DETAILED ACTION
Application 18/165176, “PROCESSING THERMALLY PRETREATED AND UNTREATED BATTERIES AND THEIR PRODUCTION REJECTS”, was filed with the USPTO on 2/6/23 and claims priority from a foreign application filed on 2/8/22.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action on the merits is in response to communication filed on 9/7/23.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a decomposing device for mechanically decomposing…” at claim 1;
“a separating unit for separating…” at claim 1;
“fiber compactor unit configured for compacting…” at claim 1;
“grain size separating unit configured for separating…” at claim 13;
“metal separating unit configured for separating…” at claim 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims1-20 are is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 20, it is what is meant by “compacting the lightweight portion under a separation of a further active material”. More specifically, it is unclear whether the adverb “under” is intended to be a spatial orientation preposition, such that the compactor is somehow under a means for separation, or if “under” is intended to imply a controlling relationship, such as “under” the influence of. In either case, it is unclear how the fiber compactor’s compacting is modified by the “under a separation” language.
Regarding claims 2-5, 10, 12-13, 15 and 18-20 include the recitation “in particular”. It is unclear if the language is intended to make the following limitation optional, and if not, what purpose the recitation “in particular” serves defining the claim.
Regarding claim 12, the phrase “conveys it downwards” is unclear because the claim previously mentions various materials which could correspond to “it”.
Regarding claim 18, “the suction unit” lacks proper antecedent basis. For the purposed of the art rejection, the first mention of “the suction unit”, is interpreted to mean “a suction unit”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 9 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Alavi (USP 5377920).
Regarding claims 1 and 20, Alavi teaches a system (Fig. 1), and corresponding method, for processing battery waste (abstract, c3:20-24), the system comprising a decomposing device (item 1 is a rotating shredder, while item 2 is a grinding shredder) for mechanically decomposing the battery waste to a, in particular strip-shaped or flake-shaped, lightweight portion and a heavyweight portion (“parallel cutting knives” and/or “grinding” to “small pieces” at c3:20-26 produces strip or flake shaped material; see also “chips” at c3:50; a lightweight and heavyweight portion are produced as described in c3:48-55 and Fig. 1 at “L” and “H”), wherein the decomposing device comprises an outlet for commonly discharging the lightweight portion and the heavyweight portion (item 2 has an outlet leading to item 4; item 4 has separate outlets that lead to items 6 and 5 for the light and heavy portions, respectively), a separating unit for separating the lightweight portion from the heavyweight portion (item 4 may be an air separator), wherein the separating unit is coupled with the decomposing device for receiving the lightweight portion and the heavyweight portion (see Fig. 1), and a fiber compactor unit (e.g. items 6, 6a, 7, and or 7a), wherein the fiber compactor unit is coupled with the separating unit for receiving the lightweight portion (see Fig. 1), wherein the fiber compactor unit is configured for compacting the lightweight portion under a separation of a further active material (the collection of lightweight materials such as on a drum 6, screen 7 or in a collection device which stores the PPW, P or S appears to read on the limitation, for example material is compacted as it accumulates on a screen 7).
As to claim 20, the recited method steps are taught or suggested by the same citations as given for the apparatus claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Alavi remains as applied to claim 1. Alavi further teaches wherein the mechanical decomposing device forms an impact reactor, in particular with a shredder rotor (“cutting rotor” c3:32-33”).
Regarding claim 6, Alavi remains as applied to claim 1. Alavi further teaches (Fig. 1) wherein the separating unit (item 4) is arranged downstream of the outlet (outlet of items 1 and/or 2).
Regarding claim 8-9, Alavi remains as applied to claim 1. Alavi further teaches wherein the separating unit is a flow classification which comprises a blower for generating an air flow, wherein the blower is controllable such that, by the air flow, the lightweight portion is separatable from the heavyweight portion, and the lightweight portion is conveyable to the fiber compactor unit (see Fig. 1 where item 4 separates the heavyweight portion from the lightweight portion as required; c3:47-66 clarify that the separating unit 4 utilizes an “air current” for the separation, thus the claimed “blower for generating an air flow” is implicitly taught or at least obvious to include in order to generate the air current).
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 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 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Alavi (USP 5377920) and Fischer (USP 3561684).
Regarding claim 3, Alavi remains as applied to claim 2. Alavi does not appear to teach wherein the decomposing device comprises an upper inlet for filling in the battery waste, wherein the battery waste is conveyable to the inlet, in particular by an ascending conveyor.
In the battery art, Fischer teaches a system (see Figure) wherein a decomposing device (item 12) comprises an upper inlet for filling in the battery waste, wherein the battery waste is conveyable to the inlet, in particular by an ascending conveyor, which allows the battery waste to “drop” into the decomposing device (Figure; c4:7-13).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to configure the decomposing device to comprise an upper inlet for filling in the battery waste, wherein the battery waste is conveyable to the inlet, in particular by an ascending conveyor, so that the battery waste can be continuously and conveniently supplied to the decomposing device by dropping therein, as taught by Fischer.
Claims 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Alavi (USP 5377920) and Ando (US 2022/0173447).
Regarding claim 4-5, Alavi remains as applied to claim 1. Alavi does not appear to teach wherein the wherein the outlet of the decomposing device is closable, in particular by a controllable flap, such that the outlet is selectively opened for conveying the decomposed battery waste out of the decomposing device, wherein the flap is configured for sequentially opening and for discharging the lightweight portion and the heavyweight portion through the outlet for a predetermined discharging time, wherein the discharging time is 0.25 min to 5 min, in particular 2 min.
In the battery art, Ando teaches a crusher (item 8) may be provided with a double flap damper (item 9) on the outlet thereof to facilitate supply to a sorter (item 10).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to configure the decomposing device of Alavi to include a double flap damper on the outlet thereof, as taught by Ando, in order to control the flow of the crushed/decomposed material as it exits the decomposing device, which is the normal function of a double flap damper. Additionally, it is noted that automating a manual activity has been held to be prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.04 III); therefore, the requirement that the flap is configured to be controllable and to sequentially open and discharge material at the claimed times is found to be obvious because the skilled artisan would couple a control unit to the system, including the double flap damper, in order to automate the operation of the system.
Claims 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Alavi (USP 5377920) and Oh (US 2023/0231214).
Regarding claim 7, Alavi remains as applied to claim 1. Alavi does not explicitly teach wherein the wherein the separating unit comprises a sieve for separating the lightweight portion from the heavyweight portion
However, Alvi does teach using an “air separator” for separating heavy and light materials (c3:52-53) and further teaches the system comprising various sieves and filters used for separation by size such as at Fig. 1 items 3, 7, 16 and 17 and Fig. 2 item 21.
Moreover, in the battery art, Oh teaches that a cyclone separation may be used to separate particles by mass, and that such a device may utilize both centrifugal force and a screen to facilitate separation by size (paragraph [0051]).
Thus, the claimed invention, wherein the separating unit comprises a sieve for separating the lightweight portion from the heavyweight portion, would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention because i) the “separating unit” could be more broadly interpreted to include one or more of the screens/filters taught by Alavi, since a cyclone type air separator may itself include a sieve for size control as taught by Oh.
Claims 10, 15-16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Alavi (USP 5377920) and Bielagus (USP 6283300).
Regarding claim 10, 15 and 16, Alavi remains as applied to claims 1 or 9. Alavi teaches separating a heavyweight material from a lightweight material using, as a separating unit, an air separator (c3:53-55), but does appear to detail the structure of the air separator.
In the air separator art, Bielagus teaches an air separator configured to separate a feed material based on the physical attributes, such as density of its constituents (c1:11-20). Bielagus further teaches that the air separator may comprise a downpipe, in which the lightweight portion and the heavyweight portion are conveyable along a conveying direction in a loose manner, in particular vertically falling, wherein the blower guides the air flow substantially perpendicular to the conveying direction, such that the lightweight portion is separatable from the heavyweight portion by the air flow (see Fig. 1; c3:66-c4:28). Bielagus further teaches that these elements are conventional for an air density separator (c4:36-52).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to configure the air separator of Alavi to include the structure recited in claim 10, since this is conventional structure of an air separator which conveys a mixed density material into a downpipe, and utilizes a circumferential vortex of blown air to separate the lightweight portion from the heavyweight portion. As to claims 15 and 16, Bielagus teaches the separating unit including the claimed structure such as the suction unit, separating system, separating unit, air classifier system, cyclone separator, as described above, and illustrated in Bielagus Fig. 1 (see also rejection of claim 12 below). It is noted that the suction is first implemented in the chamber 24, which is an air classifier which separates heavy materials from light materials, and the cyclone separator 56 further separates the light material from a further active material, the light material being supplied to a fiber compactor in the combined embodiment. Thus, this structure is obvious to include in the Alavi system for the same benefit of facilitating the separation required by Alavi’s separating unit, the structure of which is not described in detail by Alavi.
Regarding claim 19, Alavi remains as applied to claim 1. Alavi does not appear to teach wherein the system further comprises at least one conveyor arranged between the outlet of the decomposing unit and the separating unit for transporting the lightweight portion and the heavyweight portion in the separating unit.
In the air separator art, Bielagus teaches a system (Fig. 1) comprising a screw conveyor (item 30) arranged between a mixed material feed unit and the separating unit for mixed material feed to the separating unit.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to include a conveyor, such as a screw conveyor, between the outlet of the decomposing unit and the separating unit for transporting the lightweight portion and the heavyweight portion in the separating unit of Alavi for the benefit of facilitating the feeding of the material to the separation unit as taught by Bielagus.
Claims 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Alavi (USP 5377920) and Turk (USP 6276619).
Regarding claim 11, Alavi remains as applied to claims 9. Alavi teaches a system including an air separator and perforated plate [e.g. a screen] for collection of separated lightweight materials as a fiber compaction unit (see rejection of claim 1), but does not appear to teach wherein the fiber compactor unit comprises a perforated plate, on which the lightweight portion is placeable, wherein an air flow from the separating unit transports the lightweight portion in the fiber compactor unit, wherein the air flow is directed such that the air flow passes the perforated plate and pushes the lightweight portion against the perforated plate and blows a further active material portion through the perforated plate, wherein the fiber compactor unit comprises a stripping unit for stripping off the lightweight portion from the perforated plate.
In the recycling art, Turk teaches a system wherein the fiber compactor unit comprises a perforated plate, on which the lightweight portion is placeable, wherein an air flow from the separating unit transports the lightweight portion in the fiber compactor unit, wherein the air flow is directed such that the air flow passes the perforated plate and pushes the lightweight portion against the perforated plate and blows a further active material portion through the perforated plate, wherein the fiber compactor unit comprises a stripping unit for stripping off the lightweight portion from the perforated plate (c5:8-25 describes a system wherein an air stream exciting an air separator impinges on a filter, thereby depositing/compacting the filtered materials, and further teaches means for removing and collecting the accumulated material, readable on the claimed stripping unit).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to configure the system of Alavi to include the structure recited in claim 11, since the airflow form the air separator may be used to facilitate compaction of the separated material on the screen while the deposited material must be periodically removed and/or collected from the screen, as taught by Turk, in order to prevent the screen from becoming too clogged to properly function.
Claims 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Alavi (USP 5377920), Bielagus (USP 6283300) and Philipson (US 2002/0184816).
Regarding claim 12, Alavi remains as applied to claims 1. Alavi teaches a system which separates battery waste into a heavy weight portion and a lightweight portion using an air separator, but does not appear to teach the system including a fiber compactor unit which comprises a cyclone unit and a pressing device, each having the structure recited in the claim.
In the air separator art, Bielagus teaches an air separator configured to separate a feed material based on the physical attributes, such as density of its constituents (c1:11-20). Bielagus further teaches that the air separator may comprise a first separating chamber (item 24) which separates heavy and light materials, and a second cyclone unit with a swirl pot which circulates air (item 56) receiving the separated airflow including the light materials and any remaining active materials (see Fig. 1). Bielagus further teaches that the cyclone 56 separates the lighter fraction of its input, conveys the lighter fraction downward as an output, and reinjects the remaining input to the first separating chamber 24 via a plenum 64 (c5:46-52). Bielagus appears to dump the lightweight portion onto a floor as shown in Figure 1.
In the recycling art, Philipson teaches that conventional waste may include batteries among other things (paragraph [0004]). Philipson further teaches processing waste into heavier shredded materials and lighter particles in the form of fluff (paragraphs [0025-0028]), compacting fluff into a pellet (paragraph [0029]), and using the pellet as a combustible product (abstract, paragraph [0001]). It would have been obvious to use a briquette press to form such a pellet since the pellet is formed by compacting the fluff into a pellet.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to configure the system of Alavi to include the structure recited in claim 12, i.e. a fiber compactor unit which includes a cyclone unit with a swirl pot as claimed, and a pressing device, since Philipson teaches the recited structure associated with cyclone unit configured to perform the lightweight/heavyweight separation, and Philipson teaches forming the lightweight material into a brick for the benefit of making a useful product from the lightweight recycled materials.
Claims 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Alavi (USP 5377920), Billy (US 2023/0223610) and Cai (US 2023/0246294).
Regarding claim 13-14, Alavi remains as applied to claims 1. Alavi teaches a system which includes a separating unit that separates battery waste into a heavy weight portion comprising metals and a lightweight portion using an air separator, but does not appear to teach the system including, coupled to the separating unit, a grain size separating unit which separates metal portion from active material portion, or a metal separating unit which separates the metal portion.
In the battery art, Billy teaches a system for recycling waste battery, which comprises a grain size separating unit which separates metal portion from active material portion for the benefit of increasing the number and amount of recovered products (paragraph [0010]).
In the battery art, Cai teaches a system for recycling waste battery, which comprises a metal separating unit which separates a metal portion, for example into copper and aluminum for the benefit of collecting the valuable metals (see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to configure the system of Alavi to couple the separating unit to a grain size separating unit for separating metal and active material portions and a metal separating unit for separating metal portions for the benefit of increasing the number and amount of recovered products as taught by Billy and/or Cai.
Claims 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Alavi (USP 5377920) and Sturges (US 2020/0243922).
Regarding claim 17, Alavi remains as applied to claim 1. Alavi does not appear to teach wherein the system further comprises a housing, in which at least the decomposing device, the separating unit and the fiber compactor unit are arranged and are sealed from the environment.
In the battery art, Sturges teaches that the multiple components of a battery recycling system may be contained in a sealed enclosure (paragraphs [0003-0004]) because various battery components are known to be reactive with humid air (paragraph [0022]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to configure system of Alavi to include a housing, in which at least the decomposing device, the separating unit and the fiber compactor unit are arranged and are sealed from the environment, for the benefit of protecting the battery components form undesirable reactions as taught by Sturges.
As to claim 18, Alavi further teaches the system including a suction unit and an air filter, configured such that exhaust vented to the atmosphere has reduced impurities (c3:55-63, where the cyclone 15 provides suction and is coupled with a filter 16/17, such that the exhaust is free of smell, which indicates impurities). Thus, in the Alavi-Sturges combined embodiment, it is obvious to provide a suction opening on the housing, coupled with the suction unit and air filter, so that cleaner gas can be emitted from the sealed environment within the housing.
Relevant or Related Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, though not necessarily pertinent to applicant’s invention as claimed.
Kaneko (USP 5478664) system for recovering material from battery utilizing sieves and gravity separation means;
Ando (US 2022/0140412) system for of recycling batteries with improved efficiency;
Ku (US 2022/0401963) system for processing battery waste comprising gaseous separator for separating battery materials;
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMIAH R SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7005. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9 AM-5 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, Tiffany Legette-Thompson can be reached on (571)270-7078. 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.
/JEREMIAH R SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723