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 .
…
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The Applicant has amended independent claim 18. The pending claims are claims 18-20, 22-24, 26-29, 32-35.
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.
Claim(s) 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 26-29, 32-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al., US 6514311, in view of Kohut et al., US 6036839.
Regarding claim 18, Lin et al., teaches a process for the recovery of transition metals from batteries (abstract), comprising (a) treating a transition metal material (col. 2, lines 28-67) with a leaching agent to yield a leach (hydrochloric acid) (col., 2, lines 28-34), wherein the leach comprises dissolved copper impurities (col. 2, lines 28-46), wherein the transition metal material is a material that stems from lithium ion battery scraps (col. 4, lines 47-67 and col. 5, lines 1-9), and (b) depositing the dissolved copper impurities as elemental copper on a particulate deposition cathode (col. 4, lines 43-46) by electrolysis of an electrolyte (col. 5, lines 22-40) comprising the leach (col. 2, lines 28-32), wherein the deposition cathode is obtained at least partially from the transition metal material (col. 2, lines 28-67 and col. 3, lines 1-5) and wherein the deposition cathode is carbon or graphite (col. 4, lines 31-46), wherein the carbon is carbon powder (particles) (col. 3, lines 45-59), wherein the deposition cathode is suspended in the electrolyte (col. 4, lines 34-43).
Lin et al., does not teach wherein the concentration of the suspended deposition cathode in the electrolyte is from 0.01 wt % to 10 wt %.
Lin et al., and Kohut et al., both teach a copper material in a cathode and an electrolyte solution.
Kohut et al., teaches the concentration of the suspended deposition cathode in the electrolyte is from 0.01 wt % to 10 wt % (2% to about 40% (col. 14, lines 65-67 and col. 15, lines 1-3).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the concentration of cathode in the electrolyte within the claimed range because “the concentration of the extractant in the organic solution is generally in the range of about 2% to about 40% by weight” (col. 14, lines 65-67) …or from about 5% to about 10%” (col. 15, lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 19, Lin et al., does not teach wherein the deposition cathode has a particle size d50 ranging from 1 pm to 1000 pm.
It has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In re Rose , 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Also see MPEP 2144.
Regarding claim 20, Lin et al., does not teach wherein the electrolyte comprises less than or equal to 4000 ppm of the copper impurities before the electrolysis.
However, “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, 466, 105 USPO 233, 236 (OCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 22, Lin et al., teaches an electrolysis method (abstract; first paragraph under “Summary of the Invention”) and “membrane electrolysis in a first electrolysis tank divided into a cathode well and an anode well by a cationic exchange membrane, thereby forming by reduction a copper metal on a cathode” (first paragraph under “Summary of the Invention”). Lin further teaches “aqueous solution was used as a cathode solution in the membrane electrolysis. The conditions of the membrane electrolysis were: temperature 30.degree. C., current density 0.02 A/cm.sup.2, and operation time 40 hours.” (paragraph above the claims).
, Lin et al., does not specifically teach wherein an electrochemical potential is applied to the deposition cathode during the electrolysis ranging from -50 mV to -500 mV with respect to the electrochemical potential of copper.
It has been held that generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is critical evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Regarding claim 23, Tezuka et al., does not teach the electrolyte has a pH 4).
However, paragraph (0021) teaches “the positive electrode active material is dissolved in acid (step 6) and the pH is adjusted (step 7) to separate and recover cobalt and lithium. Aluminum, copper, cobalt, and lithium can also be recovered individually by combining with the sulfuric acid used in step 5 and adjusting the pH (step 8), electrolysis (step 9), and further adjusting the pH (step 10).” (0021).
Regarding claim 23, Lin et al., teaches wherein the electrolyte has a pH from 5 to 7 (col. 2, lines 28-67).
Regarding claim 24, Lin et al., teaches wherein the transition metal material is obtained from mechanically treated battery scraps (col. 4, lines 53-67 and col. 5, lines 1-15).
Regarding claim 26, Lin et al., teaches further comprising removing non- dissolved solids from the leach (col. 6, lines 15-58), wherein the non-dissolved solids are carbon particles (col. 4, lines 43-67 and col. 5, lines 1-9) and feeding the carbon particles into step (b) as deposition cathode (col. 4, lines 43-67 and col. 5, lines 1-9).
Regarding claim 27, Lin et al., teaches further comprising precipitating the transition metal as mixed hydroxides or mixed carbonates (col. 2, lines 28-67 and col. 3, lines 1-13).
Regarding claim 28, Lin et al., teaches wherein the leaching agent is an inorganic or organic aqueous acid (hydrochloric acid) (col. 2, lines 28-67 and col. 3, lines 1-13).
Regarding claim 29, Lin et al., teaches further comprising adjusting the pH value of the leach to 2.5 to 8 (pH 5-7), and removing precipitates of phosphates, oxides, hydroxides, and/or oxyhydroxides by solid-liquid separation (col. 2, lines 27-67).
Regarding claim 32, Lin et al., teaches wherein the electrolyte is passed through the deposition cathode as a particulate filter-aid layer (col. 6, lines 2-13).
Regarding claim 33, Lin et al., teaches wherein the electrolysis is performed in an electrochemical filter flow cell (col. 6, lines 2-13).
Regarding claim 34, Lin et al., teaches wherein step (b) comprises applying a further electrochemical potential to the deposition cathode during the electrolysis (col. 4, lines 47-61) and depositing dissolved cobalt salts as elemental cobalt on the particulate electrode (col. 4, lines 31-46).
Regarding claim 35, Lin et al., does not teach the concentration of the suspended deposition cathode in the electrolyte is from 0.1 to 2 wt%.
Lin et al., does not teach the concentration of the suspended deposition cathode in the electrolyte is from 0.1-2 wt% (Table 3).
Kohut et al., teaches the concentration of the suspended deposition cathode in the electrolyte is from 0.01 wt % to 10 wt % (2% to about 40% (col. 14, lines 65-67 and col. 15, lines 1-3).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the concentration of cathode in the electrolyte within the claimed range because “the concentration of the extractant in the organic solution is generally in the range of about 2% to about 40% by weight” (col. 14, lines 65-67) …or from about 5% to about 10%” (col. 15, lines 1-3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Rejection has been changed to a 35 USC 103 Rejection of Lin et al., US 6514311, in view of Kohut et al., US 6036839 in light of the amendment to independent claim 1 . Additionally, Tezuka, JP H11-97076, is not a reference in this Rejection. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 18-20, 22-24, 26-29, 32-35 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA J MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1288. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-4pm.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 571-272-1330. 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.
ANGELA J. MARTIN
Examiner
Art Unit 1727
/ANGELA J MARTIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights