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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1, Claims 1-7 in the reply filed on 04/25/2025 is acknowledged.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
Receipt is acknowledged of a request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) and a submission, filed on 04/03/2026.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over La et al. US 20210115532 A1 in view of Komarov et al. RU 2652198 C1 and Sato et al. US 20100311923 A1.
Regarding Claim 1, La et al. ‘532 teaches a method of recovering an active metal of a lithium secondary battery, the method comprising: preparing a waste cathode active material mixture obtained from a waste cathode of a lithium secondary battery [0001]; forming a preliminary precursor mixture by reacting the waste cathode active material mixture with a reactive gas in a fluidized bed reactor at a temperature of 100 to 500 °C (overlapping the instantly claimed range of 700 °C or less) [0009, 0047]; and selectively recovering a lithium precursor from the preliminary precursor mixture, wherein the fluidized bed reactor comprises a reactor body and an expanded portion with a diameter (meeting the limitation of the instant Claim for a horizontal expansion bed) [0081], (Figs. 1-2); and wherein the fluidized bed reactor further comprises a vertical expansion tube connecting the reactor and the horizontal expansion bed [0081] (Figs. 1-2).
La et al. ‘532 teaches the expanded portion (meeting the limitation of the instant Claim for a horizontal expansion bed) has a diameter greater than that of the reactor body at [0081] which allows particles to move downwardly, but La et al. ‘532 does not expressly teach a ratio of a diameter of the horizontal expansion bed relative to a diameter of the reactor body is 3 to 5.
However, Komarov et al. ‘198 teaches at [0016] a fluidized bed reactor having a ratio of the expander diameter (meeting the limitation for the horizontal expansion bed) relative to the diameter of the transport pipe (meeting the limitation for the reactor body) of 3 to 5 (exactly meeting the instantly claimed range of 3 to 5). See also MPEP 2144.05. In cases where claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to establish a ratio between the horizontal expansion bed relative to a diameter of the reactor body of 3 to 5 in order to ease the separation of the transport gas and the charged particles based on the teachings of Komarov et al. ‘198 [0034], meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
La et al. ‘532 does not expressly teach an inclination angle of the vertical expansion tube is from 45° to 80°.
However, Sato et al. ‘923 teaches forming an inclination angle within a vertically extending cylindrical fluidized bed reactor of at least about 55° (overlapping the instantly claimed range of 45° to 80°) in order to order to ensure a smooth movement of particles in a downward direction [0068].
See MPEP 2144.05. In cases where claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
One of ordinary skill would look to the art for angles of inclination, which are known to influence the trajectory of downward falling particles within a fluidized bed reactor. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to form the inclination angle of La et al. ‘532 to be at least about 55° in order to ensure smooth downward flow of particles within the reactor based on the teachings of Sato et al. ‘923 at [0068], meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 2, modified La et al. ‘532 teaches the limitations set forth above. La et al. ‘532 further teaches raising the waste cathode active material mixture or the preliminary precursor mixture into the horizontal expansion bed by the reactive gas imputed into the reactor body; and lowering the raised waste cathode active material mixture or the raised preliminary precursor mixture into the reactor body [0013], (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 6, modified La et al. ‘532 teaches the limitations set forth above. La et al. ‘532 further teaches the reactive gas comprises hydrogen [0014], meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 7, modified La et al. ‘532 teaches the limitations set forth above. La et al. ‘532 further teaches the recovering of the lithium precursor comprises washing the preliminary precursor mixture with water [0021], meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues primary reference La et al. ‘532 does not recognize the relationship between inclination angle and particle behavior. While the Examiner does not concede to this postulation, even if La et al. ‘532 did not recognize a relationship between inclination angle and particle behavior, this would not prevent persons of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention from being motivated to provide a specific inclination angle in order to affect particle behavior within a fluidized bed reactor.
Applicant argues no basis to combine a reference not herein cited with the above cited primary reference La et al. ‘532. While these arguments are moot, Applicant additionally argues the primary reference does not disclose or suggest the claimed inclination angle and that the angle is a critical, function defining parameter. However, as set forth above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to form the inclination angle of La et al. ‘532 to be at least about 55° in order to ensure smooth downward flow of particles within the reactor based on the teachings of Sato et al. ‘923 at [0068], meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Applicant cites “a geometric estimation of the drawings of La et al.” to assert a 40 degree inclination angle teaching. However, it remains that La teaches an incline e.g. at (Fig. 1) and does not expressly teach any specific numerical angle of inclination value. Further, as set forth in the annotated drawing excerpt below, persons of ordinary skill in the art may indeed estimate a 45 degree inclination angle as suitable for descending particles within the fluidized bed reactor of La et al. ‘532. Nonetheless, because La et al. ‘532 does not expressly teach a numerical angle of inclination value, Sato et al. ‘923 is cited to show it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention in order to ensure smooth downward flow of particles within the reactor.
PNG
media_image1.png
565
673
media_image1.png
Greyscale
La et al. ‘532 Annotated Fig. 1
Applicant argues unexpected results. Applicant has shown high leakage of cathode outside the claimed diameter ranges. However, this presentation amounts to a result effective variable and does not show the results are unexpected to persons of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention.
As set forth above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to establish a ratio between the horizontal expansion bed relative to a diameter of the reactor body of 3 to 5 in order to ease the separation of the transport gas and the charged particles based on the teachings of Komarov et al. ‘198 [0034].
The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See MPEP 2144 IV. See also MPEP 2141.01(a) I. “[A] reference need not be from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention in order to be analogous art.” Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212. Regarding the fluidized bed reactor dimensions, even if more than a design choice, "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, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
CN 105349172 A teaches a fluidized bed reactor having a gradually expanding structure with a variable diameter and ratio of lower diameter to upper diameter of 1:1.5-10.
KR 20170104418 A teaches a fluidized bed reactor having angled partition baffles.
Julián, Ignacio, Javier Herguido, and Miguel Menéndez. "Particle mixing in a two-section two-zone fluidized bed reactor. Experimental technique and counter-current back-mixing model validation." Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 52.38 (2013): 13587-13596. teaches an angled fluidized bed reactor and the effects of reactor geometry on particle mixing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MORIAH S. SMOOT whose telephone number is (571)272-2634. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am - 5pm EDT.
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 at (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.
/Keith D. Hendricks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/M.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights