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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on December 15, 2025 has been carefully considered. Claim 69 is canceled. Claim 70 is new. Claims 50-68 and 70 are under consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on December 15, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant (at page 9, third paragraph) states,
“As claims 50-69 were indicated as allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the indefinite rejections, Applicant respectfully submits that in view of the amendments the application is now in condition for allowance...”.
The Office respectfully disagrees.
Claims 50-59 and 70 are considered allowable. However, claim 60, which was rewritten in independent form, omits the subject matter from claim 50 (at lines 17-20) that was deemed to patentably distinguish over the prior art. In particular, claim 60 omits the limitation, “wherein the susceptor material is arranged within the reactor body such that the particle size of the susceptor material varies in a radial direction, wherein the particle size of the susceptor material at the center of the reactor body is larger than the particle size of the susceptor material at the periphery of the reactor body”. Therefore, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of the prior art to Jaeger (US 2012/0247005 A1), Edlinger (US 2009/0266200 A1), and Nishi et al. (US 6,502,520), as detailed below.
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 60-68 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.
Regarding claim 60, the relationship between the “at least the part of the raw material” (at line 17) and the “at least one part of the raw material” previously set forth in the claim (at line 11) is unclear. It is therefore suggested that the phrase “at least the part” (at line 17) be changed to --the at least one part--.
Also, the relationship between “a molten phase” (at line 19) and “a molten phase” previously set forth in the claim (at lines 12-13) is unclear. It is therefore suggested that “a” (at line 19) be changed to --the--.
Also, the limitation “a gaseous phase comprising at least part of the transferred part of the raw material including lithium species and/or phosphorous species in a gaseous phase” (at lines 20-22) is unclear. Firstly the relationship between “a gaseous phase” (recited twice, at lines 20 and 22) and “a gaseous phase” previously set forth in the claim (at line 12) is unclear. Secondly, the recitation of “the raw material including lithium species and/or phosphorous species” (at line 21) is unclear because the claim previously set forth “the raw material including lithium compounds and phosphorous compounds” (at lines 11-12 and 17-18), and the relationship between the compounds and the species is unclear.
Also, the relationship between the “one or more gas outlets” (at line 22) and the “one or more gas outlets” (at line 14) is unclear. Therefore, it is suggested that --the-- be inserted before “one” (at line 22).
Also, the relationship between “a molten phase outlet” (at line 23) and “a molten phase outlet” previously set forth in the claim (at line 14) is unclear.
Regarding claim 61, the recitation of “the optional additives” (twice, at lines 9 and 12) is unclear because claim 60 sets forth an optional “step” of supplying additives. It is therefore suggested that the limitation be changed to --wherein the optional step of supplying additives to the raw material comprises supplying additives selected from the group consisting of … etc.-- (at lines 9-11) and --wherein the optional step of supplying additives to the raw material comprises supplying additives in an amount up to 150 parts by mass … etc.-- (at lines 12-13).
Regarding claim 62, the recitation of “the raw material including lithium species and phosphorous species” (at line 14) is unclear because claim 60 sets forth lithium species “and/or” phosphorous species (at line 21).
Regarding claim 65, the recitation of “the combustion chamber” (at line 2) lacks proper positive antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 66, the recitation of “the dust separator” (at lines 2-3) lacks proper positive antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 67, the recitation of “the scrubber” (at line 3) lacks proper positive antecedent basis.
The remaining claims are also rejected because they depend from a rejected base claim.
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.
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 60-63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaeger (US 2012/0247005 A1) in view of Edlinger (US 2009/0266200 A1).
Regarding claim 60, Jaeger discloses a process for thermal treatment of a raw material containing lithium compounds (i.e., a method for processing a starting material and/or bulk material containing lithium, for example, from waste lithium ion storage batteries; see paragraphs [0008]-[0009], [0013]), the process comprising the steps of:
providing the raw material (i.e., providing waste lithium ion storage batteries);
optionally pretreating the raw material (i.e., the waste lithium ion storage batteries are broken or are at least mechanically opened, and disturbing components are separated; see paragraph [0016]);
optionally supplying additives to the raw material (i.e., optionally additives; see paragraph [0046]);
feeding the raw material to an inductively heated packed bed reactor (i.e., the material is fed through an opening 10 to a reactor 1 comprising induction coils 3 which are suitable to heat carbon and/or the bulk material containing carbon directly inductively; see FIG. 1; paragraphs [0030], [0044]-[0054]) comprising a reactor body at least partially made of refractory material (i.e., the reactor 1 has a high temperature resistant lining 5 which contains refractory material; see paragraph [0034]), the reactor body being surround by at least one induction coil 3; the reactor being at least partially filled with a susceptor material (i.e., carbon as a susceptor material, e.g., lumpy carbon, which facilitates a coupling of induction fields into the bulk material; see paragraphs [0017], [0046], [0056]); the inductively heated packed bed reactor 1 being configured for transferring at least one part of the raw material including lithium compounds into a gaseous phase (i.e., the material 4 containing lithium is inductively heated to a high temperature by the induction coils 3, and the temperature is high enough that lithium enters into the gas phase; see paragraphs [0021], [0051]) and configured for forming a molten phase from another part of the raw material (i.e., the temperature is also high enough to form a liquid phase of the bulk material; see paragraph [0050]); the inductively heated packed bed reactor 1 comprising one or more gas outlets (i.e., via a connection piece 13);
thermally treating the raw material 4 in the inductively heated packed bed reactor 1, such that the at least one part of the raw material including lithium compounds is transferred into the gaseous phase and the another part of the raw material forms the molten phase (see paragraphs [0021], [0051]);
discharging at least part of the gaseous phase comprising at least part of the transferred part of the raw material including lithium species from the reactor via the one or more gas outlets 13 (see paragraph [0051]);
cooling the discharged gaseous phase in a condenser thereby depositing lithium species (i.e., gaseous lithium is cooled and liquified in a scrubber tower 14; see paragraph [0051]); and
separating the deposited lithium species (i.e., through valve 16; see paragraph [0054]) from an exhaust gas substantially free from lithium species.
Jaeger does not specifically state that the raw material (i.e., the spent lithium ion storage batteries) contains both lithium compounds and phosphorous compounds. However, the examiner takes Official notice that lithium iron phosphate (LiFePO4) is a well-known and common chemistry of lithium ion storage batteries. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the process of Jaeger to the thermal treatment of a raw material that contained both lithium compounds and phosphorous compounds because lithium compounds and phosphorous compounds would be expected to be present in a waste stream of the spent lithium ion storage batteries provided as the raw material of the process.
Jaeger also discloses that the reactor 1 comprises an outlet (i.e., at the bottom) for removing the purified raw material (i.e., using a pusher 23). Jaeger, however, fails to disclose that the reactor 1 comprises a molten phase outlet; wherein the process further comprises the step of discharging the molten phase from the reactor 1 via the molten phase outlet.
Edlinger (see FIG. 1; paragraph [0018]) discloses a process for thermal treatment of a raw material, the process comprising steps of: feeding the raw material (i.e., via a charging channel 10) to an inductively heated packed bed reactor (i.e., a reactor 3 containing a coke bed 6 and surrounded by induction coil 5), wherein the reactor comprises a gas outlet (i.e., at the top of the reactor 3) and a molten phase outlet (i.e., at the bottom of the reactor 3, via a tap opening 12); thermally treating the raw material in the inductively heated packed bed reactor 3 to form a gaseous phase and a molten phase; discharging the gaseous phase through the gas outlet; and discharging the molten phase through the molten phase outlet 12.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a molten phase outlet from the reactor and to further perform the step of discharging the molten phase through the molten phase outlet in the process of Jaeger because the molten phase could be drawn off from the reactor into a forehearth, so that slag can be further separated from metal that was present in the molten phase by sedimentation, as taught by Edlinger (see paragraph [0018]).
Regarding claim 61, Jaeger further discloses that the raw material comprises residues from processing of lithium-ion batteries and/or parts from lithium-ion batteries (i.e., waste from batteries containing lithium ions, such as spent lithium ion storage batteries; see paragraph [0013]). The disclosure of one of the claimed features satisfies the claim.
Regarding claim 62, Jaeger further discloses that the step of thermally treating includes a heating of the raw material to a temperature of from 1300 to 1700 °C (see paragraph [0021]).
The disclosure one of the claimed features satisfies the claim.
Regarding claim 63, Jaeger further discloses that the step of cooling the discharged gaseous phase in the condenser includes a cooling of the gaseous phase to a temperature lower than 1350 °C (i.e., gaseous lithium is cooled and liquefied in the tower 14 using water, see paragraph [0051]; the boiling point of lithium is 1342 °C, see paragraph [0021], and the boiling point of water is 100 °C, such that the gaseous phase is inherently cooled to a temperature lower than 1350 °C to produce the liquid phase 17). The disclosure of one of the claimed features satisfies the claim.
Claims 64-68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaeger (US 2012/0247005 A1) in view of Edlinger (US 2009/0266200 A1), as applied to claim 60 above, and further in view of Nishi et al. (US 6,502,520).
Regarding claim 64, Jaeger fails to disclose the further step of processing the exhaust gas in an exhaust gas processing unit.
Nishi et al. discloses a process for thermal treatment of a raw material (i.e., solid wastes; see column 7, lines 49-59), the process comprising: feeding the raw material to an inductively heated packed bed reactor comprising a reactor body at least partially made of refractory material and surrounded by at least one induction coil (i.e., the solid waste is introduced through a door 6 of an incineration and melting furnace 30 comprising a main body 1 having walls constituted by refractory material, wherein the main body 1 is surrounded by induction coils 2; see FIG. 1; column 6, line 57, to column 7, line 9), the reactor body being at least partially filled with a susceptor material (i.e., conductive heat generation bodes 3, such as lumpy graphite); and thermally treating the raw material to produce a gaseous phase and a molten phase. Specifically, Nishi et al. discloses the thermal treatment produces an exhaust gas, wherein the exhaust gas is processed in an exhaust gas processing unit (i.e., the exhaust gas is sent to an exhaust gas processing unit which comprises a combustion chamber 10, a heat exchanger 14, a coarse particulate filter 15, and a blower 9; see column 7, lines 10-18).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further perform a step of processing the exhaust gas in an exhaust gas processing unit in the modified process of Jaeger because the exhaust gas produced by the thermal treatment of the raw material could be further processed to render the exhaust gas safe for disposal into the surrounding environment, as taught by Nishi et al.
Regarding claim 65, Nishi et al. further discloses combusting the exhaust gas in a combustion chamber 10 of the exhaust gas processing unit in the presence of air. Therefore, in the modified process of Jaeger, the processing of the exhaust gas would further cause any phosphorous species and carbon monoxide in the exhaust gas to be oxidized.
Regarding claim 66, Nishi et al. further discloses a step of removing solid impurities from the exhaust gas by means of a dust separator (i.e., a particulate filter 15; FIG. 1), wherein a temperature of the exhaust gas at the dust separator 15 is set by a heat exchanger 14. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to supply the dust separator with the exhaust gas at a suitable temperature, as set by a heat exchanger of the exhaust gas processing unit, in the modified process of Jaeger, in order to facilitate the removal of substantially any solid impurities from the exhaust gas.
Regarding claim 67, Jaeger further discloses a step of separating hydrolysable compounds (i.e., in the collected water 17) from the exhaust gas by means of a washing liquid in a scrubber (i.e., water sprayed by a water nozzle 15 in the scrubber tower 14; see FIG. 1, paragraph [0048]) and recovering the hydrolysable compounds (i.e., through valve 16).
Regarding claim 68, Nishi et al. further discloses filtering the exhaust gas by means of a filtration unit (i.e., the particulate filter 15, FIG. 1). The disclosure of one of the claimed features satisfies the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 50-59 and 70 are allowable for the reasons set forth in the previous Office action.
Claims 60-68 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action, and to further include the subject matter of claim 50 (lines 17-20) that was omitted by the amendment, which reads: “wherein the susceptor material is arranged within the reactor body such that the particle size of the susceptor material varies in a radial direction, wherein the particle size of the susceptor material at the center of the reactor body is larger than the particle size of the susceptor material at the periphery of the reactor body.”
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 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 JENNIFER A LEUNG whose telephone number is (571)272-1449. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30 AM - 4:30 PM 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, CLAIRE X WANG can be reached at (571)270-1051. 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.
/JENNIFER A LEUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774