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 .
Applicant amended Claims 1 and 7. A new matter rejection appears below.
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 07/06/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 15-17, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 7 recite “an aqueous liquid consisting of one or more acids and water.” There does not appear to be support for this recitation in the original disclosure. The instant Specification recites at [0025], “The aqueous liquid used in the leaching may be water or an aqueous acid solution.” Appropriate correction is required. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention.
Claims 2-4, 6, 8-9, 15-17, and 19-21 are rejected for their dependency on a rejected 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.
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 1-3 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oosterhof et al. US 20190292629 A1 in view of Hiroshi et al. JP 2020029613 A.
Regarding Claim 1, Notwithstanding the 112(b) rejections above, Oosterhof et al. ‘629 teaches a method for recovering lithium from slag containing at least aluminum and lithium, the slag being provided by melting a lithium-ion secondary battery to be disposed of to obtain molten metal containing valuable metal and molten slag containing at least aluminum and lithium and separating the slag from the molten metal containing valuable metal, wherein a condition of the melting of the lithium-ion secondary battery is adjusted such that the slag has an exemplary aluminum to lithium mass ratio of approximately 3.5 (Table 3), falling within the range of Al/Li being 6 or less (Abstract)[0037].
Oosterhof et al. ‘629 further teaches contacting the slag with an aqueous liquid to obtain a leachate containing lithium leached from the slag, and contacting the leachate with a neutralizing agent (meeting the limitation for a basic substance) to cause unwanted metal contained in the leachate to precipitate in the form of a slightly soluble substance, followed by solid-liquid separation to obtain a purified solution having lithium dissolved therein [0021, 0028].
Oosterhof et al. ‘629 teaches the limitations set forth above and further teaches preliminary neutralization to a pH level between 5 and 7, but does not expressly teach achieving a pH value of 10 to 12.
However, Hiroshi et al. ‘613 teaches in a process of recycling lithium from secondary lithium ion battery slag, contacting the leachate with the basic substance such that the resulting mixture of the leachate and the basic substance has a pH of 11 or more at [0044], overlapping with the range of the instant Claims of 10 to 12.
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).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to contact the leachate of Oosterhof et al. ‘629 with a basic substance such that the resulting mixture of the leachate and the basic substance has a pH of 11 or in order to improve the recovery rate of lithium based on the teachings of Hiroshi et al. ‘613 at [0044].
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated by a desire to increase the recovery of lithium and increase the purity of the leachate to modify the process of Oosterhof et al. ‘629, meeting the limitations of the instant Claims.
Regarding the newly amended limitations of Claim 1, notwithstanding the 112(a) rejections above, Oosterhof et al. ‘629 teaches mixing the roasted material with water following contact with sulfuric acid, reading on the limitation of the instant claim for an aqueous liquid consisting of one or more acids and water. The transposition of method steps is prima facie obvious absent a showing of new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. C.
Oosterhof et al. ‘629 teaches at [0024] that prior to subsequent neutralization, the slag has a pH of less than 4, falling within the range of the instant claims of a leachate having a pH of 7 or less, meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
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).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Oosterhof et al. ‘629 teaches the limitations set forth above. Oosterhof et al. ‘629 further teaches maintaining a limited amount of aluminum in the leachate at the ratio disclosed in Table 3 [0037-0039], meeting the limitation controlling the amount of aluminum present in the melting of the lithium-ion secondary battery to adjust the aluminum to lithium mass ratio of the slag to 6 or less.
Regarding Claim 3, modified Oosterhof et al. ‘629 teaches the limitations set forth above. Oosterhof et al. ‘629 further teaches using flux with an aluminum content that does not cause the aluminum to lithium mass ratio of the resulting slag to exceed 6 [0027, 0037], meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 21, modified Oosterhof et al. ‘629 teaches the limitations set forth above. Oosterhof et al. ‘629 further teaches purifying and precipitating lithium from solids including lithium bearing slag (claim 14), meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Claims 4 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oosterhof et al. US 20190292629 A1 in view of Hiroshi et al. JP 2020029613 A as applied to Claims 1-3 and 21 above further in view of NPL Wu et al.
Regarding Claims 4, 8, and 9, Oosterhof et al. ‘629 discloses the limitations set forth above and teaches the leachate materially is finely divided at [0015] but does not expressly teach the average grain size of the slag.
However, NPL Wu et al. teaches at (Section 3.6) recovering lithium from slag having an average particle size of 29.09 µm, lying within the range of the instant Claims of 5 mm or smaller.
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).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to finely divide the slag by crushing and screening the finely divided material of Oosterhof et al. ‘629 into grains with an average grain size of 29.09 µm based on the teachings of NPL Wu et al. at (Section 3.6) that such size is suitable for the efficient recovery of lithium, meeting the limitations of the instant Claims.
Claims 6-7 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oosterhof et al. US 20190292629 A1 in view of Hiroshi et al. JP 2020029613 A as applied to Claims 1-3 and 21 above further in view of Naizhen et al. CN 108063295 A.
Regarding Claims 6, 7, 15, and 16, Oosterhof et al. ‘629 teaches neutralizing with carbonates but does not expressly teach contacting the purified the solution having lithium dissolved therein with a carbonate or carbon dioxide to precipitate a carbonate of lithium in the solution.
However, Naizhen et al. ‘295 teaches a method for hydrometallurgic and pyrogenic recovery of lithium from waste lithium ion battery which includes contacting the purified solution with a carbonate or carbon dioxide to precipitate a carbonate of lithium in the solution [0036].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to contact the purified solution with a carbonate or carbon dioxide to precipitate a high-quality lithium carbonate in the solution based on the teaching of Naizhen et al. ‘295 at [0033, 0036] in order to maximize the economic value of the battery slag, meeting the limitations of the instant Claims.
Regarding the newly amended limitations of Claim 7, notwithstanding the 112(a) rejections above, Oosterhof et al. ‘629 teaches mixing the roasted material with water following contact with sulfuric acid, reading on the limitation of the instant claim for an aqueous liquid consisting of one or more acids and water. The transposition of method steps is prima facie obvious absent a showing of new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. C.
Oosterhof et al. ‘629 teaches at [0024] that prior to subsequent neutralization, the slag has a pH of less than 4, falling within the range of the instant claims of a leachate having a pH of 7 or less, meeting the limitations of the instant Claims.
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).
Claims 17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oosterhof et al. US 20190292629 A1 in view of Hiroshi et al. JP 2020029613 A as applied to Claims 1-3 and 21 above further in view of NPL Wu et al. as applied to Claims 4 and 8-9 above, further in view of Naizhen et al. CN 108063295 A.
Regarding Claims 17, 19, and 20, Oosterhof et al. ‘629 teaches neutralizing with carbonates but does not expressly teach contacting the purified the solution having lithium dissolved therein with a carbonate or carbon dioxide to precipitate a carbonate of lithium in the solution.
However, Naizhen et al. ‘295 teaches a method for hydrometallurgic and pyrogenic recovery of lithium from waste lithium ion battery which includes contacting the purified solution with a carbonate or carbon dioxide to precipitate a carbonate of lithium in the solution [0036].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to contact the purified solution with a carbonate or carbon dioxide to precipitate a high-quality lithium carbonate in the solution based on the teaching of Naizhen et al. ‘295 at [0033, 0036] in order to maximize the economic value of the battery slag, meeting the limitations of the instant Claims.
Claims 1-3 and 21 are additionally and alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oosterhof et al. US 20190292629 A1 in view of Cao et al. CN 105907983 A and Hiroshi et al. JP 2020029613 A.
Regarding Claim 1, Notwithstanding the 112(b) rejections above, Oosterhof et al. ‘629 teaches a method for recovering lithium from slag containing at least aluminum and lithium, the slag being provided by melting a lithium-ion secondary battery to be disposed of to obtain molten metal containing valuable metal and molten slag containing at least aluminum and lithium and separating the slag from the molten metal containing valuable metal, wherein a condition of the melting of the lithium-ion secondary battery is adjusted such that the slag has an exemplary aluminum to lithium mass ratio of approximately 3.5 (Table 3), falling within the range of Al/Li being 6 or less (Abstract)[0037].
Oosterhof et al. ‘629 further teaches contacting the slag with an aqueous liquid to obtain a leachate containing lithium leached from the slag, and contacting the leachate with a neutralizing agent (meeting the limitation for a basic substance) to cause unwanted metal contained in the leachate to precipitate in the form of a slightly soluble substance, followed by solid-liquid separation to obtain a purified solution having lithium dissolved therein [0021, 0028].
Oosterhof et al. ‘629 teaches the limitations set forth above and further teaches preliminary neutralization to a pH level between 5 and 7, but does not expressly teach achieving a pH value of 10 to 12.
However, Hiroshi et al. ‘613 teaches in a process of recycling lithium from secondary lithium ion battery slag, contacting the leachate with the basic substance such that the resulting mixture of the leachate and the basic substance has a pH of 11 or more at [0044], overlapping with the range of the instant Claims of 10 to 12.
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).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to contact the leachate of Oosterhof et al. ‘629 with a basic substance such that the resulting mixture of the leachate and the basic substance has a pH of 11 or in order to improve the recovery rate of lithium based on the teachings of Hiroshi et al. ‘613 at [0044].
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated by a desire to increase the recovery of lithium and increase the purity of the leachate to modify the process of Oosterhof et al. ‘629, meeting the limitations of the instant Claims.
Regarding the newly amended limitations of Claim 1, notwithstanding the 112(a) rejections above, Oosterhof et al. ‘629 teaches mixing the roasted material with water following contact with sulfuric acid, reading on the limitation of the instant claim for an aqueous liquid consisting of one or more acids and water. The transposition of method steps is prima facie obvious absent a showing of new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. C.
Oosterhof et al. ‘629 does not expressly teach an aqueous liquid consisting of one or more acids and water. Oosterhof et al. ‘629 however contemplates at [0005] contacting the roasted material with diluted sulfuric acid but describes this process as not economical. This recitation is not a teaching away however.
Cao et al. ‘983 expressly teaches in a process of recycling lithium from secondary lithium ion battery slag, contacting the roasted material with an aqueous liquid consisting of sulfuric acid and water in order to reduce the recovery of aluminum impurities [0040-0045], meeting the limitation of the instant Claim for an aqueous liquid consisting of one or more acids and water. The leachate is kept at a pH of 4-6.5, lying within the instantly claimed range of a pH of 7 or less.
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).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to contact the roasted material of Oosterhof et al. ‘629 with sulfuric acid diluted with water in order to minimize the formation of aluminum impurities based on the teachings of Cao et al. ‘983 at [0040-0045]. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention would have been motivated by a desire to prevent environmental impact to modify the process of Oosterhof et al. ‘629, meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Oosterhof et al. ‘629 teaches the limitations set forth above. Oosterhof et al. ‘629 further teaches maintaining a limited amount of aluminum in the leachate at the ratio disclosed in Table 3 [0037-0039], meeting the limitation controlling the amount of aluminum present in the melting of the lithium-ion secondary battery to adjust the aluminum to lithium mass ratio of the slag to 6 or less.
Regarding Claim 3, modified Oosterhof et al. ‘629 teaches the limitations set forth above. Oosterhof et al. ‘629 further teaches using flux with an aluminum content that does not cause the aluminum to lithium mass ratio of the resulting slag to exceed 6 [0027, 0037], meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 21, modified Oosterhof et al. ‘629 teaches the limitations set forth above. Oosterhof et al. ‘629 further teaches purifying and precipitating lithium from solids including lithium bearing slag (claim 14), meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Claims 4 and 8-9 are additionally and alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oosterhof et al. US 20190292629 A1 in view of Cao et al. CN 105907983 A and Hiroshi et al. JP 2020029613 A as applied to Claims 1-3 and 21 above further in view of NPL Wu et al.
Regarding Claims 4, 8, and 9, Oosterhof et al. ‘629 discloses the limitations set forth above and teaches the leachate materially is finely divided at [0015] but does not expressly teach the average grain size of the slag.
However, NPL Wu et al. teaches at (Section 3.6) recovering lithium from slag having an average particle size of 29.09 µm, lying within the range of the instant Claims of 5 mm or smaller.
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).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to finely divide the slag by crushing and screening the finely divided material of Oosterhof et al. ‘629 into grains with an average grain size of 29.09 µm based on the teachings of NPL Wu et al. at (Section 3.6) that such size is suitable for the efficient recovery of lithium, meeting the limitations of the instant Claims.
Claims 6-7 and 15-16 are additionally and alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oosterhof et al. US 20190292629 A1 in view of Cao et al. CN 105907983 A and Hiroshi et al. JP 2020029613 A as applied to Claims 1-3 and 21 above further in view of Naizhen et al. CN 108063295 A.
Regarding Claims 6, 7, 15, and 16, Oosterhof et al. ‘629 teaches neutralizing with carbonates but does not expressly teach contacting the purified the solution having lithium dissolved therein with a carbonate or carbon dioxide to precipitate a carbonate of lithium in the solution.
However, Naizhen et al. ‘295 teaches a method for hydrometallurgic and pyrogenic recovery of lithium from waste lithium ion battery which includes contacting the purified solution with a carbonate or carbon dioxide to precipitate a carbonate of lithium in the solution [0036].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to contact the purified solution with a carbonate or carbon dioxide to precipitate a high-quality lithium carbonate in the solution based on the teaching of Naizhen et al. ‘295 at [0033, 0036] in order to maximize the economic value of the battery slag, meeting the limitations of the instant Claims.
Regarding the newly amended limitations of Claim 7, notwithstanding the 112(a) rejections above, Oosterhof et al. ‘629 teaches mixing the roasted material with water following contact with sulfuric acid, reading on the limitation of the instant claim for an aqueous liquid consisting of one or more acids and water. The transposition of method steps is prima facie obvious absent a showing of new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. C.
Oosterhof et al. ‘629 does not expressly teach an aqueous liquid consisting of one or more acids and water. Oosterhof et al. ‘629 however contemplates at [0005] contacting the roasted material with diluted sulfuric acid but describes this process as not economical. This recitation is not a teaching away however.
Cao et al. ‘983 expressly teaches in a process of recycling lithium from secondary lithium ion battery slag, contacting the roasted material with an aqueous liquid consisting of sulfuric acid and water in order to reduce the recovery of aluminum impurities [0040-0045], meeting the limitation of the instant Claim for an aqueous liquid consisting of one or more acids and water. The leachate is kept at a pH of 4-6.5, lying within the instantly claimed range of a pH of 7 or less.
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).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to contact the roasted material of Oosterhof et al. ‘629 with sulfuric acid diluted with water in order to minimize the formation of aluminum impurities based on the teachings of Cao et al. ‘983 at [0040-0045]. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention would have been motivated by a desire to prevent environmental impact to modify the process of Oosterhof et al. ‘629, meeting the limitations of the instant Claims.
Claims 17 and 19-20 are additionally and alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oosterhof et al. US 20190292629 A1 in view of Cao et al. CN 105907983 A and Hiroshi et al. JP 2020029613 A as applied to Claims 1-3 and 21 above further in view of NPL Wu et al. as applied to Claims 4 and 8-9 above, further in view of Naizhen et al. CN 108063295 A.
Regarding Claims 17, 19, and 20, Oosterhof et al. ‘629 teaches neutralizing with carbonates but does not expressly teach contacting the purified the solution having lithium dissolved therein with a carbonate or carbon dioxide to precipitate a carbonate of lithium in the solution.
However, Naizhen et al. ‘295 teaches a method for hydrometallurgic and pyrogenic recovery of lithium from waste lithium ion battery which includes contacting the purified solution with a carbonate or carbon dioxide to precipitate a carbonate of lithium in the solution [0036].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to contact the purified solution with a carbonate or carbon dioxide to precipitate a high-quality lithium carbonate in the solution based on the teaching of Naizhen et al. ‘295 at [0033, 0036] in order to maximize the economic value of the battery slag, meeting the limitations of the instant Claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as to the prior art rejections.
Applicant argues the cited references are not combinable. However, that Oosterhof et al. ‘629 teaches neutralizing to sufficiently remove aluminum does not negate that Hiroshi et al. ‘613 renders obvious the method of contacting the leachate of Oosterhof et al. ‘629 with a basic substance such that the resulting mixture of the leachate and the basic substance has a pH of 11 or in order to improve the recovery rate of lithium based on the teachings of Hiroshi et al. ‘613 at [0044]. For the reasons set forth in Hiroshi et al. ‘613, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to modify the known lithium recovery method of Oosterhof et al. ‘629. See 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.
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here 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).
Further, applicant argues the prior art does not teach an aqueous liquid consisting of one or more acids and water. This limitation does not appear to find support in the original disclosure. Nonetheless, Oosterhof et al. ‘629 teaches mixing the roasted material with water following contact with sulfuric acid, reading on the limitation of the instant claim for an aqueous liquid consisting of one or more acids and water. The transposition of method steps is prima facie obvious absent a showing of new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. C.
Additionally, contacting lithium-containing battery slag with water-diluted acid is known in the art to prevent the formation of aluminum impurities. Persons of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention would be motivated by a desire to reduce environmental impact and reduce the formation of aluminum impurities to contact roasted material in a lithium-ion battery recycling method with water-diluted acid.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
JP 2006198449 A teaches neutralizing fly ash to a pH of 7 to 12 to obtain valuable materials.
CN 108559846 A teaches water or diluted acid leaching of waste battery slag to recover valuable materials.
JP 4865745 B2 teaches recovering valuable metals from lithium batteries with diluted acid.
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