using a temperature control mill jacket as Bai teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Bai to the method of Kikuchi would achieve the predictable result of controlling the temperature inside Kikuchi’s disclosed milling device using a temperature control mill jacket taught by Bai.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi in view of U.S. Patent No. 3,645,458 to Tobe, hereinafter “Tobe”.
Regarding claim 12, Kikuchi anticipates the method of claim 1 as explained above. However, Kikuchi does not disclose the agitating of the microscopic LCM powder inside the milling device comprises striking the milling device with an impact rod.
In the same field of grinding material into powder, Tobe teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an impact rod in the grind chamber of a grinding mill to grind material into powder. See column 2, line 4-35.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Tobe’s impact rod vibratory grinding mill for Kikuchi’s disclosed ball mill milling device to grind material into powder as Tobe teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Tobe to the method disclosed by Kikuchi would achieve the predictable result of using an impact rod vibratory grinding mill as the milling device in Kikuchi’s disclosed method.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi in view of W.I.P.O. Publication No. WO 2019/102345 A1 by Dossi et al., hereinafter “Dossi”.
Regarding claim 16, Kikuchi anticipates the method of claim 1 as explained above. However, Kikuchi is silent regarding the production yield of the LCM nano powder.
In the same field of ball milling powders, Dossi teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust parameters of the milling process, such as time, to increase production yield to close to 100%. See page 39, lines 1-7.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the milling time in Kikuchi’s method to achieve a production yield of 98% to 100% as Dossi teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Dossi to the method disclosed by Kikuchi would achieve the predictable result of adjusting Kikuchi’s method to achieve a production yield of 98% to 100%.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi in view of Chinese Patent Publication No. CN 109046618 A by Xiaolan et al., hereinafter “Xiaolan”.
Regarding claim 18, Kikuchi anticipates the method of claim 1 as explained above. However, Kikuchi is silent regarding the particle density of the LCM nano powder.
In the same field of milling lithium containing material, Xiaolan teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mill lithium containing material to a density of 1.2 to 1.5 g/cm3. See the abstract.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Kikuchi’s disclosed method to mill lithium containing material nano powder such that it has a particle density of 1.2 to 1.5 g/cm3 as Xiaolan teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Xiaolan to the method disclosed by Kikuchi would achieve the predictable result of Kikuchi’s method where the resulting LCM nano powder has a particle density of 0.1 g/cm3 to 5.0 g/cm3 as claimed.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2024/0198419 A1 by Rupert et al., hereinafter “Rupert”.
Regarding claim 20, Kikuchi anticipates the method of claim 1 as explained above. However, Kikuchi is silent regarding the use of dopants as claimed in claim 20.
In the same field of ball milling lithium-containing powder, Rupert teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use iron (Fe) as a dopant in the production of lithium-containing powders. See paragraphs [0055] through [0058].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add Fe3+ to Kikuchi’s disclose lithium-containing material as a dopant is the same way Rupert teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Rupert to the method disclosed by Kikuchi would achieve the predictable result of improving the conductivity of the lithium-containing material produced in Kikuchi’s method by incorporating a dopant into the material.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL DEREK PRESSLEY whose telephone number is (313)446-6658. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am to 3:30pm Eastern.
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, Christopher Templeton can be reached at (571) 270-1477. 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.
/P DEREK PRESSLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3725