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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3-4, 9-11, and 17 are examined in this office action as claims 5-6 and 12 were canceled and claims 1, 3-4, 9, and 17 were amended in the reply dated 3/11/26.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 10-11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 109088115 B with reference to its English machine translation of Wang.
As to claim 1, Wang discloses a method for preparing a precursor using nickel-cobalt-manganese waste lithium ion batteries as raw materials (Wang, paragraph [0013]), meeting the limitation of generating a charge material precursor for a Ni, Mn, Co (NMC) battery having a preferred oxidation state for secondary battery charge material. Wang discloses adding acid to filter residue to obtain leachate and acid leaching residue (Wang, paragraph [0018]), meeting the limitation of forming a leach solution and controlling the pH of the leach solution for dissolving the target charge materials in the leach solution. As Wang discloses detecting the concentration of nickel, cobalt, and manganese in the purified solution and based on the proportion of nickel, cobalt, and manganese components in the target product, add soluble nickel salt, cobalt salt, or manganese salt (Wang, paragraph [0020]), Wang meets the limitation of where the targe charge materials are of Ni, Mn, and Co. Wang discloses nickel-cobalt-manganese lithium-ion battery cathode waste was crushed, ground, and then alkali-leached (Wang, paragraphs [0040] and [0046]), meeting the claim limitation of leaching Ni, Mn, and Co from a recycling stream of crushed lithium-ion batteries as lithium-ion battery cathode waste is a part of a lithium ion battery and Wang discloses where it is crushed. Wang discloses adding fluoride salt to the leaching solution (Wang, paragraph [0019]), meeting the limitation of adding a halide material to the leach solution as a doping agent for establishing a predetermined percentage of halides in the solution. Wang discloses adding sodium hydroxide and dilute ammonia water to the solution for precipitation (Wang, paragraph [0021]), meeting the limitation of adding a base to the leach solution for precipitating the charge material precursor.
As to claim 3, Wang discloses adding fluoride salt to the leaching solution (Wang, paragraph [0019]), meeting the limitation of where the halides include fluoride.
As to claim 4, Wang does not explicitly disclose holes in the precipitated charge material particles, the holes increasing a ratio of 2+ to 3+ oxidation states of the charge material precursor. .
However, as noted in the rejection of claim 1 above, Wang discloses the same starting material of lithium ion battery scrap which is crushed including Ni, Mn, and Co and applies the same process of leaching, controlling the pH, having a set percentage of halides in the leach solution, and adding a base to the leach solution, the same method applied to the same materials would necessarily produce the same results of holes in the precipitated charge material particles, the holes increasing a ratio of 2+ to 3+ oxidation states of the charge material precursor. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) (emphasis added), see MPEP § 2112.01(I).
As to claim 10, Wang discloses where the acid used is one of sulfuric acid, nitric acid, or hydrochloric acid (Wang, paragraph [0027]).
As to claim 11, Wang discloses adding sodium hydroxide to the solution (Wang, paragraph [0021]), meeting the claim limitation of where the precipitation agent is selected from the group consisting of sodium hydroxide or potassium hydroxide.
As to claim 17, Wang discloses a method for preparing a precursor using nickel-cobalt-manganese waste lithium ion batteries as raw materials (Wang, paragraph [0013]). Wang discloses adding acid to filter residue to obtain leachate and acid leaching residue (Wang, paragraph [0018]), meeting the limitation of leaching and controlling a pH of the leach solution through addition of a leach acid. As Wang discloses detecting the concentration of nickel, cobalt, and manganese in the purified solution and based on the proportion of nickel, cobalt, and manganese components in the target product, add soluble nickel salt, cobalt salt, or manganese salt (Wang, paragraph [0020]), Wang meets the limitation of where the target charge materials are of Ni, Mn, and Co. Wang discloses nickel-cobalt-manganese lithium-ion battery cathode waste was crushed, ground, and then alkali-leached (Wang, paragraphs [0040] and [0046]), meeting the claim limitation of leaching Ni, Mn, and Co from a recycling stream of crushed lithium-ion batteries as lithium-ion battery cathode waste is a part of a lithium ion battery and Wang discloses where it is crushed. Wang discloses adding sulfiding agent to the acid leaching solution to remove Fe and Cu (Wang, paragraph [0019]), meeting the claim limitation of adjusting the pH for precipitating impurities for removal while leaving Ni, Mn, and Co, the impurities including iron and copper as the sulfiding agent would necessarily adjust the pH to a range suitable for precipitating impurities. Wang discloses adding fluoride salt to the leaching solution (Wang, paragraph [0019]), meeting the limitation of adding a halide material to the leach solution as a doping agent for establishing a predetermined percentage of halides in the solution. Wang discloses adding sodium hydroxide and dilute ammonia water to the solution (Wang, paragraph [0021]), meeting the limitation of adding a base to the leach solution for precipitating the charge material precursor. As there is a percentage of fluoride in the solution, there necessarily is an oxidation state based on the predetermined percentage, meeting the claim limitations.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 109088115 B with reference to its English machine translation of Wang in view of CN 113086996 A with reference to its English machine translation of Zheng.
As to claim 9, Wang discloses detecting the concentration of nickel, cobalt, and manganese in the purified solution and based on the proportion of nickel, cobalt, and manganese components in the target product, add soluble nickel salt, cobalt salt, or manganese salt (Wang, paragraph [0020]), thus Wang discloses where the target charge materials of Ni, Co and Mn are changed to result in a desired target product. Wang also discloses adding fluoride salt to the leaching solution (Wang, paragraph [0019]), thereby meeting where the charge material precursor and halides consist of fluoride at a predetermined percentage. However, Wang does not explicitly disclose where the charge materials result in a NCM622 charge material precursor.
Zheng teaches where cobalt sulfate, nickel sulfate, manganese sulfate are added to the leach solution to adjust the molar ratio of Ni:Co:Mn=0.6:0.2:0.2 and resulting in a precipitate with the composition Ni0.6Co0.2Mn0.2(OH)2 (Zheng, paragraph [0033]-[0034]). Zhang teaches that this is a suitable precursor ratio for lithium batteries (Zhang, paragraph [0033]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the molar ratio of Ni:Co:Mn=0.6:0.2:0.2 as taught by Zheng into the method of leaching disclosed by Wang, thereby utilizing a suitable precursor ratio for lithium batteries (Zhang, paragraph [0033]). This also constitutes simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results as Wang already discloses modifying the amounts of NI, Co, and Mn to obtain a desired product, Zheng discloses that Ni:Co:Mn=0.6:0.2:0.2 is an appropriate ratio for these elements, and as both references relate to the leaching and preparing of a battery precursor the substitution of the ratio from Zheng into Wang would produce predictable results, see MPEP § 2143 (I)(B).
Response to Arguments
With respect to the 112(b) rejections, applicant’s amendments to claim 1 cure the previous indefiniteness issues and the rejection is withdrawn.
With respect to the 102 and 103 rejections of claims 1, 3-4, 9-11 and 17, applicant argues that leaching Ni, Mn, and Co from a recycling stream of crushed lithium iron batteries in a leach solution differentiates the claims from Wang (Applicant’s remarks, pg. 2, 1st paragraph).
However, Wang also discloses where the battery materials are crushed as a part of the process (Wang, paragraphs [0040] and [0046]) and as cathode material is a part of a lithium ion battery, this meets the claim limitation of crushed lithium ion batteries.
Applicant argues that Wang discloses a different process where an alkaline solution is added to the positive electrode waste to leach out aluminum and thus Wang does not disclose the recycling stream of crushed lithium ion batteries (Applicant’s remarks, pg. 2, 2nd paragraph). Applicant also argues that Wang discloses that after alkali leaching, the process includes removing lithium by roasting followed by water leaching and Wang discloses that a main feature of the invention is first extracting lithium and then co-precipitating it which occurs before leaching with sulfuring acid solution (Applicant’s remarks, pg. 2, last paragraph). Applicant argues that this shows that Wang relates to an entirely different process of leaching cathode waste (Applicant’s remarks, pg. 3, 1st paragraph).
However, as the instant claims use an open transitional phrase of “comprising” the claims are open to unrecited steps, see MPEP § 2111.03(I). Thus, the claims allow for unrecited steps such as the leaching of aluminum and roasting to remove lithium. There is no requirement in claim 1 that the process needs to include aluminum or lithium. As cathode material is part of a battery and Wang discloses that it is crushed, it meets the claim limitation of a stream of crushed lithium ion batteries.
Applicant also argues that Wang does not teach where both a charge material precursor and halides are dissolved in a leach solution as Wang adds sodium fluoride to remove Ca and Mg and Wang does not teach where the halide material is added as a doping agent, but instead as an impurity removal agent (Applicant’s remarks, pg. 3, 2nd paragraph).
In response to applicant's argument that Wang did not envisage the halide being a dopant, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Finally, Applicant argues that as the fluoride salt would be removed with the Ca and Mg, Wang does not teach establishing a predetermined percentage of halides dissolved in the leach solution as required in the claims (Applicant’s remarks, pg. 3, 3rd paragraph).
However, as Wang discloses adding fluoride salt to the leaching solution (Wang, paragraph [0019]), it is not clear how there is not a predetermined percentage of halides in the leach solution. There is no application time, nor any claimed percentage of halides required by the claim. As such, the claim merely requires adding a halide material and having a percentage dissolved in the leach solution at some point. Wang meets this limitation. As such, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joshua S Carpenter whose telephone number is (571)272-2724. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:30 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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Hendricks can be reached on (571) 272-1401. 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 S CARPENTER/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/JOPHY S. KOSHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights