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 species claims 3 and [6+7] in the reply filed on July 6, 2026 is acknowledged.
As Applicant has canceled the non-elected species claims 4 and [12+13], the original restriction requirement, mailed May 7, 2026, is essentially rendered moot and is hereby withdrawn.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-11, and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie et al (CN 113611857 A; references made herein are with respect to the 10 page English translation, submitted herewith).
Regarding claim 1, Xie teaches a method for preparing ternary positive electrode (cathode) material by using manganese-cobalt-nickel waste residue (title). The waste residue is subjected to leaching and oxidation, the proportion of manganese-cobalt-nickel are optimized via adjustment, and the metal salts are subsequently coprecipitated from the adjusted leach solution to form the cathode positive electrode material (abstract and page 4/10, first and second full paragraphs). Xie teaches the use of oxygen for the oxidation treatment (page 3/10, Contents of the Invention, 5th par.).
While Xie does not expressly teach or require that the material to be leached is a black mass from a recycled lithium-ion battery stream, the overall process is considered to be substantially identical in that the same target materials are being leached and subsequently recovered from a waste material comprising said target materials (nickel, cobalt, and manganese) with the same end result of precipitating a cathode active material precursor.
As both the claimed process and that of Xie teach the target metal amounts in the leachate are adjusted/optimized, this further lends the teachings of Xie to the notion that the process can be adapted to various source materials to be leached. In other words and regarding claims 1, and 14-18, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the claimed invention to carry out the process of Xie upon various types of manganese-cobalt-nickel containing wastes, including the claimed black mass from a recycled lithium-ion battery stream, especially as the recovered metals are explicitly taught by Xie to be incorporated into a cathode active material. Further regarding claim 18, the initial leach solution ratio is going to reflect the content of the material that is leached, and as discussed above, it is considered to have been obvious to leach recycled lithium-ion batteries. As Xie teaches adjustment/optimization of the metals for use in cathode active material, claim 18 is considered to be essentially satisfied. The adjusted ratio would necessarily be distinct from the initial ratio of metals insomuch as adjustment is needed/desired and carried out.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Xie teaches the use of dilute sulphuric acid as a leaching agent (page 3/10, Contents of the Invention, 5th par.).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, effective amounts of acid and metal salts, as well as leach additive/oxidant, are considered to be dictated by the stoichiometry of the reaction, including the reactants as well as the desired result. Absent a showing of unexpected results, all of said relative amounts, including those claimed, would have been determined by one having ordinary skill in the art at a minimum in order to carry out the disclosed process.
Regarding claim 7, while Xie does not expressly teach the use of sodium persulfate as the oxidant used (Xie teaches the use of oxygen), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the claimed invention to utilize conventionally known oxidants, including sodium persulfate, for such a function. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to either supplement or substitute the oxidant of Xie with sodium persulfate with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Xie teaches that the leaching temperature is 50-90°C (page 4/10, 6th full par.).
Regarding claim 10, Xie teaches that the leaching time may be 60-180 minutes (1-3 hours) (page 4/10, 6th full par.).
Regarding claim 11, while Xie does not expressly teach leaching for longer than 3 hours, Xie generally teaches leaching “for a certain time” (page 3/10, Contents of the Invention, 5th par.). Optimizing the time of the leaching step to fully extract the target materials is considered prima facie obvious and it likewise would have been obvious to adjust leaching times, including the instantly claimed times, as needed, absent a showing of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 19, the adjusted/optimized ratio taught by Xie is considered to constitute the claimed selected ratio.
Regarding claim 20, Xie teaches calcium removal of the leach solution (abstract) and expressly teaches filtering in the Examples (page 6/10, Example 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLIN W SLIFKA whose telephone number is (571)270-5830. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 AM-5:30 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, Ching-Yiu (Coris) Fung can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/Colin W. Slifka/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights