DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 2, 6, 8-9, 14-16, and 18-19 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.
Claims 2, 6, 8-9, 14-16, and 18-19 all present a broad range followed by the phrase “preferably” and a narrow range (e.g. Claim 2 “a molar ratio of the soluble ferric salt to niobium diselenide is 1: 0.05-0.15, preferably 1: 0.1-0.15”). When multiple ranges are presented in the same Claim it leads to confusion about which range actually limits the claim (MPEP 2173.05(c).I). Per the broadest reasonable interpretation standard (MPEP 2111.03), only the broadest range per claim is treated as limiting.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-6, 10-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over NPL “Effect of Niobium Doping on Electrochemical Properties of Microwave Synthesized Carbon Coated Nanolithium Iron Phosphate for High Rate Underwater Applications” Kumar et al.
Claim 1 requires “A modified iron phosphate precursor, wherein the modified iron phosphate precursor is prepared by dissolving a soluble ferric salt in a niobium diselenide suspension and reacting a resulting mixture with a phosphoric acid source”. Claim 1 is a product by process claim because it is directed to a product while the limitations are directed to the process of making said product. Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps (see MPEP 2113). In the instant case the steps of preparing a modified iron phosphate precursor “by dissolving a soluble ferric salt in a niobium diselenide suspension and reacting a resulting mixture with a phosphoric acid source” is understood to imply the structure of a niobium diselenide-doped iron phosphate. Although the present specification discloses “an iron phosphate uniformly doped with niobium diselenide can be obtained.” [0012], it is not clear if the material actually present in the battery after synthesis is niobium, selenide, both separately (as ions), or both together (as a molecule). The effect of said doping can be seen in Table 1 [0096], namely a drastic reduction in resistivity of the material. In order to be consistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, the limitation of “prepared by dissolving a soluble ferric salt in a niobium diselenide suspension” is being interpreted as requiring any one of niobium only, selenide only, both separately (as ions), or both together (as a molecule) is required to be present in the modified iron phosphate precursor.
Kumar et al. is similarly directed to niobium doped lithium iron phosphate batteries (see Title) and discloses a similar effect of doping with niobium in Table 1 [Page 021002-3] (namely a drastic drop in resistivity of the material) as is disclosed by the present invention Specification ([0096]). It is noted that the material used by Kumar et al. is not niobium diselenide, but rather niobium pentoxide (Nb2O5), however none of the original Nb2O5 is present in the final material (as evidenced by Fig 1 [Page 021002-2]). It is therefore understood that the effect of the instant application is achieved by doping the niobium into lithium iron phosphate and that the final battery material of Kumar et al. is essentially the same in terms of structure as the instant invention (Li1-xNbxFePO4 [Page 021002-2, Section 3]). Although Kumar et al. does not disclose an embodiment without lithium, Claim 1 is being interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation as being open ended (using a phrase such as “comprising”) rather than close ended (using a phrase such as “consisting of”). In other words it is understood that the material of Kumar et al. is a niobium modified iron phosphate material, despite the presence of additional components (lithium).
Kumar et al. does not disclose the steps of dissolving a soluble ferric salt in a niobium diselenide suspension or reacting a resulting mixture with a phosphoric acid source, however these steps are not required of Claim 1 because Claim 1 is not directed to a product (see above). Kumar et al. does disclose an iron phosphate modified by niobium (Li1-xNbxFePO4 [Page 021002-2, Section 3]) as Claim 1 requires.
Claim 2 requires “in the modified iron phosphate precursor, a molar ratio of the soluble ferric salt to niobium diselenide is 1: 0.05-0.15, preferably 1: 0.1-0.15; a molar ratio of phosphorus element in the phosphoric acid source to iron element in the soluble ferric salt is 1.4-1.6: 1, preferably 1.5-1.6: 1.” It is understood that the effect of “a molar ratio of the soluble ferric salt to niobium diselenide is 1:0.05-0.15, preferably 1:0.1-0.15;” is a Fe:Nb ratio of 1:0.05-0.015 exists in the final product, and the effect of “a molar ratio of phosphorus element in the phosphoric acid source to iron element in the soluble ferric salt is 1.4-1.6:1, preferably 1.5-1.6:1” is a Fe:PO4 ratio of 1:1 exists in the final product (see Specification at [0003]). Although the specification does not explicitly teach the amount of niobium present in the final material it is assumed this is the same (or substantially similar to) as the Fe:Nb ratio in the precursor mixture. Kumar et al. discloses “Li1-xNbxFePO4/C (x = 0.05, 0.1, 0.15, 0.16)” [Page 021002-2, Section 3]. Therefore Kumar et al. discloses the same effect on the final material as suggested by Claim 2, despite following an alternative synthesis method.
Claim 3 requires “the niobium diselenide suspension is prepared by dispersing niobium diselenide in a dispersion liquid.”. It is understood that the effect of Claim 3 on the final material is that any one of niobium only, selenide only, both separately (as ions), or both together (as a molecule) is required to be present in the modified iron phosphate precursor. Kumar et al. discloses niobium is present in the modified iron phosphate precursor (see Claim 1).
Claim 4 requires “the soluble ferric salt is at least one of ferric sulfate and ferric nitrate; and the phosphoric acid source is at least one of phosphoric acid and ammonium phosphate.”. It is understood that the effect of Claim 4 on the final material is that iron and phosphate are present. Kumar et al. discloses a modified iron phosphate precursor (see Claim 1).
Claim 5 requires “A modified lithium iron phosphate, wherein the modified lithium iron phosphate comprises a lithium source and the modified iron phosphate precursor according claim 1”. It is understood that the effect of Claim 4 on the final material is that lithium iron phosphate containing any one of niobium only, selenide only, both separately (as ions), or both together (as a molecule) is produced. Kumar et al. discloses a niobium doped lithium iron phosphate is obtained “Material characterization was carried out on microwave synthesized LiFePO4/C and Li1-xNbxFePO4/C (x = 0.05, 0.1, 0.15, 0.16) powders. Cells were fabricated and evaluated electrochemically. The synthesized LiFePO4/C and Li1-xNbxFePO4/C (x = 0.05, 0.1, 0.15, 0.16) composites were structurally characterized using PANalytical x’pert pro X-ray diffractometer to identify orthorhombic structure formation and presented in Fig. 1. The figure shows the formation of single phase without signatures of impurities.” [Page 021002-2, Section 3].
Claim 6 requires “the lithium source is lithium carbonate, lithium hydroxide, lithium acetate or lithium bromide; preferably lithium hydroxide or lithium carbonate.”. Kumar et al. disclose lithium carbonate “Commercially available (99.99% purity, Sigma Aldrich (St. Louis, MI)) lithium carbonate, iron oxalate, and ammonium dihydrogen phosphate were taken in stoichiometric ratio and ball milled for 14 h.” [Page 021002-2, Section 2.1].
Claim 10 requires “A lithium battery, wherein the lithium battery comprises the modified lithium iron phosphate according to claim 5”. Kumar et al. discloses such a battery (see the discussion of Claim 5, above).
Claims 11-16 require producing a material the same as the combination of the above claimed materials (Claims 2-4) with a lithium source “wherein the lithium source is lithium carbonate, lithium hydroxide, lithium acetate or lithium bromide; preferably lithium hydroxide or lithium carbonate” with the only difference being the claim they depend upon. Kumar et al. discloses lithium carbonate (see Claim 6) and the material as required by Claims 2-4 (see Claims 2-4).
Claim 20 requires “A lithium battery, wherein the lithium battery comprises the modified lithium iron phosphate according to claim 6.”. Claim 6 recites “the lithium source is lithium carbonate, lithium hydroxide, lithium acetate or lithium bromide; preferably lithium hydroxide or lithium carbonate”. Kumar et al. disclose lithium carbonate (see Claims 11-16, above).
Allowable/Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 17 are allowed, Claims 8-9 and 18-19 are potentially allowable if rewritten to overcome the 35 USC 112 rejections thereof. Claim 7 requires “A method for preparing the modified lithium iron phosphate according to claim 5, wherein the method comprises the following steps: mixing a lithium source, a carbon source and the modified iron phosphate precursor in a protective atmosphere, and sintering a resulting mixture to obtain the modified lithium iron phosphate.”. Kumar et al. discloses “Commercially available (99.99% purity, Sigma Aldrich (St. Louis, MI)) lithium carbonate, iron oxalate, and ammonium dihydrogen phosphate were taken in stoichiometric ratio and ball milled for 14h. Then 10wt % carbon (acetylene black as precursor) was added and ball milled for another 1h. Acetylene black acts as microwave absorber and reducing agent. It also provides carbon coating over LiFePO4 particles. The ball-milled mixture was taken in quartz crucible with lid and placed in a domestic microwave oven and exposed to 800 W for 4min duration.” [Page 021002-2, Section 2.1]. Heating in a microwave oven is understood to be a method of sintering. The method of Kumar et al. differs from the claimed invention by mixing the lithium source and carbon source with an iron and phosphate source rather than mixing the lithium source and carbon source with an iron phosphate source as claimed. Kumar et al. does not teach, motivate, or suggest the method of first making a niobium doped iron phosphate and then adding lithium to it. Furthermore Kumar et al. is silent towards the atmosphere during the ball milling synthesis, this is interpreted as using ordinary air as the atmosphere. One of ordinary skill in the art would know that a “protective atmosphere” refers to an inert atmosphere (e.g. N2 or Ar) that is substantially free of O2 and moisture.
Claims 8-9 depend upon Claim 7 and therefore would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/2nd par. and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 17 is allowed. Claim 17 requires the same procedure as Claim 7 but performed on the material of Claim 6, and therefore is allowed for similar reasons as Claim 7 (above).
Claims 18-19 depend upon Claim 17 and therefore would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/2nd par. and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA MAXWELL SPEER whose telephone number is (703)756-5471. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm EST. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3591. 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.
/JOSHUA MAXWELL SPEER/
Examiner
Art Unit 1736
/DANIEL BERNS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights