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 1-15 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “ii) removing copper and aluminum from the powder” in Line 3. It has not been established that the “powder comprising lithium iron phosphate battery waste” comprises copper or aluminum. This creates a literal lack of antecedent basis for “copper and aluminum” and renders the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction is required to introduce the presence of both copper and aluminum in “the powder.”
Claim 1 recites in Lines 7-8 “v) removing the remaining solution of step iv) by vacuum distillation to obtain a ferric nitrate crystal.” It is unclear from the claim what constitutes “the remaining solution,” whether this is the solution obtained in step iii), the solution added with carbonic acid in step iv), whether the lithium carbonate precipitate is present, or whether this recitation has some other meaning entirely. Appropriate correction is required to clearly set forth what constitutes “the remaining solution of step iv).”
Claim 3 recites “the aluminum is removed from the powder of step ii) by Sortinger Magnetic Separator” in Lines 1-2. It is unclear how aluminum, a non-magnetic element, may be removed by magnetic separation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 3 and 14 contain the trademark/trade name Sortinger Magnetic Separator. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a magnetic separator. The use of the trade name identifies a source of the separator and does the claims do not establish that a magnetic separator is used. Accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite. Appropriate correction is required to establish positive active method steps repeatable to persons of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention.
Claim 5 recites “an extraction rate of lithium and iron in the powder of step iii).” This recitation presents the following three issues: 1) It is unclear from the claim how lithium or iron can have extraction rates when there is no extraction step recited. 2) Further, while it is understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention lithium iron phosphate battery waste comprises lithium and iron, there is a literal lack of antecedent basis for the presence of “lithium and iron in the powder.” 3) It is unclear whether “lithium and iron” refer to lithium and iron individually or separately. Appropriate correction is required. Upon amendment, applicant is cautioned against the introduction of new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. Appropriate correction is required. Applicant is encouraged to point to the passage in the instant Specification which identifies support for each claim amendment.
Claim 8 recites “a lithium recycling rate of step iv)” without setting forth that recycling takes place in step iv). Further, the presence of lithium and nexus to either the solution in step iv) or the lithium carbonate precipitate is unclear. In other words, it is unclear whether lithium is ‘recycled’ from the solution in Claim 1 Line 5, the lithium carbonate precipitate in Claim 1 Lines 5-6, or from some other source entirely. There is a literal lack of antecedent basis for the source of elemental lithium and the nexus between the method step of recycling and lithium is unclear. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 recites “an iron recycling rate of step v)” without setting forth that recycling takes place in step v). Further, the presence of iron and nexus to either “the remaining solution of step step iv)” in step v), or the ferric nitrate crystal is unclear. In other words, it is unclear whether iron is ‘recycled’ from “the remaining solution” in Claim 1 Line 7, the ferric nitrate crystal in Claim 1 Line 8, or from some other source entirely. There is a literal lack of antecedent basis for the source of elemental iron and the nexus between the method step of recycling and iron is unclear. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 recites “wherein a distillate obtained in step v) is a nitric acid aqueous solution.” It is unclear what constitutes “a distillate obtained in step v).” Though vacuum distillation takes place in step v), there is a literal lack of antecedent basis for a “distillate.” Appropriate correction is required to clearly establish the formation of a distillate as well as establish a nexus between step v), its solutions, and products.
Claim 13 does not have a comma after the word “crushing,” rendering the listed group grammatically compacted and the claim indefinite. It is unclear for instance, whether “discharging, crushing and/or pulverizing” is a single step, three optional steps, or some other meaning entirely. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2, 6-7, and 9-10 are rejected for their dependency on a rejected claim.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-8, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL Duan et al. in view of Kochhar et al. US 20220152626 A1.
Regarding Claim 1, Notwithstanding the 112(b) rejections above, NPL Duan et al. teaches methods of recycling of lithium batteries, including lithium iron phosphate batteries, comprising providing a powder comprising lithium iron phosphate battery waste, removing copper and aluminum from the powder, dissolving the powder in a nitric acid to obtain a solution (Section 1), adding carbonic acid in the solution and separating a lithium carbonate precipitate (Section 3).
NPL Duan et al. does not expressly teach removing the remaining solution by vacuum distillation to obtain a ferric nitrate crystal.
However, Kochhar et al. ‘626 teaches isolating iron products and solid salt by-products from waste lithium-ion batteries comprising lithium iron phosphate cathode via vacuum distillation (Abstract), [0154].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to remove the remining solution formed by the steps of NPL Duan et al. in order to recover ferric nitrate crystal and increase the efficiency of the recycling process based on the teachings of Kochhar et al. ‘626 at (Abstract),[0154].
Regarding Claims 3 and 14, Notwithstanding the 112(b) rejections above, Kochhar et al. ‘626 expressly teaches recovering aluminum after recovering copper.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to recover aluminum after recovering copper in order to increase the efficiency of impurity aluminum removal in the method of NPL Duan et al. based on the teachings of Kochhar et al. ‘626 at [0008-0009].
Regarding Claim 4, NPL Duan et al. teaches optimum working conditions of an 80 °C leaching temperature, a 0.02 g/mL solid-to-liquid ratio (5 mL : g), and 2 M/L nitric acid, falling within the instantly claimed ranges of between 1 M and 10 M nitric acid concentration, between 1:1 and 5:1 liquid-solid ratio (mL : g), and between 15 °C and 90 °C dissolution temperature, meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
See MPEP 2144.05. In cases where claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 5, modified NPL Duan et al. teaches the limitations set forth above. NPL Duan et al. further teaches an extraction rate of over 99% for lithium at (Section 4.1), meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 6, modified NPL Duan et al. teaches the limitations set forth above. NPL Duan et al. further teaches reducing the lithium carbonate precipitate to lithium metal at (Section 4.1).
Regarding Claim 7, modified NPL Duan et al. teaches the limitations set forth above. NPL Duan et al. further teaches adding carbonic acid at a temperature of 80 °C , lying within the instantly claimed range of between 50 °C and 80 °C, meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
See MPEP 2144.05. In cases where claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 8, modified NPL Duan et al. teaches the limitations set forth above. NPL Duan et al. further teaches a recycling rate of 98.62% for lithium within precipitated lithium carbonate (Section 4), lying within the instantly claimed range of equal to or more than 94 wt%, meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
See MPEP 2144.05. In cases where claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 11, modified NPL Duan et al. teaches the limitations set forth above. Kochhar et al. ‘626 further teaches ferrous metal separation efficiency (meeting the limitation for an iron recycling rate) of greater than 95% [0328], overlapping the instantly claimed range of equal to or more than 99 wt%.
See MPEP 2144.05. In cases where claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 12, Notwithstanding the 112(b) rejections above, modified NPL Duan et al. teaches the limitations set forth above including providing a powder comprising lithium iron phosphate battery waste, removing copper and aluminum from the powder and dissolving the powder in a nitric acid to obtain a solution (Section 1). Modified with the step of vacuum distillation taught in Kochhar et al. ‘626 the distillate obtained by vacuum distillation of the solution comprising a nitric acid includes a nitric acid aqueous solution, meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 13, Notwithstanding the 112(b) rejections above, NPL Duan et al. teaches powder is obtained after discharging and/or crushing the lithium iron phosphate battery waste at (Section 2), meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL Duan et al. in view of Kochhar et al. US 20220152626 A1 as applied to Claims 1, 3-8, and 11-14 above, further in view of Chen et al. CN 110581323 A.
Regarding Claim 2, Neither NPL Duan et al. nor Kochhar et al. ‘626 expressly teach removing copper via gravity separation.
However, Chen et al. ‘323 teaches removing copper from waste lithium iron phosphate battery via gravity separation in order to reduce costs.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to remove copper from the waste material of modified NPL Duan et al. by the physical means of gravity separation in order to reduce production costs based on the teachings of Chen et al. ‘323 at [0035], (Abstract).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL Duan et al. in view of Kochhar et al. US 20220152626 A1 as applied to Claims 1, 3-8, and 11-14 above, further in view of Ishida et al. US 20200028180 A1.
Regarding Claim 9, Neither NPL Duan et al. nor Kochhar et al. ‘626 expressly teach reducing ferric nitrate crystal to iron metal.
However, Ishida et al. ‘180 teaches reducing ferric nitrate crystal product from lithium iron phosphate battery waste recycling to iron metal [0049].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to reduce the ferric nitrate crystal obtained in the product of modified NPL Duan et al. in order to increase the efficiency of the recycling process and obtain a useful iron metal product based on the teachings of Ishida et al. ‘180 at [0049].
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL Duan et al. in view of Kochhar et al. US 20220152626 A1 as applied to Claims 1, 3-8, and 11-14 above, further in view of Snydacker et al. US 20190256987 A1.
Regarding Claim 10, modified NPL Duan et al. teaches the limitations set forth above. As set forth above, Kochhar et al. ‘626 teaches isolating iron products and solid salt by-products from waste lithium-ion batteries comprising lithium iron phosphate cathode via vacuum distillation (Abstract), [0154]. Kochhar et al. ‘626 further teaches operating temperatures of approximately greater than or equal to 2 °C to less than 100 °C, overlapping the instantly claimed range of 50 °C to 90 °C [0104]. The numeric value of vacuum distillation is less than atmospheric pressure (760 torr), overlapping the instantly claimed range of a vacuum degree of a vacuum degree of -700 to -750 torr.
See MPEP 2144.05. In cases where claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Additionally and alternatively, Synydacker et al. ‘987 teaches precipitating metal products from waste lithium iron phosphate containing battery waste via vacuum distillation at temperatures of more than about 50 degrees Celsius to less than about 100 degrees Celsius and pressures below 1 atm (760 torr) [0222], overlapping the instantly claimed range of a vacuum degree of -700 to -750 torr and a temperature of 50 °C to 90 °C. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention would look to the art for specific temperatures and pressures suitable for vacuum distillation.
See MPEP 2144.05. In cases where claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Larouche, François, et al. "Progress and status of hydrometallurgical and direct recycling of Li-ion batteries and beyond." Materials 13.3 (2020): 801. teaches precipitating iron from spent lithium iron phosphate batteries.
US 20230411719 A1 teaches gravity separation of metals from lithium-ion secondary battery waste.
US 10103413 B2 teaches removing copper and aluminum from waste lithium-ion battery electrode material.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MORIAH S. SMOOT whose telephone number is (571)272-2634. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am - 5pm EDT.
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 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.
/Keith D. Hendricks/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/M.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights