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 Group II, claims 5-11, in the reply filed on 5/28/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-4 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/28/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 8-11 is/are objected to because it contains/they contain informalities.
Claim 8 specifies that:
the “pipe” introduced in claim 5 is actually two separate pipes, i.e. a “first pipe” and “a second pipe”;
the “condenser” introduced in claim 5 is actually two separate condensers, i.e. a “first condenser” and a “second condenser”;
the “condenser heater” introduced in claim 5 is actually two separate condenser heaters, i.e. a “first condenser heater” and a “second condenser heater”; and
the “pipe heater” introduced in claim 5 is actually two separate pipe heaters, i.e. a “first pipe heater” and “a second pipe heater”.
Examiner objects to this framing on the basis that it is needlessly confusing and cumbersome (See claim objections above).
Applicant can overcome this objection by rewriting claim 8 in independent form and redrafting the limitations thereof to frame all distinct elements as such from the beginning of the claim. In other words, a redrafted claim 8 Applicant should be in independent form and recite: 1) --a first pipe-- and --a second pipe-- as opposed to --a pipe comprising a first pipe and a second pipe--; 2) --a first condenser-- and --a second condenser-- as opposed to --a condenser comprising a first condenser and a second condenser--; 3) --a first pipe heater-- and --second pipe heater-- as opposed to --a pipe heater comprising a first pipe heater and a second pipe heater--; 4) --first condenser heater -- and --second condenser heater-- as opposed to --a condenser heater comprising a first condenser heater and a second condenser heater--.
Claims 9 and 10 objected to for substantially the same reasons as claim 8 on which they depend.
Claim 11 specifies that:
the “pipe” introduced in claim 5 is actually two separate pipes, i.e. a “first pipe” and “a second pipe”;
the “condenser” introduced in claim 5 is actually two separate condensers, i.e. a “first condenser” and a “second condenser”;
the “condenser heater” introduced in claim 5 is actually two separate condenser heaters, i.e. a “first condenser heater” and a “second condenser heater”; and
the “pipe heater” introduced in claim 5 is actually two separate pipe heaters, i.e. a “first pipe heater” and “a second pipe heater”.
Examiner objects to this framing on the basis that it is needlessly confusing and cumbersome.
Applicant can overcome this objection by rewriting claim 11 in independent form and redrafting the limitations thereof to frame all distinct elements as such from the beginning of the claim. In other words, a redrafted claim 8 Applicant should be in independent form and recite: 1) --a first pipe-- and --a second pipe-- as opposed to --a pipe comprising a first pipe and a second pipe--; 2) --a first condenser-- and --a second condenser-- as opposed to --a condenser comprising a first condenser and a second condenser--; 3) --a first pipe heater-- and --second pipe heater-- as opposed to --a pipe heater comprising a first pipe heater and a second pipe heater--; 4) --first condenser heater -- and --second condenser heater-- as opposed to --a condenser heater comprising a first condenser heater and a second condenser heater--.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 8 specifies that:
the “pipe” introduced in claim 5 is actually two separate pipes, i.e. a “first pipe” and “a second pipe”;
the “condenser” introduced in claim 5 is actually two separate condensers, i.e. a “first condenser” and a “second condenser”;
the “condenser heater” introduced in claim 5 is actually two separate condenser heaters, i.e. a “first condenser heater” and a “second condenser heater”; and
the “pipe heater” introduced in claim 5 is actually two separate pipe heaters, i.e. a “first pipe heater” and “a second pipe heater”.
By framing the pipe as being two separate pipes, the condenser as being two separate condensers, and so on, the language of claim 8 contradicts the limitations of claim 5, especially in view of the particular arrangement of the condensers and pipes as specified in claim 8 and in view of the particular operating temperatures specified in claim 8. Accordingly, claim 8 fails to require all of the limitations of claim 5 upon which it depended.
Applicant can overcome this rejection by rewriting claim 8 in independent form and redrafting the limitations thereof to frame all distinct elements as such from the beginning of the claim. In other words, a redrafted claim 8 Applicant should be in independent form and recite: 1) --a first pipe-- and --a second pipe-- as opposed to --a pipe comprising a first pipe and a second pipe--; 2) --a first condenser-- and --a second condenser-- as opposed to --a condenser comprising a first condenser and a second condenser--; 3) --a first pipe heater-- and --second pipe heater-- as opposed to --a pipe heater comprising a first pipe heater and a second pipe heater--; 4) --first condenser heater -- and --second condenser heater-- as opposed to --a condenser heater comprising a first condenser heater and a second condenser heater--.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 112(d) for substantially the same reasons as claim 8 on which they depend.
Claim 11 specifies that:
the “pipe” introduced in claim 5 is actually two separate pipes, i.e. a “first pipe” and “a second pipe”;
the “condenser” introduced in claim 5 is actually two separate condensers, i.e. a “first condenser” and a “second condenser”;
the “condenser heater” introduced in claim 5 is actually two separate condenser heaters, i.e. a “first condenser heater” and a “second condenser heater”; and
the “pipe heater” introduced in claim 5 is actually two separate pipe heaters, i.e. a “first pipe heater” and “a second pipe heater”.
By framing the pipe as being two separate pipes, the condenser as being two separate condensers, and so on, the language of claim 11 contradicts the limitations of claim 5, especially in view of the particular arrangement of the condensers and pipes as specified in claim 8 and in view of the particular operating temperatures specified in claim 11. Accordingly, claim 11 fails to require all of the limitations of claim 5 upon which it depended.
Applicant can overcome this rejection by rewriting claim 11 in independent form and redrafting the limitations thereof to frame all distinct elements as such from the beginning of the claim. In other words, a redrafted claim 8 Applicant should be in independent form and recite: 1) --a first pipe-- and --a second pipe-- as opposed to --a pipe comprising a first pipe and a second pipe--; 2) --a first condenser-- and --a second condenser-- as opposed to --a condenser comprising a first condenser and a second condenser--; 3) --a first pipe heater-- and --second pipe heater-- as opposed to --a pipe heater comprising a first pipe heater and a second pipe heater--; 4) --first condenser heater -- and --second condenser heater-- as opposed to --a condenser heater comprising a first condenser heater and a second condenser heater--.
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.
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Uchida (US 2008/0050295). With regard to claim 5: Uchida teaches an apparatus for recovering organic carbonates contained in an electrolytic solution of a waste lithium ion battery (abstract, Figures 5 and 6, paragraphs [0072]-[0077]), the apparatus comprising:
A drier (furnace) 60 in which a waste lithium ion battery is accommodated (Figures 5 and 6, paragraphs [0072]-[0077]).
A pipe comprised of the lower portion of duct 66 (the portion which extends below the dryer) 60, the “primary cooling device” 67, and/or gas duct 70, said pipe 66, 67, and/or 70 extending below the drier 60 (Figures 5 and 6, paragraphs [0072]-[0077]).
A condenser (“secondary cooling apparatus”) 71 connected to the drier via the pipe (Figures 5 and 6, paragraphs [0072]-[0077]).
A pressure pump (vacuum pump) 65 configured to adjust an internal pressure of the drier, an internal pressure of the pipe, and an internal pressure of the condenser (Figures 5 and 6, paragraphs [0072]-[0077]).
A drier heater (induction heating coil) 62 configured to adjust an internal temperature of the drier (Figures 5 and 6, paragraphs [0072]-[0077]).
A pipe heater (induction heating coil) 68 configured to adjust an internal temperature of the pipe (Figures 5 and 6, paragraphs [0072]-[0077]).
And a condenser heater (the cooling coil positioned in said condenser 71 as illustrated in Figure 5) configured to adjust an internal temperature of the condenser (Figures 5 and 6, paragraphs [0072]-[0077]).
The organic carbonates are understood to be materials worked upon by the claimed apparatus. Thus, the claims are not limited by language specifying the identity of said carbonates (See MPEP 2115). Furthermore, as is evident from the disclosure of paragraphs [0069]-[0072], the device of Uchida is necessarily capable of operating to recover organic carbonates comprised of a first carbonate and a second carbonate, the second carbonate having a melting point higher than the first carbonate and a boiling point being than the first carbonate, i.e. if a battery comprising such carbonates were supplied into the dryer 60. See MPEP 2114 for guidance.
As is evident from the disclosure of paragraphs [0072]-[0078], The system of Uchida is necessarily capable of performing a first recovery process for recovery such a first carbonate wherein: the dryer heater 62 keeps the internal temperature of the drier 60 in a first temperature range, the pipe heater 68 keeps the internal temperature of the pipe 66, 67, and/or 70 in a second temperature range, and the condenser heater keeps the internal temperature of the condenser 71 in a third temperature range; the pressure pump 65 reduces the internal pressure of the drier, the internal pressure of the pipe, and the internal pressure of the condenser from a normal pressure to a first pressure; the first temperature range includes a temperature range in which only the first carbonate vaporizes at the first pressure and both the first carbonate and the second carbonate vaporize at a second pressure lower than the first pressure; the second temperature range includes a temperature range higher than or equal to the melting point of the second carbonate at the first pressure and lower than or equal to a thermal decomposition temperature of an electrolyte of the waste lithium ion battery at the second pressure; and the third temperature range includes a temperature range in which the first carbonate liquefies at the first pressure. See MPEP 2114 for guidance.
With regard to claim 6: The pipe has a shape such that the pipe 66, 67, and/or 70 does not point upward between the drier and the condenser.
With regard to claim 7: As is evident from the disclosure of paragraphs [0072]-[0078], the system of Uchida is necessarily capable of performing a first recovery process for recovery of a first carbonate wherein: the third temperature range includes a temperature range in which the first carbonate liquefies at the first pressure, the second carbonate liquefies at the second pressure, and the first carbonate condensed at the first pressure does not vaporize again. See MPEP 2114 for guidance.
As is evident from the disclosure of paragraphs [0072] and [0074], The system of Uchida is also necessarily capable of performing a second recovery process for recovery of a second carbonate after performing the first recovery process, wherein, during the second recovery process, the pressure pump reduces the internal pressure of the drier, the internal pressure of the pipe, and the internal pressure of the condenser from the first pressure to the second pressure. See MPEP 2114 for guidance.
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.
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanisch (US 2019/0260101) in view of Mangold (US 2026/0146203).
With regard to claim 5: Hanisch teaches an apparatus for recovering organic carbonates contained in an electrolytic solution of a waste lithium ion battery (abstract, Figure 1, paragraphs [0011], [0017], [0029], [0098]), the apparatus comprising:
A drier (drying device) 26 in which a waste lithium ion battery is accommodated (Figure 1, paragraphs [0098]-[0106]).
A pipe (that comprising control valve 40) extending from the drier 26 (Figure 1, paragraphs [0098]-[0106]).
A condenser 34 connected to the drier 26 via the pipe (Figure 1, paragraphs [0098]-[0106]).
A pressure pump (vacuum pump) 30 configured to adjust an internal pressure of the drier 26, an internal pressure of the pipe, and an internal pressure of the condenser 34 (Figure 1, paragraphs [0098]-[0106]).
A drier heater (not shown in Figure 1) configured to adjust an internal temperature of the drier 26 (Figure 1, paragraphs [0053], [0083]).
A condenser heater, i.e. a cooling device of some sort which cools the condenser, configured to adjust and internal temperature of the condenser 34 (Figure 1, paragraphs [0098]-[0106]).
The organic carbonates are understood to be materials worked upon by the claimed apparatus. Thus, the claims are not limited by language specifying the identity of said carbonates (See MPEP 2115). Furthermore, the device of Hanisch is necessarily capable of operating to recover organic carbonates comprised of a first carbonate and a second carbonate, the second carbonate having a melting point higher than the first carbonate and a boiling point being than the first carbonate, i.e. if a battery comprising such carbonates were supplied into the dryer 26. See MPEP 2114 for guidance.
The system of Hanisch is necessarily capable of performing a first recovery process for recovery such a first carbonate wherein: the dryer 26 keeps the internal temperature of the drier in a first temperature range, and the condenser heater keeps the internal temperature of the condenser in a third temperature range; the pressure pump 30 reduces the internal pressure of the drier, the internal pressure of the pipe, and the internal pressure of the condenser from a normal pressure to a first pressure; the first temperature range includes a temperature range in which only the first carbonate vaporizes at the first pressure and both the first carbonate and the second carbonate vaporize at a second pressure lower than the first pressure; and the third temperature range includes a temperature range in which the first carbonate liquefies at the first pressure. See MPEP 2114 for guidance.
Hanisch is silent to the pipe extending to below the dryer. However, whether or not the pipe extends below the dryer is inconsequential to the functionality of Hanisch apparatus.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hanisch by reorienting the pipe to extend below the dryer, in order to obtain a predictably functional apparatus which functions substantially identically to that of Hanisch.
Hanisch is silent to a pipe heater configured to adjust an internal temperature of the pipe.
However, in the context of systems which carry out distillation, it is well-known to place a pipe heater around pipes which convey condensable vapors to a condenser, in order to prevent the condensable vapor from condensing prematurely. For example, Mangold teaches a pyrolysis system comprising a pyrolysis reactor 1, a condenser 7, and a pipe connecting the pyrolysis reactor 1 to the condenser 7 and configured to convey condensable vapors from the reactor 1 to the condenser 7, and a pipe heater 6 configured to adjust an internal temperature of the pipe (Figure 5, paragraph [0283]). The pipe heater 6 advantageously prevents vapor from condensing before reaching condenser 7 (paragraph [0283]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Hanisch in view of Mangold by adding a pipe heater that is configured to adjust an internal temperature of the pipe, i.e. by heating the pipe, to prevent vapors from prematurely condensing within said pipe.
In Hanisch modified in view of Mangold as described above, the added pipe heater would necessarily enable the system of modified Hanisch to perform a first recovery process wherein: the pipe heater is configured to keep the internal temperature of the pipe in a second temperature range, and the second temperature range includes a temperature range higher than or equal to the melting point of the second carbonate at the first pressure and lower than or equal to a thermal decomposition temperature of an electrolyte of the waste lithium ion battery at the second pressure. See MPEP 2114 for guidance.
With regard to claim 6: In Hanisch, the pipe does not point upward between the dryer 26 and the condenser 34 (Hanisch: Figure 1, paragraphs [0098]-[0106]).
With regard to claim 7: The system of modified Hanisch is necessarily capable of performing a first recovery process for recovery of a first carbonate wherein: the third temperature range includes a temperature range in which the first carbonate liquefies at the first pressure, the second carbonate liquefies at the second pressure, and the first carbonate condensed at the first pressure does not vaporize again. See MPEP 2114 for guidance.
The system of modified Hanisch is also necessarily capable of performing a second recovery process for recovery of a second carbonate after performing the first recovery process, wherein, during the second recovery process, the pressure pump reduces the internal pressure of the drier, the internal pressure of the pipe, and the internal pressure of the condenser from the first pressure to the second pressure. See MPEP 2114 for guidance.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-11 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) set forth in this Office action and to overcome the claim objections set forth above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 8 is drawn to an organic carbonate recovering apparatus comprising a dryer, a first condenser and a second condenser, a first pipe and a second pipe, a first pipe heater for altering a temperature of the first pipe, a second pipe heater for altering a temperature of the second pipe, a first condenser heater for altering a temperature of the first condenser, a second condenser heater for altering a temperature of the second condenser, and a pressure pump (vacuum pump) configured to adjust internal pressures of the dryer, the first condenser, the second condenser, the first pipe, and the second pipe, wherein the second pipe connects the second condenser to the dryer, the first pipe is connected to the second condenser downstream of the second condenser to connect the first condenser to the dryer via the second condenser and the second pipe.
The closest prior art of record is Uchida (US 2008/0050295) as applied to the 102 rejections of claims 5-7 set forth above. Uchida is silent to a system comprising two condensers, two condenser heaters, two pipes, and two pipe heaters, all arranged in the manner recited in claim 8. There is insufficient teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art of record to lead one of ordinary skill to modify Uchida so as to satisfy the requirements of claim 8.
In view of the above, claim 8 and its dependents (claims 9 and 10) are novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record.
Claim 11 is drawn to an organic carbonate recovering apparatus comprising a dryer, a first condenser and a second condenser, a first pipe and a second pipe, a first pipe heater for altering a temperature of the first pipe, a second pipe heater for altering a temperature of the second pipe, a first condenser heater for altering a temperature of the first condenser, a second condenser heater for altering a temperature of the second condenser, and a pressure pump (vacuum pump) configured to adjust internal pressures of the dryer, the first condenser, the second condenser, the first pipe, and the second pipe, wherein the second pipe connects the second condenser to the dryer and the first pipe connects the first condenser to the dryer so that the first and second condensers are connected to the dryer in parallel.
The closest prior art of record is Uchida (US 2008/0050295) as applied to the 102 rejections of claims 5-7 set forth above. Uchida is silent to a system comprising two condensers, two condenser heaters, two pipes, and two pipe heaters, all arranged in the manner recited in claim 8. There is insufficient teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art of record to lead one of ordinary skill to modify Uchida so as to satisfy the requirements of claim 11.
In view of the above, claim 11 is novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 12,119,463 is the granted patent corresponding to the Hanisch PG pub relied upon in the 103 rejections above.
US 11,050,097, to Hanish, teaches a device that is at least similar to that taught by the Hanisch PG pub relied upon in the 103 rejections above. Furthermore, US 11,050,097 is the granted patent corresponding to the US 2018/0301769 PG pub cited by Applicant in the 10/23/2023 IDS.
US 9,509,025 teaches a device similar to that of the claimed invention (see Figure 1), and is to the same assignee (Toyota).
CN 117393890 A provides teachings to device for recovering organic carbonates from batteries, said device comprising a plurality of condensers 3, 4, 5, 6 , 7, and 8 arranged in serries downstream of a device suitable for drying evaporating organic carbonates (heating device and/or pyrolysis device) 1 and/or 2. If CN 117393890 A qualified as prior art, the teachings of CN 117393890 A would be sufficient to render the invention of claim 11 obvious. However, CN 117393890 A does not qualify as prior art.
US 1,484,256 teaches a device comprising a heating chamber (retort) 1 with a plurality of condensers 29, 30, 31, and 45 arranged in serries and disposed to receive and fractionally condense vapors from the heating chamber.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN "LUKE" PILCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-2691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at 5712725954. 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.
/JONATHAN LUKE PILCHER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights