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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 7-19 in the reply filed on 02/18/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-6 and 20-28 are withdrawn. Claims 7-19 and newly added 29-37 are examined herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claim(s) 7-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Quix et al (CA 3007755).
Regarding claim 7, Quix teaches a slag composition having a high lithium content (abstract). The process of smelting lithium-bearing batteries is taught to produce a metal-bearing alloy and a Li2O bearing metallurgical slag. Spent rechargeable lithium ion batteries are fed to a furnace, oxygen containing gas is supplied which leads to the formation of a metal containing alloy and a lithium concentrated slag. The process is autogenous, which is considered to meet the heating being autothermal. Tapping is performed to separate the slag and the metal alloy. Tapping is considered to meet the separating step, as instantly claimed (pg 5, line 1- pg 6, table 2).
Regarding claim 8, O2 -is supplied to provide heat and a bath temperature between 1400-1700°C is achieved in order to allow for easy tapping and handling (pg 5, lines 15-27).
Regarding claim 9, O2 -is supplied to provide heat and a bath temperature between 1400-1700°C is achieved in order to allow for easy tapping and handling (pg 5, lines 15-27).
Regarding claim 10, Quix teaches in Tables 1 and 2 that Li and Al being present in the input battery are oxidized (pg 6, Table 1 and Table 2).
Regarding claim 11, Quix teaches in Tables 1 and 2 that Li and Al are deported to the slag (pg 6, Table 1 and Table 2).
Regarding claim 12, Quix teaches in Tables 1 and 2 that materials other than Al and Li are reduced (pg 6, Table 1 and Table 2).
Regarding claim 13, Quix teaches in Tables 1 and 2 that materials other than Al and Li are reduced and are sent to the metal containing alloy (pg 6, Table 1 and Table 2).
Regarding claim 14, Quix teaches SiO2 in the form of sand to be added (pg 5, lines 13-20).
Regarding claim 15, Quix teaches SiO2 in the form of sand to be added simultaneously with the spent rechargeable lithium ion battery to the furnace (pg 5, lines 13-20).
Regarding claim 16, Quix teaches to maintain slag and the alloy sufficiently fluid for easy tapping and handling (pg 5, lines 20-27). The slag is considered to be the instantly claimed solid lithium concentrate phase and the tapping is considered to meet the “decanted” limitation insofar as the solid and fluid are separated.
Regarding claim 17, Quix does not teach a fluidizer to be added.
Regarding claim 18, Quix teaches the process to be autogenous with no additional fuel needed (pg 5, lines 20-27). There is no teaching of external heat being added.
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.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quix et al (CA3007755) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Reboucas et al (Characterization of Li2O-Al2O3-SiO2 glass-ceramics produced from a Brazilian Spodumene Concentrate; Ceramica 65; 2019; pgs 366-377).
Regarding claim 19, Quick teaches the method as discussed above.
Quix does note explicitly teach the slag composition, as claimed.
Reboucas teaches a lithium concentrate comprising 13.6 wt% Li2O; 47.7 wt% SiO2; and 29.5 wt% Al2O3 (pg 372, Table III, LAS-e experiment) which allows for high thermal shock resistance (pg 367, right column, 2nd paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to utilize the method of Quix to produce a slag composition as in Reboucas, in order to produce a concentrate with high thermal shock resistance.
Claim(s) 29-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quix et al (CA3007755) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Riabtsev et al (WO 2018/190754).
Regarding claim 29, Quix teaches the process, as discussed above.
Quix does note explicitly teach extracting lithium from the lithium slag.
Riabtsev teaches obtaining technical grade lithium from the secondary lithium concentrate (pg 10, paragraphs 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to extract lithium from the slag of Quix in order to obtain technical grade lithium as taught by Riabtsev.
Regarding claim 30, Quix and Riabtsev are considered to teach the same method as claimed.
Neither explicitly teaches reducing the size of the lithium concentrate.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to reduce the size of the slag of Quix via known mechanical means, such as ball milling, as such is an extremely well known way of affecting size and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have considered this obvious to try without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 31, Riabtsev teaches the lithium composite to be washed with water and acidified, waste liquid is added to obtain a pH pf 6-7, and filtering to obtain a Li concentrate and Li salt (pg 10, first full paragraph to pg 11, last line).
Regarding claim 32, Quix and Riabtsev are considered to teach the same method as claimed.
Neither explicitly teaches reducing the size of the lithium concentrate.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to reduce the size of the slag of Quix via known mechanical means, such as ball milling to any desired size, such as 50-150µm, as such is an extremely well known way of affecting size and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have considered this obvious to try without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 33, Riabtsev teaches 93% of the Li is recovered (pg 21, Table 2).
Regarding claim 34, Riabtsev teaches using HCl (pg 10, first full paragraph to pg 11, last line).
Regarding claim 35, Riabtsev teaches acidifying using HCl before affecting the pH via waste water to a pH of 6-7.
Riabtsev does not explicitly teach the pH of the acidified solution.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to acidify to a pH of 2.5-5, as claimed, insofar as the claimed range is the majority of the acidic range of the pH scale so an ordinarily skilled artisan would have reasonably acidified the solution to such a range without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 36, Riabtsev teaches removing calcium and magnesium impurities (pg 17, 2nd full paragraph).
Regarding claim 37, Riabtsev teaches reacting the lithium concentrate with sodium carbonate and then the precipitated lithium carbonate is separated (pg 9).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH A SLIFKA whose telephone number is (571)270-5838. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5:30pm 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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/SARAH A. SLIFKA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759 May 1, 2026
Prosecution Insights