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 .
Status of Claims
Claim 1 is currently amended and Claims 2-10 are as originally filed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 2, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20130035214 A, based on the machine translation, in view of CN ‘107058742 A and JP H10-287864 A, both based on the machine translations.
KR 20130035214 A (KR ‘214) in view of CN ‘742 is applied as discussed in the office action mailed 08/08/2025. Regarding the extracting agent being bis (2,4,4,-trimethylpentyl) phosphinic acid, KR ‘214 teaches using an acidic phosphate ester extractant (page 3), but KR ‘214 does not teach bis (2,4,4,-trimethylpentyl) phosphinic acid as claimed.
JP H10-287864 A (JP ‘864) teaches recovering cobalt or nickel from an active material of a positive electrode for a lithium ion secondary battery (abstract). Extractants include phosphate esters and phosphinic acid esters such as di-(2,4,4-trimethylpentyl) phosphinic acid [0015]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use either an acidic phosphate ester extractant or a phosphinic acid extractant in the process as taught by KR ‘214, since JP ‘864 teaches that these extractants are equivalent for recovering cobalt or nickel (abstract, [0012-0015])
Regarding Claim 2, CN ‘742 teaches the saponifying agent is sodium hydroxide (page 2).
Regarding Claim 4, CN ‘742 teaches eight stages of counter-current washing occur with hydrochloric acid (page 3) or sulfuric acid (page 4).
Regarding Claim 5, CN ‘742 teaches multi-stage back extraction occurs with hydrochloric acid (page 4).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR ‘214 in view of CN ‘742 and JP ‘864 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CN 104745823 A.
KR ‘214 in view of CN ‘742 and JP ‘864 discloses the invention substantially as claimed. KR’ 214 teaches removing iron from the leach solution as described above and does not teach the presence of zinc. The concentration of aluminum is from 0.001-20 g/L, and the total concentration of Ni, Co, and Mn is 0.003-100 g/L (page 3), which overlaps the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the prior art discloses the utility of the composition over the entire disclosed range. See MPEP § 2144.05. However, KR ‘214 in view of CN ‘742 does not teach all of the ions as listed in Claim 3.
CN 104745823 A (CN ‘823) teaches waste lithium ion batteries contain copper, iron, aluminum, nickel, cobalt, manganese, calcium and magnesium, and calcium, iron, aluminum, calcium, and magnesium are impurities (page 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the lithium battery of KR ‘214 in view of CN ‘742 and JP ‘864 would contain at least the impurities as described by CN ‘823, since KR ‘214 in view of CN ‘742 and JP ‘864 teaches substantially the same material as CN ‘823.
Claims 6, 7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR ‘214 in view of CN ‘742, JP ‘864 and WO 01/3458 A1.
KR ‘214 in view of CN ‘742 and JP ‘864 is applied as discussed above. However, KR ‘214 teaches recovering aluminum as a hydroxide (page 4), but KR ‘214 in view of CN ‘742 and JP ‘864 does not teach recovering metallic material as in Claims 6, 7, 9, and 10.
WO 01/34858 A1 (WO ‘858) teaches producing metals including aluminum from metal compounds such as hydroxides (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the process of WO ‘858 to recover metallic aluminum from the aluminum hydroxide taught in KR ‘214 in view of CN ‘742 and JP ‘864, since WO ‘858 teaches a high-efficiency cracking process (page 3, lines 16 and 17).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR ‘214 in view of CN ‘742, JP ‘864, CN ‘823, and WO ‘858.
KR ‘214 in view of CN’ 742, JP ‘864 and CN ‘823 is applied as discussed above. However, KR ‘214 teaches recovering aluminum as a hydroxide (page 4), but KR ‘214 in view of CN ‘742, JP ‘864 and CN ‘823 does not teach recovering metallic material as claimed.
WO ‘858 is applied as discussed above. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the process of WO ‘858 to recover metallic aluminum from the aluminum hydroxide taught in KR ‘214 in view of CN ‘742, JP ‘864 and CN ‘823, since WO ‘858 teaches a high-efficiency cracking process (page 3, lines 16 and 17).
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (2019/0330712 A1).
Wang teaches separating by solvent extraction ternary lithium batteries [0005] using a diluent that includes C6-C20 alkanes and kerosene [0016] and cyclohexane [0059]. The acid extractant includes Cyanex 272 [0031], which is the commercial product including bis(2,4,4-trimethylpentyl) phosphinic acid. A saponification agent such as NaOH may be added to the extractant [0037, 0044]. A modifier such as n-octanol may also be added to the extractant [0038]. Sulfuric acid is prepared as a stripping solution to produce a stripping oil phase and stripping aqueous phase [0041]. The extractant and diluent are mixed by a certain ratio [0044]. FIG. 10 shows the oil-aqueous ratio versus the extraction rate and teaches the claimed ratio of 0.01-0.4 extraction agent to 1 diluent. Wang teaches 1:4 to 4:1 oil-aqueous, or (0.25-1), which overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the prior art discloses the utility of the composition over the entire disclosed range. See MPEP § 2144.05. The body of the claim does not recite recovering aluminum. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states the intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is no significance to claim construction. See MPEP § 2111.02.
Regarding Claim 2, the saponifying agent is NaOH. [0037].
Regarding Claim 5, the stripping solution, or back-extraction agent, is sulfuric acid [0046].
Claims 6, 7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang.
Regarding Claims 6, 7, and 10, Wang teaches separating metals invention as discussed. above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kang et al in Hydrometallurgy teaches recovering cobalt sulfate from spent lithium ion batteries, which reads on ternary batteries (page 168), by leaching and solvent extraction. The extractant is bis(2,4,4-trimethylpentyl) phosphinic acid (Cyanex 272) with kerosene. The Cyanex 272 was saponified to 50% Na-Cyanex 272 of different composition in the range of 25-75% with NaOH. The leachate solution was purified of Al. The solution was stripped with sulfuric acid (page 169). The aqueous/oil ratio was ½, or 0.5:1 oil/aqueous.
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 Tima M. McGuthry-Banks whose telephone number is (571)272-2744. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 am to 4:00 pm.
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 D. 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.
Tima M. McGuthry-Banks
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1733
/TIMA M. MCGUTHRY-BANKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733