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 § 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.
Claims 1-16 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, Claim 1 recites “the multiphase admixture to produce a graphite layer comprising graphite and hydrophobic solvent, a mixed metal layer comprising metals and water, a hydrophobic solvent layer, and an aqueous layer comprising dissolved lithium”. This is indefinite because it is unclear how many layers are required by Claim 1. Claim 1 appears to require 4 distinct layers however the mixed metal layer requires water and the lithium containing layer is aqueous, meaning water is solvent. Similarly the graphite containing layer and hydrophobic solvent layer are described as distinct layers despite the graphite layer requiring a hydrophobic solvent. For the purpose of this Office Action it is understood that the invention comprises only 2 layers, a hydrophobic layer and an aqueous layer.
Claims 2-13 are dependent on Claim 1 and are rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding Claim 2, Claim 2 recites “various esters” as one element of a Markush group. The phrase “various esters” is indefinite because neither the Claim nor the Specification clarifies which esters are compatible with the method and which esters are not. For the purpose of this Office Action the phrase is given the broadest reasonable interpretation of “esters”. MPEP 2111.03.
Regarding Claim 14, Claim 14 recites removing water in step b “evaporating the water with dissolved polar lithium to recover lithium” and water is present in step d “gravity phase separation of the multiphase admixture to produce a graphite layer comprising graphite and hydrophobic solvent, a mixed metal layer comprising mixed metals and water, a hydrophobic solvent layer, and an aqueous layer”. It is noted that step c does not include adding back in any water. It is unclear how water can be removed in step b but still present in step d. Because lithium is recovered in step b instead of a concentrated lithium solution it is assumed that water is added in step c. Furthermore step c recites creating a multiphase admixture is optional “optionally an acid to produce a multiphase admixture”, however the multiphase admixture is a required element of step d. It is unclear how step d could be performed if an admixture was not formed in step c.
Claims 15 and 16 depend on Claim 14 and are rejected for similar reasons.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6, and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 113322380 A Chen et al. Claim 1 requires “A method of processing black mass from lithium-ion batteries, the method comprising: a) mixing black mass with a multiphase liquid blend of nonpolar hydrophobic solvent and water, to produce a multiphase admixture, wherein the black mass is derived from lithium-ion battery recycling and comprises lithium, graphite, and mixed metals, and wherein at least a portion of the lithium in the black mass is soluble in the water;”. Chen et al. discloses a method of recycling lithium ion batteries “The present application relates to the technical field of resource recycling, and more specifically, to a method for recycling and resource-processing power lithium batteries.” [0003], and discloses a multiphase liquid blend “To this end, hydrochloric acid is added … a certain amount of ether is added … lithium chloride is stably present in the aqueous phase, while organic carbonate and ether are present in the organic phase.” [n0009]. However Chen et al. differs from Claim 1 in that the black mass has been separated prior to the introduction of the ether which forms a multiphase liquid.
Claim 1 further requires “b) gravity phase separation of the multiphase admixture to produce a graphite layer comprising graphite and hydrophobic solvent, a mixed metal layer comprising metals and water, a hydrophobic solvent layer, and an aqueous layer comprising dissolved lithium;”. Chen et al. discloses “Extraction and separation are performed to obtain a lithium-containing solution and an organic carbonate solvent containing ether, respectively.” [n0009]. Graphite is optionally removed in a prior step (“Optionally, in the positive electrode sheet Li recovery step, the lithium recovery treatment operation is: dissolving the positive electrode sheet after removing the binder in dilute nitric acid, and performing solid-liquid separation to obtain a filtrate and a filter residue containing graphite or carbon black” [0025]) which implies that it can also not be removed in this step, and therefore present in the multiphase liquid.
Claim 1 further requires “c) recovering the dissolved lithium from the aqueous layer;”. Chen et al. discloses “Sodium carbonate is added to the Li-containing solution and reacted at 75-80 °C to obtain lithium carbonate precipitate, thereby realizing Li recovery from the electrolyte.” [n0007].
Claim 1 further requires “d) recovering the graphite from the graphite layer;”. Chen et al. discloses “performing solid-liquid separation to obtain a filtrate and a filter residue containing graphite or carbon black” [n0017].
Claim 1 further requires “e) recovering mixed metals from the mixed metal layer”. Chen et al. discloses “In addition, the recovery of metal elements in the positive electrode provided in the present application only requires the addition of strong acid, sodium hydroxide and the introduction of carbon dioxide to collect aluminum hydroxide and iron hydroxide precipitates respectively, thereby realizing the recovery of aluminum and iron” [n0021].
Regarding the features not taught by Chen et al., namely contacting the solid battery waste with the multiphase liquid it is understood that the method of Chen et al. and the method of the instant application realize battery recycling through the same steps in a different order. Chen et al. performs a liquid-solid separation, then forms a multiphase liquid, and then performs liquid-liquid separation; whereas the present application forms a multiphase liquid, then performs liquid-liquid separation, then performs liquid-solid separation. According to MPEP 2144.04.IV “selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results”. In other words because the results are the same (graphite, lithium, and mixed metals are separately recovered from batteries) it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have performed the separation in any order.
Claim 2 requires “the nonpolar hydrophobic solvent is selected from the group consisting of butanol, pentanol, hexanol, hexane, heptane, toluene, carbon tetrachloride, chloroform, methylene chloride, ethyl ether, vegetable oils, various esters, terpenes, and combinations thereof.”. Chen et al. discloses diethyl ether “Hydrochloric acid is added to the mixed solution until the pH value of the mixed solution is 6-7, and then diethyl ether is added.” [n0007].
Claim 4 requires “the multiphase liquid blend of nonpolar hydrophobic solvent and water further comprises an acid.”. Chen et al. discloses hydrochloric acid “Hydrochloric acid is added to the mixed solution until the pH value of the mixed solution is 6-7, and then diethyl ether is added.” [n0007].
Claim 6 requires “the acid comprises acids that are miscible in water.”. Chen et al. discloses hydrochloric acid (see Claim 4), which is understood to be miscible in water.
Claim 12 requires “Mixed metals produced by the method of claim 1.”. Chen et al. discloses “In addition, the recovery of metal elements in the positive electrode provided in the present application only requires the addition of strong acid, sodium hydroxide and the introduction of carbon dioxide to collect aluminum hydroxide and iron hydroxide precipitates respectively, thereby realizing the recovery of aluminum and iron” [n0021].
Claim 13 requires “Graphite produced by the method of claim 1.”. Chen et al. discloses “performing solid-liquid separation to obtain a filtrate and a filter residue containing graphite or carbon black” [n0017].
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 113322380 A Chen et al. as illustrated by https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/US/en/product/sigald/455180?srsltid=AfmBOor0nH5gpOmBmrt_izahLXZqFTSxbZIFWJv4zVyT4N4QLju-vjQp (Hereinafter “Sigma”) to show a state of fact (MPEP 2124). Claim 5 requires “the acid comprises acids that are miscible in the nonpolar hydrophobic solvent.”. Chen et al. discloses hydrochloric acid and diethyl ether (see Claim 4). It is understood that these are miscible in each other as it is possible to sell them together as one material, as evidenced by Sigma.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA MAXWELL SPEER whose telephone number is (703)756-5471. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm 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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3591. 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.
/JOSHUA MAXWELL SPEER/
Examiner
Art Unit 1736
/DANIEL BERNS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736