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 9-11 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.
Claims 9 and 10 depend from claim 1, and recite “a third solvent”; however, claim 1 does not recite a “second” solvent.
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 1-8 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by FR 3022695 A1 (to Francois) – cited on IDS - translation attached and relied upon below.
With respect to claim 1, Francois teaches a process for recycling lithium salts contained in the electrolyte of a used lithium battery, the process comprising:
- supplying an electrolyte stream comprising at least one lithium salt (page 2, last paragraph), at least one electrolyte solvent and water (page 3, lines 23-25); and
- at least one step of extracting the at least one lithium salt by adding a first solvent to the electrolyte stream (page 4, 1st paragraph) to recover a phase comprising the at least one lithium salt on one side and a lithium salt-depleted aqueous phase on the other side (page 3, lines 7-43).
With respect to claim 2, Francois teaches wherein after adding the first solvent, the phase comprising the first solvent, the electrolyte solvent and the at least one lithium salt is recovered on one side and a lithium salt-depleted aqueous phase is recovered on the other side (page 3, lines 35-49, page 4, 1st paragraph).
With respect to claim 3, Francois teaches wherein the at least one lithium salt is chosen from lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (page 2, last paragraph), lithium 2-trifluoromethyl-4,5- dicyanoimidazolate, lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide, lithium bis(oxalato)borate, lithium difluoroborate, lithium difluorophosphate and mixtures thereof.
With respect to claim 4, Francois teaches wherein the at least one lithium salt is lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (page 2, last paragraph).
With respect to claim 5, Francois teaches wherein the electrolyte solvent is chosen from carbonates (page 3, lines 8-22), ethers, esters, ketones, alcohols, nitriles, amides, sulfamides and sulfonamides, and mixtures thereof.
With respect to claim 6, Francois teaches wherein the first solvent is chosen from esters, nitriles, ethers, carbonates (page 3, lines 8-22), carbamates and mixtures thereof.
With respect to claim 7, Francois teaches wherein a second solvent is added during the extraction process (page 3, lines 7-43, page 4, 1st paragraph).
With respect to claim 8, Francois teaches wherein at least one additional extraction step (page 3, lines 2-7 and page 4, 1st paragraph) by adding a second solvent to the phase comprising the at least one lithium salt (page 3, lines 23-43).
With respect to claim 12, Francois teaches wherein the stream comprising at least one lithium salt, at least one electrolyte solvent and water is obtained by placing water in contact with a used lithium battery or a portion thereof (page 3, 1st paragraph).
With respect to claim 13, Francois teaches wherein the dissolution of the at least one recycled lithium salt in an additional electrolyte solvent (page 3, 1st paragraph).
With respect to claim 14, Francois teaches wherein the at least one lithium salt is chosen from lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (page 2, last paragraph), lithium 2-trifluoromethyl-4,5-dicyanoimidazolate lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide, lithium bis(oxalato)borate, lithium difluoroborate, and mixtures thereof.
With respect to claim 15, Francois teaches wherein the second solvent is chosen from alkanes, aromatic solvents, chlorinated solvents (page 3, 2nd paragraph) and mixtures thereof.
With respect to claim 16, Francois teaches wherein the second solvent is chosen from alkanes, aromatic solvents, chlorinated solvents (page 3, 2nd paragraph) and mixtures thereof.
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.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR 3022695 A1 (to Francois) – cited on IDS - translation attached and relied upon below.
With respect to claim 9, Francois teaches wherein a step of adding a third solvent/(at least two solvents) (page 3, 1st paragraph) to the phase comprising the at least one lithium salt to form a mixture and an evaporation/(distillation) step to precipitate the at least one lithium salt (page 4, 1st paragraph) – since Francois teaches using at least two solvents, then it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention to try adding a third solvent in order to optimize the lithium salt extraction process.
With respect to claim 10, Francois teaches wherein a step of evaporating/(distillation) (page 4, 1st paragraph) the phase comprising the at least one lithium salt followed by a step of adding a third/(at least two) solvent to precipitate the at least one lithium salt (page 3, lines 7-49) (page 4, 1st paragraph) – since Francois teaches using at least two solvents, then it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention to try adding a third solvent in order to optimize the lithium salt extraction process.
With respect to claim 11, Francois teaches wherein the third solvent is chosen from alkanes, alkenes, aromatics, chlorinated compounds (page 3, 2nd paragraph) and mixtures thereof.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAITY V CHANDLER whose telephone number is (571)272-8520. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-6:00PM.
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, BASIA RIDLEY can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/KAITY V CHANDLER/ 6/17/2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights