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 1-3 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 “to be separated” at Lines 6-7 (9-10 of Submitted Page 16), Lines 11-12 (14-15 of Submitted Page 16), and Lines 18-19 (21-22 of Submitted Page 16). Claim 2 recites “to be separated” at Line 5 (4 of Submitted Page 17). Claim 3 recites “to be separated” at Line 7 (14 of Submitted Page 17), Line 12 (19 of Submitted Page 17), and Lines 17-18 (24-25 of Submitted Page 17).
The recitation of “to be separated” renders the Claims indefinite as it is unclear whether a separation step takes place or does not take place, whether the separation of aforementioned components is an intended result, or some other meaning. Appropriate correction is required to positively and definitively recite a separation step.
Claim 3 recites at Line 17 (24 of Submitted Page 17), “a post-carbonation filtration step.” The claim is drawn to a device so the recitation of a method step is improper and renders the claim indefinite. The nexus between the claimed lithium recovery device and a filtering step is unclear. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Cao et al. WO 2017181766 A1.
Regarding Claim 1, Cao et al. ‘766 discloses a lithium recovery method comprising an acid leaching step of adding an acid to a battery slag containing a lithium content to produce a leachate, adding calcium carbonate, an additive containing a Ca content, to the leachate and neutralizing to produce a first processed product (Page 2, Translation).
Cao et al. ‘766. discloses subsequent solid-liquid separation, meeting the limitation for filtering the first processed product into a filtrate and residue (Page 4, Translation).
Cao et al. ‘766 discloses adding a sodium carbonate to the solution obtained in the filtering step which produces a second processed product. The resulting product is then filtered into a second processing filtrate containing a lithium content and a sodium content and a residue containing a calcium content (Page 4, Translation).
The second processing filtrate is heated to 95 degrees Celsius and carbonated by adding carbonate to the heated product to carry out the lithium deposition reaction, producing a third processed product (Page 6, Translation).
Cao et al. ‘766 discloses a post-carbonation filtration step of filtering the third processed product into a third processing filtrate containing a sodium content and a third processing residue containing a lithium content (Page 6, Translation).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Kochhar et al. WO 2018218358 A1.
Regarding Claim 3, Kochhar et al. ‘358 discloses a system and method for carrying out the recovery of lithium from an acid battery slag including a tank system meeting the limitation for an acid leaching device configured to add an acid to a battery slag containing a lithium content to produce a leachate (Figure 2),[00194].
Kochhar et al. ‘358 discloses its device is configured to add a first additive containing a calcium content to the leachate and neutralize the leachate to produce a first processed product [0063], its device is configured to filter the first processed product to be separated into a first processing filtrate and a second first processing residue [0064], and that its device is configured to add a second additive containing sodium carbonate to the first processing filtrate to produce a second processed product [0077].
Kochhar et al. ‘358 discloses its device is configured to filter the second processed product to be separated into a second processing filtrate containing a lithium content and a sodium content and a second processing residue containing a calcium content [00101].
Kochhar et al. ‘358Discloses electric heating devices configured to heat the second processing filtrate and streams for supplying carbonate [00114], meeting the limitation for a carbonator configured to add a carbonate to produce a third processed product.
Notwithstanding the 112(b) rejections above, Kochhar et al. ‘358 discloses filters configured to separate the third processed product into a third processing filtrate containing a sodium content and a third processing residue containing a lithium content [0071, 00130], meeting the limitations of the instant 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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao et al. WO 2017181766 A1 in view of Kochhar et al. WO 2018218358 A1.
Regarding Claim 2, Cao et al. ‘766 discloses the limitations set forth above including a washing step of washing the first processing residue with a washing solution containing a calcium content and a post-washing filtration step of filtering a mixture of the washing solution and the first processing residue into a washing filtrate and a washing residue (Page 4, Translation), but does not expressly teach the second additive is added to a mixed solution of the first processing filtrate and the washing filtrate.
However, Kochhar et al. ‘358 teaches a method for recovering lithium battery slag wherein multi-stage washing is conducted in order to remove impurities and soluble metals. See MPEP 2141.01(a) I. “[A] reference need not be from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention in order to be analogous art.” Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to add the second additive to a mixed solution of the first processing filtrate and the washing filtrate to remove impurities based on the teachings of Kochhar et al. ‘358 at [00194], meeting the limitations of the instant Claim. Further, a simple change in sequence would have been obvious to persons of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention. See MPEP 2141.04 IV. C.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
KR 20210016762 A teaches a continuous recovery apparatus for the extraction of lithium from battery waste.
CN 111519031 A teaches filtering lithium from waste battery slag using calcium-containing additive.
WO 2020203888 A1 teaches blowing carbon dioxide gas into a heated filtrate to produce a carbonated product and precipitate lithium.
US 4588566 A teaches separating lithium by heating acidified slurry and carbonating to precipitate lithium and remove impurities.
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