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 in the reply filed on 24 April 2026 is acknowledged.
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 12-19 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.
As to claim 12, the claim recites the limitation “the electrochemical purifier”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As to claim 14, the term “about” in the claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Use of the term about renders indefinite the voltage and current density.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Metal Reclamation from Spent Lithium-Ion Battery Cathode Materials: Directional Conversion of Metals Based on Hydrogen Reduction” to Huang et al. (Huang) in view of US 2021/0347650 A1 to Sharma (Sharma).
As to claim 9, Huang teaches a system for recycling lithium ion batteries comprising a roaster for reductive roasting (hydrogen reduction) of a lithium ion battery black mass and producing a reduced black mass, an aqueous leaching (water leaching) and wet magnetic separator, each downstream from the roaster adapting for extracting a soluble lithium species (leachate) and enriching metallic Ni-Co from the reduced black mass (Abstract; Figure 2). However, Huang teaches that the end lithium product is lithium chloride and fails to further teach an electrochemical lithium ion separator downstream from the aqueous leaching and wet magnetic separator for purifying lithium hydroxide from the extracted lithium species.
However, Sharma teaches that lithium chloride can be utilized for the generation of the desirable products of battery grade lithium hydroxide via supplying the lithium chloride to an electrochemical lithium ion separator (electrolyser) (Paragraphs 0002-004, 0010, 0050, 0051, 0057, 0077 and 0078). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add an electrochemical lithium ion separator, downstream from the entirety of the process of Huang, for receiving the lithium chloride from Huang in order to generate a valuable product of battery grade lithium hydroxide as taught by Sharma.
Claims 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Huang and Sharma as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of US 2021/0324495 A1 to Rohde et al. (Rohde).
As to claim 10, the combination of Huang and Sharma teaches the apparatus of claim 9. Huang teaches that the lithium ion battery material is provided in a broken down powder form (Experimental Section); however, is silent as to the specific means for breaking down the battery material. However, Rohde also discusses the breaking down of lithium ion battery material for further processing and teaches that an effective means of starting breaking down the material comprises an industrial shredder (Paragraph 0032). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Huang with the addition of a shredder for shredding the battery material upstream of the recovery.
As to claim 11, the combination of Huang, Sharma and Rohde teaches the apparatus of claim 10. However, Huang teaches that the roaster is a horizontal roaster and fails to contemplate a rotary roaster (Experimental Section). However, Rohde also discusses hydrogen reductive roasting of spent lithium ion battery materials and teaches that a rotary roaster (kiln) is preferred in order to allow continuous operation (Paragraph 0073). Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the horizontal roaster of Huang with a rotary roaster in order to allow continuous operation as taught by Rohde.
As to claim 12, the combination of Huang, Sharma and Rohde teaches the apparatus of claim 11. Sharma further teaches that the electrochemical lithium separator includes a flow cell having an anode compartment, a cathode compartment, an ion exchange membrane separating the anode compartment form the cathode compartment, an anode in the anode compartment and a cathode in the cathode compartment (Paragraph 0077).
As to claim 13, the combination of Huang, Sharma and Rohde teaches the apparatus of claim 12. Sharma further teaches that the apparatus includes a voltage source adapted to supply a voltage potential across the anode and the cathode (Paragraph 0078).
As to claim 14, the combination of Huang, Sharma and Rohde teaches the apparatus of claim 13. The DC power source of Sharma is capable of operating to apply any number of voltage and current densities to the electrolyser (MPEP 2114). Sharma further specifically contemplating a current density of 460 mA/cm2 (4.6 kA/m2) (Paragraphs 0077 and 0078).
As to claims 15 and 16, the combination of Huang, Sharma and Rohde teaches the apparatus of claim 14. Sharma further teaches that the anode is a titanium anode, a dimensionally stable anode (Paragraph 0077).
As to claim 17, the combination of Huang, Sharma and Rohde teaches the apparatus of claim 16. Sharma further teaches that the cathode is a nickel cathode (Paragraph 0077).
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Huang, Sharma and Rohde as applied to claims 12 and 14 above, and further in view of US 2018/0264399 A1 to Deng et al. (Deng).
As to claims 18 and 19, the combination of Huang, Sharma and Rohde teaches the apparatus of claims 12 and 14. Sharma further teaches that after generation of the valuable battery grade lithium hydroxide another valuable lithium grade product of lithium carbonate can be produced by contacting the purified lithium hydroxide form the electrolyzer with carbon dioxide (Paragraph 0053). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to further modify the apparatus of the combination with a device for contacting the lithium hydroxide with carbon dioxide in order to generate an additional valuable battery grade product of lithium carbonate as taught by Sharma.
However, Sharma fails to specifically teach that this contacting device is a membrane contactor. However, Deng also teaches contacting carbon dioxide with a liquid product for the generation of a new product and teaches that by using a membrane contactor an impure carbon dioxide source stream could be utilized (Paragraphs 0013-0018). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize a membrane contactor for the device of the combination in order to allow the utilization of an impure carbon dioxide source stream as taught by Deng.
Claim 20 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Huang and Sharma as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Deng.
As to claim 20, the combination of Huang and Sharma teaches the apparatus of claim 9. Huang further teaches that the electrochemical lithium ion separator includes a flow cell (Paragraph 0077). Sharma further teaches that after generation of the valuable battery grade lithium hydroxide another valuable lithium grade product of lithium carbonate can be produced by contacting the purified lithium hydroxide form the electrolyzer with carbon dioxide (Paragraph 0053). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to further modify the apparatus of the combination with a device for contacting the lithium hydroxide with carbon dioxide in order to generate an additional valuable battery grade product of lithium carbonate as taught by Sharma.
However, Sharma fails to specifically teach that this contacting device is a membrane contactor. However, Deng also teaches contacting carbon dioxide with a liquid product for the generation of a new product and teaches that by using a membrane contactor an impure carbon dioxide source stream could be utilized (Paragraphs 0013-0018). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize a membrane contactor for the device of the combination in order to allow the utilization of an impure carbon dioxide source stream as taught by Deng.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CIEL P Contreras whose telephone number is (571)270-7946. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM to 4 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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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.
/CIEL P CONTRERAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights