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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim 1 is amended; Claims 3-9 and 15-23 are withdrawn from consideration as non-elected claims; Claims 1-2 and 10-14 remain for examination, wherein claim 1 is an independent claim.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 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kochhar et al (US-PG-pub 2020/0078796 A1, updated as US 11,077,452 B2, thereafter PG’796) in view of Drinkard et al (WO 2014/025744 A1, thereafter WO’744).
PG’796 in view of WO’744 is applied to the instant claims 1 and 10-14 for the same reason as stated in the previous office action dated 3/11/2026.
Regarding the amended feature in the instant claim 1, PG’796 specify applying a salt solution of alkaline earth metal chloride in the process (Cl.31 and par.[0213) of PH’796), which including the MgCl2 as claimed in the instant claim. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to choose proper an alkaline earth metal chloride (including MgCl2) in the manufacturing process since PG’796 teaches the same manufacturing process of recovering materials from rechargeable lithium-ion batteries as claimed throughout whole disclosing range (Abstract, examples, and claims of PG’796).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PG’796 In view of WO’744, and further in view of Wang et al (CN 107017443 B, with on-line translation, thereafter CN’443).
PG’796 in view of WO’744 and CN’443 is applied to the instant claim 2 for the same reason as stated in the previous office action dated 3/11/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments to the art rejection to Claims 1-2 and 10-14 have been considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the arguments related to the amended features in the instant claims, the Examiner’s position has stated as above.
The Applicant’s arguments are summarized as following:
PG’796 does not teach remove each of Mg, Ca, and Na formations as claimed in the instant claim since no indication in PG’796 to remove Na formations.
PG’796 in view of WO’744 does not specify forming Na included fertilizers as claimed.
In response,
Regarding the argument 1), PG’796 not only teaches selectively remove trace impurities such as calcium and magnesium, but also teaches forming sodium carbonate to precipitate crude lithium carbonate and recover high purity solid lithium carbonate from lithium carbonate (par.[0123] of PG’796), which reads on the claimed limitation of removing Na formation as claimed in the instant claim..
Regarding the argument 2, as discussed above, PG’796 teaches removing Na formation as claimed in the instant claim. CA’367 is a typo (which refer to WO’744). WO’744 is cited for a manufacturing process of leaching recovery of Mn bearing batteries including materials including Mg, Ca, and Na to obtain fertilizer product (Abstract, and par,[0001]-[0004] of WO’744). the Applicant’s arguments should not show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In the instant case, PG’796 in view of WO’744 is applied to the instant claims 1 and 10-14 and CN’443 is further cited for claim 2. The reason and motivation for the combination can further refer to the rejection for in the office action above and previous office action dated 9/11/2025.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIE YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1884. The examiner can normally be reached on IFP.
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, Jonathan J Johnson can be reached on 571-272-1177. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JIE YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734