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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the features canceled from the claims:
Claim 5: “a drying apparatus”
Claim 8: “particle size reduction apparatus”
Claim 10:
“first particle size reduction apparatus”
“second particle size reduction apparatus”
Claim 11: Al separation apparatus represented as 146 (Figs 1, 3, and 5), but not clear how it is downstream of second solid liquid apparatus not in those figures or from 1664. Aluminum is separated at 1686 and 1158
Claim 18: “second filter apparatus”
Claim 29: “fourth solid liquid separation apparatus”
Claim 32 “washing apparatus” is represented by 1162 but it is not clear how it relates to second solid liquid separation apparatus 1664
Claim 34: “a first, submergible comminuting device”
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters as follows have both been used to designate the same part:
102 is identified as “primary immersion apparatus” [00157], “size reduction apparatus” [00150], and “comminuting apparatus” [00159]
124 is identified as “size reduced shred material stream [00170] and “secondary shred material stream” [00174]
112 is identified as “downstream plastic processing system” [00158] and “hydrometallurgical system” [00176]
1162 is identified as “washing screen” and “washing apparatus” [00193]
1642 is identified as “reduced-size ferrous depleted battery materials” [00216] and “incoming metals outlet stream” [00217]
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description as follows:
110 is not identified in the specification
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description as follows:
1200 is [0198] not in the drawing
The drawings are objected to because of the following:
In Claim 1, the “first solid liquid separation apparatus” downstream from caustic leaching represented by 1650 is assumed to be 1654 or 1656
In Claim 1, the “second solid liquid separation apparatus” downstream from first solid liquid separation apparatus is assumed to be 1664
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In [00160] “plastic recover stream” (line 11) should be “plastic recovery stream”
In [00172] “size reduce shred material stream (line 2) should be “size reduced shred material stream”
It is not clear if 1872 is the correct reference number in [0226]
Appropriate correction is required.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 5-8, 10, 11, 13, 15, 19, and 20 are as originally filed, Claims 2, 3, 9, 16, 17, 22, 23, 26, 27, 29, 31, and 36-118 are cancelled, Claims 4, 12, 14, 18, 21, 24, 25, 28, 30, and 32-35 are currently amended for 23 pending claims.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 7 “solids” should be “solid.” Appropriate correction is required.
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, 8, 10-15, 24, 25, and 35 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 "crystallization seeds used in the crystallization process" in lines 2 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. A suggestion is “crystallization seeds for the crystallization process.”
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the caustic leaching process" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claims 14, 24, and 25, the phrase "preferably" renders the claims indefinite because the claims include elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "preferably"), thereby rendering the scope of the claims unascertainable.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the solid-liquid separation apparatus" in lines 5 and 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There are three solid-liquid separation apparatuses.
Claim 18 recites “a second caustic leaching apparatus” in line 5. No “first” caustic leaching apparatus recited.
Claim 18 recites “a second filter apparatus” in line 7. No “first” filter apparatus recited.
Claim 19 recites “a fourth solid-liquid separation apparatus” in line 4. No “third” solid-liquid separation apparatus recited.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the secondary aluminum rich leach stream" in lines 1 and 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 35 recites the limitation "the size reduction apparatus" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 35 recites the limitation "the size-reduced battery materials exiting the size reduction apparatus" in lines 4 and 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims dependent on any of the rejected claims are likewise rejected under this statute.
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, 4-7, 11, 21, 24, 25, 28, 30, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 107196006 A, based on the machine translation.
CN 107196006 A (CN ‘006) teaches recycling and processing the positive electrode current collector of waste lithium-ion batteries [0012]. The battery is pulverized [0013]. The caustic leaching apparatus is taught by the alkaline solution in [0013]. The first solid liquid separation apparatus is taught by screening in [0014]. The second solid liquid separation is taught by the filter in [0014]. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Additionally, the manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claims from the prior art. See MPEP § 2114. CN ‘006 anticipates the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 4, the crystallization apparatus is taught in [0015].
Regarding Claim 5, the crystallization apparatus can produce crystalline aluminum hydroxide [0015].
Regarding Claim 6, the third solid-liquid separation apparatus is taught by the filter in [0040].
Regarding Claim 7, the limitation of “at least a portion of the crystalline solids are returned to the crystallization apparatus as crystallization seeds” is a process limitation with no structural limitations. The source of aluminum hydroxide seed crystals and the production of crystalline seed crystals are the same materials [0039]
Regarding Claim 11, alkaline solution is recycled back to caustic leaching [0039].
Regarding Claim 21, the filter yields a residue and a leaching slurry filtrate [0014], which reads on the claimed filter cake and aluminum rich leach stream, respectively. CN ’006 does not teach the composition of the crystalline solids or residue, which are not apparatus or structural limitations.
Regarding Claim 24, the caustic leaching apparatus can perform in the claimed system. The pH and concentration are method limitations and not structural.
Regarding Claim 25, CN ‘006 does not teach a claimed pressure which reads on atmospheric pressure.
Regarding Claim 28, the leaching temperature is 95 °C [0063].
Regarding Claim 30, the first filter is a sieve [0022].
Regarding Claim 34, the size reduction apparatus is immersed in a NaCl solution while mechanically dismantling [0021].
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.
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 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN ‘006.
CN ‘006 discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, CN ‘006 does not teach a second leaching apparatus as in Claim 18. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include another caustic leaching apparatus in CN ‘006, since duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
Regarding Claim 19, adding aluminum hydroxide seed crystals to the leaching slurry filtrate reads on a crystallization apparatus. Crystalline aluminum hydroxide and alkaline solution is filtered, which reads on the claimed fourth solid-liquid separation apparatus. The alkaline solution is recycled [0038].
Regarding Claim 20, returning the secondary aluminum rich leach stream is neither an apparatus nor structural limitation.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN ‘006 as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of EP 1148571 A1, based on the machine translation.
CN ‘006 discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, CN ‘006 does not teach a washing apparatus as in Claim 32. EP 1148571 (EP ‘857) teaches recycling saline and alkaline batteries of all sizes [0001] including sorting, mechanical crushing and magnetic separation [0005]. After separating ferrous material and plastics, the black mass is washed in a caustic soda solution, filtered, and rinsed with water once or several times [0006]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a washing apparatus as taught by EP ‘857 in the system of CN ‘006, since EP ‘857 teaches extracting chlorides, ammonium, potassium, and other soluble salts [0006].
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN ‘006 as applied to claims 1 and 34 above, and further in view of Kochhar et al (US 2020/0078796 A1).
CN ‘006 discloses the invention substantially as claimed. CN ‘006 does not teach a ferrous separator apparatus between size reduction apparatus, taught in at least [0036] in CN ‘006, and the first solid liquid separation apparatus, taught in at least [0014]. Kochhar et al teaches an apparatus and system for recovering materials from batteries. The lithium-ion batteries are processed to form a size-reduced stream, separating the size reduced feed stream into a magnetic product stream and a first non-magnetic stream, separating the stream into an aluminum product stream and a second non-magnetic stream, and leaching [0087-0091]. Therefore, Kochhar et al teaches a ferrous separator apparatus as claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a ferrous separator apparatus as taught by Kochhar et al in the system of CN ‘006, since separating ferrous material results in the recovery of a product well known to be useful in the field of metallurgy.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 10, 12-14, and 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding Claims 8, 10, and 15 CN ‘006 does not recite a particle size reduction apparatus configured to reduce the size of the crystalline solids. Regarding Claims 12-14, neither EP ‘571 nor CN ‘006 suggests a slip or purge stream as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tima M. McGuthry-Banks whose telephone number is (571)272-2744. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 am to 4:00 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, Keith D. 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.
Tima M. McGuthry-Banks
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1733
/Tima M. McGuthry-Banks/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights