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 .
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.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beer (US Pub. No. 2022/0017989) in view of Rohde (US Pub. No. 2022/0013820), Morin (US Pub. No. 2021/0376399), Blanco (US Pat. No. 4,093,526) and Sharma (Electrowinning of cobalt from sulphate solutions, Hydrometallurgy 80 (2005) 132-138).
Regarding claim 1, Beer teaches a lithium ion battery recycling process to recover metals (title; paragraph [0131]), the process comprising shredding the batteries (paragraph [0134]), the material being made into a slurry by mixing with water 204 (paragraph [0142]), leaching the slurry with sulfuric acid 210 (paragraph [0143), where the sulfuric acid reacts with copper resulting in sulfur dioxide (paragraph [0143] – see Cu reaction with sulfuric acid), a filter cake being discharged from a leach filter (paragraph [0148]), the primary filtrate 222 (claimed first filtrate) being passed to a copper solvent extraction circuit as pregnant leach solution 302 to obtain copper and a copper-free raffinate 312 (claimed first raffinate) (paragraph [0163]), the raffinate 312 being passed as pregnant leach solution 402 to an aluminum extraction circuit 400 where it can be treated with lime and precipitated as aluminum hydroxide, and an aluminum free raffinate 412 (claimed second filtrate) (paragraphs [0196]-[0224]), the raffinate 412 being passed as pregnant leach solution 502 to a cobalt/manganese recovery circuit 500 including solvent extraction to obtain cobalt and manganese and a cobalt and manganese free raffinate 506 (claimed second raffinate) (paragraphs [0231]-[0356]), the raffinate 506 being passed as pregnant leach solution 802 to the nickel solvent extraction circuit 800 to obtain nickel and a nickel-free raffinate 812 (claimed third raffinate) (paragraphs [0357]-[0383]), the raffinate 812 being passed as pregnant leach solution 902 to the lithium solvent extraction circuit 900 and treated with ammonium carbonate (it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use another carbonate, such as sodium carbonate as claimed, as it is well known in chemistry that different cations can be paired with anions such as carbonate, and will function similarly) to recover lithium carbonate (paragraphs [0384]-[0395]. Beer does not specifically disclose discharging the batteries. In a process similarly directed to lithium ion battery recycling, Rohde teaches discharging the batteries (paragraph [0018]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to discharge the batteries at the beginning of the recycling process as taught by Rohde in the process of Beer in order to prevent fire and explosion hazards (see Rohde at paragraph [0018]). Beer does not specifically disclose roasting the batteries. Rohde teaches that the batteries may be subjected to a heat treatment in a wide range of temperatures, usually in the range of 100 to 900 degrees C (taken to meet the claimed roasting limitation) (paragraph [0020]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to roast the batteries as taught by Rohde in the process of Beer in order to dissolve selectively easy soluble constituents especially salts of lithium that may have been formed during the heat treatment (see Rohde at paragraph [0020]). Beer does not specifically disclose that the water used to make the slurry is deionized water. Rohde teaches using deionized water to make a slurry (paragraph [0110]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use deionized water as taught by Rohde in the process of Beer in order to prevent impurities from entering the process. Beer does not specifically disclose filtering the leached slurry to separate carbon powder from leach liquor. Rohde teaches that filtration may be performed to remove non-dissolved solids, preferably carbon particles, particularly graphite, from the leached slurry (paragraph [0059]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to filter carbon/graphite particles from the slurry as taught by Rohde in the process of Beer in order to recycle carbon particles from the battery scrap (see Rohde at paragraph [0060]). Beer teaches the use of lime as a base to neutralize acidic solution (paragraph [0221]), but does not specifically disclose neutralizing the leach liquor with lime to produce a gypsum cake. Rohde teaches adjusting the pH value of the leach higher with the addition of bases after the leaching step (paragraph [0061]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use lime (a base taught by Beer) to neutralize the leach liquor as taught by Rohde in order to increase the safety of the process, because a neutral solution is less dangerous than an acidic solution. Such a process will inherently create a gypsum cake (calcium sulfate), because the calcium is provided by the lime (calcium hydroxide) and the sulfate is provided by the sulfuric acid. Beer does not specifically disclose electrowinning to obtain copper, cobalt, and nickel. Rohde teaches depositing copper, nickel, and cobalt on a particulate deposition cathode by electrolysis of an electrolyte containing the leach (taken to meet the claimed limitation of electrowinning) (paragraphs [0064]-[0069]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use electrowinning to obtain copper, nickel and cobalt as taught by Rohde in the process of Beer in order to recover the metals with high purity (see Rohde at paragraph [0008]). Beer (combined) does not specifically disclose sieving the roasted material to separate a coarser fraction and a finer fraction wherein the coarser fraction comprises aluminum chips and copper chips. In a process similarly directed to lithium ion battery recycling, Morin teaches sieving battery residue between coarse and fine fractions, where the coarse particles contain aluminum and copper foil (paragraphs [0059]-[0060]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to sieve as taught by Morin the roasted material of the process of Beer (combined) in order to perform an easy separation process to enable recycling the components. Further, Morin teaches that when cobalt and manganese are present together during electrowinning, as is the case of the Beer in view of Rohde process above, that manganese is deposited as manganese dioxide on the anode (taken to be the claimed anode mud) (paragraph [0071]). Beer (combined) teaches sequentially recovering copper, cobalt, and nickel, and manganese as manganese dioxide and lithium as lithium carbonate (see above), but does not specifically disclose the purity of the metals. Blanco teaches that electrowinning produces coper and nickel products with purity of 99.9% or higher (column 27, lines 55-56), and Sharma teaches that electrowinning produces cobalt with purity of 99.94% (table 1, at pH 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to achieve purity as claimed because such purity is within or overlapping the prior art ranges.
Regarding claim 2, the process set forth above is taken to have zero solid waste.
Regarding claim 3, Beer teaches that the process is adapted to treat a range of different battery types, including any battery that comprises lithium or lithium compounds (paragraph [0131]), and Rohde teaches a specific embodiment with a 1/1/1 molar ration of Ni/Co/Mn and a 1/1 molar ratio of Li to the sum of Ni, Co and Mn (such taken to be a NMC battery) (paragraph [0107]).
Regarding claims 8-10, one of ordinary skill in the art would be aware that the amount of each metal extracted in the batteries would dictate the number of stages of extraction, scrubbing and stripping.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beer in view of Rohde, Morin, Blanco and Sharma as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jiang (CN-110828926A and B – the A document date is being relied on for the prior art date, but the B document is a better translation and is referred to below for clarity).
Regarding claim 5, Beer (combined) does not specifically disclose the percentage of carbon in the graphite. In a process similarly directed to lithium battery recycling, Jiang teaches using a content of graphite of not less than 96% (machine translation at page 5, third to last paragraph), overlapping the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to obtain graphite at a percentage as taught by Jiang in the process of Beer (combined) in order to obtain good quality graphite, such being taken to be a saleable commodity.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beer in view of Rohde, Morin, Blanco and Sharma as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fujita (US Pat. No. 9,359,659).
Regarding claim 6, Rohde teaches a temperature range of 100 to 900 degrees C (paragraph [0020]), overlapping the claimed range, but does not specifically disclose the heating time. In a process similarly directed to lithium ion battery recycling, Fujita teaches using a temperature of 400 degrees C or higher, particularly 650 to 800 degrees C, for a time of 1 minute to 5 hours (column 4, lines 31-49), overlapping the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a roasting time as taught by Fujita in the process of Beer (combined) as a preferable amount of time for a roasting process for lithium ion battery recycling.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beer in view of Rohde, Morin, Blanco and Sharma as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Johnston (US Pub. No. 2023/0104094).
Regarding claim 7, Beer (combined) does not specifically disclose the pulp density of the slurry. In a process similarly directed to recycling lithium ion batteries, Johnston teaches using a pulp density of the slurry of between about 15 and 35 wt % (paragraph [0130]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a pulp density of the slurry of Johnston in the process of Beer (combined) in order to have the battery material in a desirable state, which is a flowable slurry (see Johnston at paragraph [0131]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 8-10 under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 8-10 under 35 U.S.C. 112 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the prior art rejections of the claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that sulfur dioxide in the invention reduces the cobalt and manganese present to the +2 oxidation state and achieves significantly improved leaching efficiency. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that these features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues that even if combined, the cited references do not teach or suggest one or more features of the amended independent claim 1. It appears that Applicant is arguing that the bolded features are not taught or suggested (leaching the slurry with sulfuric acid and sulfur dioxide, and sequentially recovering copper cathode, cobalt cathode, and nickel cathode with a purity of 99.3 to 99.9%, manganese as manganese dioxide, and lithium as lithium carbonate. However, Applicant does not argue that Beer does not teach sulfuric acid, or argue that the sulfuric acid generates sulfur dioxide, as was set forth in the prior Office action and again above, and thus these limitations are taught by the prior art. Additionally, the other limitation was set forth previously with respect to claim 4 over Blanco and Sharma, and no arguments are made against the combination of these references with the others in the rejection of claim 1, and therefore these limitations are also taught by the prior art, and render amended claim 1 obvious.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
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 PHILIP N SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1612. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at 571-270-5545. 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.
/P.N.S/ Examiner, Art Unit 1749 June 4, 2026
/KATELYN W SMITH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights