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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 1, lines 15-18 of Remarks, filed July 23rd, 2026, with respect to claim 17 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Due to claim amendments, the objection of April 23rd, 2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 1, lines 19-26 of Remarks, filed July 23rd, 2026, with respect to claim 8 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Due to claim amendments, the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/2nd Paragraph has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 2, lines 1-29 of Remarks, filed July 23rd, 2026, with respect to claims 1-2, 7-8, 10, 12, 15, and 18-19 have been fully considered and are persuasive to the extent that amendments to claim 1 overcome the rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). Correspondingly, Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 9, 13-14, and 17 on Page 3, line 1 – Page 4, line 5 are convincing to the extent that the amended base claim is not anticipated by Fraser. Additionally, Applicant’s arguments on Page 4, lines 6-21 with respect to claim 21 are convincing to the extent that amendments to the claim overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Applicant argues on Page 2, lines 15-18 of Remarks that, in Fraser, “The amounts of the salts do not change by concentrating the solution. Only the concentration changes.” Since the limitation in question has been removed from the amended claim, this argument is moot.
Due to claim amendments, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 103 dated April 23rd, 2026 have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made in view of the prior art over the amended claims and in view of issues of indefiniteness introduced by the amendments.
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 7-9 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 7 recites the limitation "the amounts" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 8-9 are indefinite due to their dependence on the indefinite claim 7 and because they do not cure the indefiniteness of “the amounts” as recited therein.
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.
Claims 1-2, 7-8, 10, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang (U.S. 2021/0391606 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches a method for producing a cathode material precursor (Wang, Fig. 5, [0036]-[0046], [0095]) comprising:
leaching a black mass from a recycled lithium-ion battery stream (Wang, [0037], sieved cathode powder) with a leaching agent (Wang, [0037], sulfuric acid and hydrogen peroxide) to obtain an aqueous acidic leach solution of metal salts comprising a nickel salt, a cobalt salt, a manganese salt, a lithium salt, and a plurality of impurity salts (Wang, [0038], Cu, Fe, and Al impurities),
filtering the aqueous acidic leach solution to remove insoluble materials (Wang, [0037]),
reducing amounts of the plurality of impurity salts in the filtered aqueous acidic leach solution by a combination of electrodeposition (Wang, [0095], electrodeposition of copper) and treating the filtered aqueous acidic leach solution with an aqueous base and an oxygen-containing gas and removing insoluble materials (Wang, [0038]-[0039], NaOH solution is added; Being exposed to the atmosphere would engender treatment in an oxygen-containing gas.),
adjusting a ratio of the metal salts in the impurity reduced aqueous acidic leach solution (Wang, [0040]) by adding virgin metal salts (Wang, [0076]) to form an adjusted aqueous acidic leach solution, and
coprecipitating the metal salts from the adjusted aqueous acidic leach solution (Wang, [0041]).
Regarding claim 2, Wang teaches the method of claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the leaching agent comprises sulfuric acid (Wang, [0037]).
Regarding claim 7, Wang teaches the method of claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the filtered aqueous acidic leach solution is treated with an aqueous base and an oxygen-containing gas (Wang, [0038]-[0039], NaOH solution is added; Being exposed to the atmosphere would engender treatment in an oxygen-containing gas.) and insoluble materials are removed prior to adjusting amounts of the metal salts (Wang, [0038]-[0040], Fe(OH)3, Cu(OH)2, and Al(OH)3 are removed prior to adjusting amounts of metal salts).
Regarding claim 8, Wang teaches the method of claim 8, as discussed above, wherein the plurality of impurity salts comprises a copper salt, an aluminum salt, and an iron salt, and wherein treating the filtered aqueous acidic leach solution with the aqueous base and the oxygen-containing gas reduces amounts of the copper salt, the aluminum salt, and the iron salt (Wang, [0038]-[0040], Fe(OH)3, Cu(OH)2, and Al(OH)3 are removed).
Regarding claim 10, Wang teaches the method of claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the plurality of impurity salts comprises a copper salt and wherein amounts of the copper salt are reduced by electrodeposition (Wang, [0095]).
Regarding claim 18, Wang teaches the method of claim 1, as discussed above, wherein reducing the amounts of the plurality of impurity salts removes approximately 0% of the nickel salt, the cobalt salt, or the manganese salt (Wang, [0092], “Adjustment of pH along with careful selection of the reducing agent allows precipitation of impurities while leaving the charge material ions in solution for later precipitation, thus effectively separating impurities from the recycled stock.” Since the charge materials remain in solution, they are not removed in this step at all.).
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 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (U.S. 2021/0391606 A1), as applied to claims 7 and 1 above, respectively.
Regarding claim 9, Wang teaches the method of claim 7, as discussed above, wherein the treated aqueous acidic leach solution has a pH of “around 5-7” (Wang, [0039], “The pH adjustment for impurity removal generally adjusts the pH based on particular impurities sought for removal… Copper tends to precipitate at a pH around 5-7.”), which overlaps with the claimed range of from 5.5 to 6.5.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the pH ranges because selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Regarding claim 19, Wang teaches the method of claim 1, as discussed above, wherein, after reducing the amount of the plurality of impurity salts, the impurity-reduced aqueous leach solution has a pH of between 3.0-7.0 (Wang, [0038], “The pH is adjusted to extract iron, copper and aluminum as Fe(OH)3, Cu(OH)2 and Al(OH)3. This involves adjusting the pH to a range between 3.0-7.0.”), which overlaps with the claimed range of < 4, and wherein the method further comprises increasing the pH of the impurity-reduced aqueous acidic leach solution to a pH > 4 prior to adjusting the ratio of the metal salts (Wang, [0039], “Copper tends to precipitate at a pH around 5-7.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the pH ranges because selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (U.S. 2021/0391606 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fraser (U.S. Patent No. 10,995,014, 2021).
Regarding claim 12, Wang teaches the method of claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the plurality of impurity salts comprises a magnesium salt (Wang, [0092]). While Wang does not explicitly teach that amounts of the magnesium salt are reduced by ion exchange, Wang teaches that it is desirable to remove magnesium impurities (Wang, [0015], “A reductant may be employed to maintain an oxidation state of the charge material ions in solution, and impurities may be removed by balancing of pH, oxidation state, and electrodeposition for removal of collateral renmants [sic] from the recycling stream such as aluminum and copper current collectors, magnesium and iron from physical casing and conductor materials.”). Wang does not explicitly teach that magnesium impurities are removed using the reductant in the embodiment cited above (Wang, [0037]). Fraser teaches that ion exchange is effective for removing magnesium from an acidic ternary battery leachate (Fraser, Col. 17, lines 31-36; Col. 4, lines 6-19).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have employed ion exchange to remove magnesium from Wang’s leachate, as Wang suggests that it is desirable to do so (Wang, [0015]), and Fraser provides a facile means of achieving this end (Fraser, Col. 17, lines 31-36; Col. 4, lines 6-19).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (U.S. 2021/0391606 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fraser (U.S. Patent No. 10,995,014, 2021), as applied to claim 12 above, and further evidenced by Lanxess (“Produce information - Lewatit® VP OC 1026”, 2011).
Regarding claim 14, modified Wang renders the method of claim 12 obvious, as discussed above, wherein ion exchange comprises passing the filtered aqueous leach solution through a column comprising a Lewatit VP OC 1026 ion exchange resin (Fraser, Col. 17, lines 31-33). While Fraser does not explicitly teach that this resin is impregnated with a dialkyl phosphonic acid, Lanxess clarifies that this is the case (Lanxess, Page 1, Paragraph 1, “Lewatit® VP OC 1026 is a crosslinked polystyrene based macroporous resin which contains Di-2-ethylhexyl-phosphat [sic] (D2EHPA).”).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (U.S. 2021/0391606 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Wang teaches a method for producing a cathode material precursor (Wang, Fig. 5, [0036]-[0046], [0095]) comprising:
leaching a black mass from a recycled lithium-ion battery stream (Wang, [0037], sieved cathode powder) with a leaching agent (Wang, [0037], sulfuric acid and hydrogen peroxide) to obtain an aqueous acidic leach solution of metal salts comprising a nickel salt, a cobalt salt, a manganese salt, a lithium salt, and a plurality of impurity salts (Wang, [0038], Cu, Fe, and Al impurities) and having a pH of around 1-3 (Wang, [0039]), which overlaps with the claimed range of < 1,
filtering the aqueous acidic leach solution to remove insoluble materials (Wang, [0037]),
treating the filtered aqueous acidic leach solution with an aqueous base and an oxygen-containing gas and removing insoluble materials (Wang, [0038]-[0039], NaOH solution is added; Being exposed to the atmosphere would engender treatment in an oxygen-containing gas.), wherein the treated aqueous acidic leach solution has a pH of around 5-7 (Wang, [0039]), which overlaps with the claimed range of >5,
reducing amounts of the plurality of impurity salts in the filtered aqueous acidic leach solution by electrodeposition (Wang, [0095], electrodeposition of copper), wherein the pH of the treated aqueous acidic leach solution is reduced to from 0 to 5 (Wang, [0095]), which overlaps with the claimed range of from 2 to 5,
increasing the pH of the treated aqueous acidic leach solution to 10-13 and adjusting a ratio of the metal salts in the impurity reduced aqueous acidic leach solution (Wang, [0041]) by adding virgin metal salts (Wang, [0076]) to form an adjusted aqueous acidic leach solution, and
coprecipitating the metal salts from the adjusted aqueous acidic leach solution (Wang, [0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portions of the pH ranges because selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is allowed.
Claims 5, 11, 13, and 15-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Fraser (U.S. Patent No. 10,995,014, 2021), Lanxess (“Produce information - Lewatit® VP OC 1026”, 2011), Kochhar (U.S. 2020/0078796 A1), Wang (U.S. 2021/0391606 A1), Snydacker (U.S. 2019/0044126 A1), and Rohde (WO 2023/148174 A1) are considered to be the closest prior art to the instant claims.
Regarding claim 5, Wang teaches the method of claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the leaching agent comprises a reducing agent (Wang, [0037], hydrogen peroxide) which differs from the claim limitation that the leaching agent does not comprise an oxidizing agent or a reducing agent. Because none of the cited prior art references teach or suggest omitting the reducing agent from Wang’s method, the claim is allowable.
Regarding claim 11, Wang teaches the method of claim 10, as discussed above, but neither Wang nor the other cited prior art references teach or suggest both that the filtered aqueous acidic leach solution has a starting pH of from 5 to 6 prior to electrodeposition and an ending pH of from 3.5 to 4.5 after electrodeposition.
Regarding claim 13, modified Wang renders the method of claim 12 obvious, as discussed above. While Lanxess teaches that Fraser’s ion exchange material is operable at pH values of less than 4 (Lanxess, Page 1, Paragraphs 1 and 4), neither Fraser nor the other cited prior art references teach or suggest selecting, in Wang’s method, a specific range of from 3.5 to 4.5 prior to ion exchange and ending pH of from 2.5 to 3.5 after ion exchange.
Regarding claim 15 and its dependent claims 16-17, Wang teaches the method of claim 7, as discussed above, but neither Wang nor the other cited prior art references teach or suggest that the plurality of impurity salts comprises a zinc salt and that amounts of the zinc salt are reduced by ion exchange.
Regarding claim 20, Wang teaches its shared features with claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) above), but for the same reason as discussed above for claim 5, none of the cited prior art references would motivate a person having ordinary skill in the art to exclude an oxidizing agent or a reducing agent from the leaching agent.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY J. BAUM whose telephone number is (571)270-0895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00.
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 571-270-3590. 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.
/ZACHARY JOHN BAUM/Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights