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 1-14, 19, 57-60, 63, and 65-66 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, “A method of recovering metal, wherein the method comprises:
(a) forming a mixture comprising a cathode material, wherein the cathode material is prepared from one or more batteries;
(b) applying a voltage across the mixture to obtain metals and cathode waste from the cathode material, wherein (i) the voltage is applied in one or more voltage pulses, and(ii) duration of each of the one or more voltage pulses is for a duration period; and
(c) magnetically separating the metal and the cathode waste.”
It is unclear which of the obtain metals in step 1b) is applied to “the metal” of step 1c), and is therefore indefinite.
The term “preserves” in claims 57 and 58 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “preserves” 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. It is unclear as to the degree of preservation being applied.
Claim 57 recites the limitation "the 3D layer" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 58 recites the limitation "the 3D morphology" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 59 recites the limitation "the 3D morphology" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 63 recites the limitation "the step of mechanical separating" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 65 recites the limitation "further metals" it is unclear which metals are being referred to as “further metals,” and therefore indefinite.
Claim 66 recites “the further metals,” it is unclear from the further metals of claim 65 which of the metal oxides are being recovered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-14, 19, 59, 63 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eisert et al. (DE 102019218736 A1), in view of Wang et al. (US2013/0302226A1).
Regarding claim 1, Eisert discloses a method of recovering metal (Electrohydraulic effect [Abstract]), wherein the method comprises:
(a) forming a mixture comprising a cathode material (Cathode in a container filled with liquid [Abstract]), wherein the cathode material is prepared from one or more batteries [039-041];
(b) applying a voltage across the mixture to obtain metals and cathode waste from the cathode material [0047-049], wherein (i) the voltage is applied in one or more voltage pulses (High voltage pulses [049]), and(ii) duration of each of the one or more voltage pulses is for a duration period (10 Hz, [181-182]); and
Eisert discloses the use of a magnetic separator [282] but does not explicitly teach (c) magnetically separating the metal and the cathode waste. In the same field of endeavor Wang discloses recycling cathode materials [Abstract] and teaches conductive materials may be separated from the electrode materials by magnetic separation [0019], and further teaches the resulting active cathode material has the predetermined ratio for use in new cells, and avoids high heat typically required to separate the useful elements because the desired materials remain commingled in solution [Abstract].
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify Eisert with the magnetic separation as taught by Wang to avoid high heat and only undergo a change in concentration [0004].
Regarding claim 2, Eisert discloses the metal comprises cathode metal selected from the group consisting of lithium, cobalt, nickel, manganese, iron, and combinations thereof. (NMC, [271-272])
Regarding claim 3, Eisert discloses the metal comprises cathode metal selected from the group consisting of be metal oxides, metal salts, metal carbonates, metal phosphates, and combinations thereof. (NMC, [271-272]).
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated, Eisert discloses the cathode metal comprises metal oxide. (NMC, [271-272]).
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated, Eisert discloses the metal oxide comprises cobalt oxide. (NMC, [271-272]).
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated, modified Eisert discloses the cathode metal comprises metal phosphate. (The cathode materials widely used in commercial lithium ion batteries include LiFePO.sub.4 [Wang,0025]. Where LiFePO.sub.4 is known in the art as a cathode material as taught by Wang, and the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated, modified Eisert discloses the metal phosphate comprises iron phosphate. (LiFePO.sub.4 [Wang,0025] Where LiFePO.sub.4 is known in the art as a cathode material as taught by Wang, and the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding claim 11, Eisert discloses the one or more batteries comprise one or more lithium-ion batteries. (The method according to the invention thus advantageously enables the selective disassembly of lithium-ion battery cells [237-237]
Regarding claim 12, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated, modified Eisert discloses the one or more lithium-ion batteries comprise lithium-ion batteries each having a lithium cobalt oxide (LCO) cathode (LiCoO.sub.2 [Wang, 0025]) or a lithium nickel- manganese-cobalt oxide (NMC) cathode. Where metal oxide is known in the art as a cathode material as taught by Wang, and the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding claim 13, the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated, modified Eisert discloses each of the one or more lithium-ion batteries each comprise an LCO cathode. (LiCoO.sub.2 [Wang, 0025] Where LiCoO.sub.2 is known in the art as a cathode material as taught by Wang, and the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding claim 14, the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated, modified Eisert discloses each the one or more lithium-ion batteries each comprise an NMC cathode. (NMC, [270-272]).
Regarding claim 19, modified Eisert discloses anode and cathode coatings can be removed and recovered [221-224], and anode coating comprises graphite [65] a conductive additive.
Regarding claim 59, modified Eisert discloses the method destroys the 3D morphology of the cathodes in the cathode material. (Method for the material-selective dismantling of a workpiece by means of the electrohydraulic effect [55-56], which applies high voltage pulses [46-52]) As exemplified by paragraph [0112] of the instant specification would destroy the 3D morphology.
Regarding claim 63, modified Eisert discloses the method further comprises, after the step of mechanical separating (mechanical pretreatment [291]), applying a second voltage across the cathode waste (Pulse energy repetition frequency [211-213]) , wherein
(a) the second voltage (Between 20 kV and 100 kV [181-186]) is applied in one or more second voltage pulses (Repetition frequency 10 Hz [181-186]); and
(b) duration of each of the one or more second voltage pulses is for a second duration period (Greater than 500 ns [479-480])
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eisert et al. (DE 102019218736 A1), in view of Wang et al. (US2013/0302226A1), as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Huang et al. (US2023/0275279A1 with provisional date of July 31, 2020.).
Regarding claim 6, Eisert does not explicitly teach the cathode metal comprises metal carbonate, however in the same field of endeavor Huang discloses a method for recovering a cathode module [Abstract] and teaches recovering Li2CO3 for use a cathode in a lithium battery [0058], and further teaches the method may allow the battery cell to be manufactured in a manner which is more cost effective and environmentally sustainable than prior techniques. [Abstract]).
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify Eisert with the recovering of Li2CO3 as taught by Huang to make the battery more environmentally sustainable and inexpensive [Abstract].
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated, modified Eisert discloses the metal carbonate comprises lithium carbonate. (Li2CO3 [Huang, 0058])
Claim(s) 60 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eisert et al. (DE 102019218736 A1), in view of Wang et al. (US2013/0302226A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Barkanic et al. (US2021/0359351A1, with provisional filing date of May 14, 2020.).
Regarding claim 60, Eisert is silent on a cooling step, wherein the cooling step cools the metals and the cathode waste before the step of magnetically separating the metals and the cathode waste. In the same field of endeavor Barkanic discloses a method of recycling a lithium-ion battery [Abstract] and teaches by controlling the cooling rate of a cathode active material the physical properties may be affected to improve the recycling process [0028].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify Eisert with the cooling as taught by Barkanic to improve the recycling process.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure.
Ellis et al. (US2013/0256198A1) LiFePO4 recycled active material.
Shin et al. (US2020/0136170A1) Regenerates cathode with Li2CO3.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BART A HORNSBY whose telephone number is (313)446-6637. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-6:00 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, Matthew T Martin can be reached at 571-270-7871. 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.
BART HORNSBY
Examiner
Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights