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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishikawa (JP 2020-064855) in view of Haraguchi (JP 2015-195129).
Regarding claim 1, Nishikawa discloses a method for recovering a valuable substance from a lithium ion secondary battery, the method comprising: thermally treating a lithium ion secondary battery (paragraph 0028) containing aluminum, carbon, and a copper foil as constituting materials (paragraph 0029); and performing wet sorting of applying an external force to a thermally treated product obtained in the thermally treating in the presence of a liquid, to sort the thermally treated product into two products where one product containing copper (paragraph 0029 and 0042), but Nishikawa does not disclose sorting the thermally treated product into a heavy product and a light product. Haraguchi teaches sorting the thermally treated product into a heavy product and a light product (paragraph 0003 where sieving follows heating and paragraph 0021; vibration sieve) for the purpose of separating particles into a heavy object and a lightweight object (paragraph 0022). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Nishikawa, as taught by Haraguchi, for the purpose of separating particles into a heavy object and a lightweight object.
Regarding claim 2, Nishikawa discloses classifying the thermally treated product obtained in the thermally treating at a classification point of from 0.6 mm through 2.4 mm (paragraph 0039), wherein a coarse-grained product thus obtained at a coarse side is subjected to the wet sorting step (paragraph 0039).
Regarding claim 3, Nishikawa does not disclose the limitations of the claim. Haraguchi teaches in the wet sorting, the thermally treated product or the coarse- grained product is placed on a sieving unit (paragraph 0003 where sieving follows heating), and vibration is applied to the net- shaped object or the liquid, to sort materials constituting the thermally treated product or the coarse-grained product into the heavy product and the light product containing copper (paragraph 0021; vibration sieve) for the purpose of separating particles into a heavy object and a lightweight object (paragraph 0022). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Nishikawa, as taught by Haraguchi, for the purpose of separating particles into a heavy object and a lightweight object.
Regarding claim 4, Nishikawa does not disclose the limitations of the claim. Haraguchi teaches in the wet sorting, the vibration applied to the sieving unit or the liquid is in a vertical direction (paragraph 0005 and 0022; wet process with jig sorting) for the purpose of separating particles into a heavy object and a lightweight object (paragraph 0022). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Nishikawa, as taught by Haraguchi, for the purpose of separating particles into a heavy object and a lightweight object.
Regarding claim 5, Nishikawa in view of Haraguchi does not explicitly disclose in the wet sorting, a vibration speed at which the vibration is applied to the sieving unit or the liquid is from 1 mm/s through 1,000 mm/s, and a time needed for the vibration to make one go-and-return is from 0.1 seconds through 5 seconds. However, before the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to vibratory separating because Applicant has not disclosed that a specific vibration speed and frequency provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Haraguchi, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with either vibration speed and frequency because both speed and frequency would perform the same function of vibratory separation for the purpose of separating material of by size.
Regarding claim 6, Nishikawa does not disclose the limitations of the claim. Haraguchi teaches a mesh size of the sieving unit is from 0.1 mm through 50 mm (paragraph 0021) for the purpose of separating particles into a heavy object and a lightweight object (paragraph 0022). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Nishikawa, as taught by Haraguchi, for the purpose of separating particles into a heavy object and a lightweight object.
Regarding claim 7, Nishikawa discloses the lithium ion secondary battery contains fluorine (paragraph 0043).
Regarding claim 8, Nishikawa in view of Haraguchi does not explicitly disclose the light product obtained by sorting in the wet sorting has a copper grade of 90% or higher, a carbon grade of 5% or lower, and a fluorine grade of 0.2% or lower. However, before the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to product into desired material percentages because Applicant has not disclosed that specific percentages provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Nishikawa in view of Haraguchi, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with either separation method because both separation methods would perform the same function of separating products into specific material percentages for the purpose of recovering a valuable substance from a lithium ion secondary battery.
Regarding claim 9, Nishikawa in view of Haraguchi does not explicitly disclose the light product obtained by sorting in the wet sorting step has an aluminum grade of 1% or lower. However, before the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to product into desired material percentages because Applicant has not disclosed that specific percentages provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Nishikawa in view of Haraguchi, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with either separation method because both separation methods would perform the same function of separating products into specific material percentages for the purpose of recovering a valuable substance from a lithium ion secondary battery.
Regarding claim 10, Nishikawa discloses pulverizing the thermally treated product obtained in the thermally treating, wherein a pulverized product thus obtained is subjected to the classifying step (paragraphs 0034-0035).
Regarding claim 11, Nishikawa discloses sorting the thermally treated product obtained in the thermally treating or the coarse-grained product obtained at the coarse side in the classifying step by a magnetic force (paragraph 0041), wherein the coarse-grained product from which a magnetically attractable material is removed is subjected to the wet sorting (paragraph 0042).
Regarding claim 12, Nishikawa discloses a thermal treatment temperature in the thermally treating is 660°C or higher and 1,1000C or lower (paragraph 0028).
Regarding claim 13, Nishikawa does not disclose the limitations of the claim. Haraguchi teaches the wet sorting step is performed using a device any one selected from the group consisting of a jig sorter (paragraph 0022), a wet rocking table sorter, a double-deck specific gravity sorter, a centrifugal specific gravity sorter, and a flowing-film concentrator for the purpose of separating particles into a heavy object and a lightweight object. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Nishikawa, as taught by Haraguchi, for the purpose of separating particles into a heavy object and a lightweight object.
Regarding claim 14, Nishikawa discloses wherein in the wet sorting, vibration is applied to the liquid, to sort materials constituting the thermally treated product into the heavy product and the light product containing copper (paragraph 0038 where it is disclosed that wet sorting can include vibration being applied through a wet vibration table).
Regarding claim 15, Nishikawa does not explicitly disclose wherein in the wet sorting, the vibration applied to the liquid is in a vertical direction. However, before the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to separating materials because Applicant has not disclosed that a specific vibration direction provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Nishikawa, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with either vibratory direction because both separators would perform the same function of separating material for the purpose of imparting a sufficient vibratory energy and direction to separate material.
Regarding claim 16, Nishikawa does not explicitly disclose wherein in the wet sorting, a vibration speed at which the vibration is applied to the liquid is from 1 mm/s through 1,000 mm/s, and a time needed for the vibration to make one go-and return is from 0.1 seconds through 5 seconds. However, before the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to separating materials because Applicant has not disclosed that a specific vibration speed and duration provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Nishikawa, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with either wet vibratory separator because both separators would perform the same function of separating material for the purpose of imparting a sufficient frequency and duration to separate the material.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-13 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Rejection under USC 103
Regarding Applicant’s argument,” Applicant respectfully submits that NISHIKAWA fails to disclose each of the features of claim 1. For example, Applicant respectfully submits that NISHIKAWA at least fails to disclose (emphasis added) "performing wet sorting of applying an external force to a thermally treated product obtained in the thermally treating in the presence of a liquid, to sort the thermally treated product into a heavy product and a light product containing copper," as recited in claim 1,” the Examiner disagrees. The Examiner asserts that Nishikawa in view of Haraguchi teaches sorting by heavy and light products. Furthermore, Nishikawa would recover aluminum foil during the heat treatment step as it becomes brittle (paragraph 0029) and, as such, during a further sorting step a copper containing product would be separated (paragraph 0029 where copper would not be melted and can be separated).
Regarding Applicant’s argument,” As noted above, in the instant case, Applicant respectfully submits that replacing the wet magnetic sorting of NISHIKAWA with the wet size sorting of HARAGUCHI would at least change the principle of operation of NISHIKAWA. As such, for at least these reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that NISHIKAWA teaches away from the Examiner-proposed modification,” the Examiner disagrees. The Examiner asserts that the base commonality of these prior art references is separating combined elements into different constituent parts for recycling of desired value elements. As such, the separation of constituent parts would not be changing the operation of Nishikawa.
Regarding Applicant’s argument,” Applicant also disagrees with the Examiner's assertions regarding claim 8. In this regard, Applicant respectfully notes that NISHIKAWA is directed to recovering cobalt and nickel. As such, for at least these reasons, Applicant respectfully disagrees with the Examiner's assertions regarding claim 8,” the Examiner disagrees. The Examiner asserts that the Applicant has not disclosed that specific percentages provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Nishikawa in view of Haraguchi, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with either separation method because both separation methods would perform the same function of separating products into specific material percentages for the purpose of recovering a valuable substance from a lithium ion secondary battery.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kalyanavenkateshware Kumar whose telephone number is (571)272-8102. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 08:00-16:30.
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, Michael McCullough can be reached on 571-272-7805. 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.
/K.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3653
/MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Prosecution Insights