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.
Claim 84 is 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.
The term “dry” in Claim 84 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “dry” 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. In other words, Claim 84 is rendered indefinite insofar as it is unclear what level/degree of moisture renders air “dry” as opposed to “wet” or “not” dry.
Claim 95 is 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 95 recites the limitation "the inert gas." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 95 recites the limitation “the recovered solvent chemical.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the 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.
Claims 81-83, 86-89, 92, 94, 96-98 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN110635191, using the provided machine translation for citation purposes), and further in view of Zhang (CN112103591, using the provided machine translation for citation purposes) and Hanisch et al. (US 2021/0032721).
Regarding Claim 81, Li teaches a method for recycling a lithium battery (“battery”) comprising an organic solvent (“solvent chemical”) (Abstract, [0026]-[0030]). Li teaches that the method comprises crushing the battery (“shredding the battery”) under inert gas protection and closed atmosphere, and recovering the organic solvent ([0026]-[0030]).
Li does not explicitly teach that the method comprises loading the battery into a processing system, and pre-conditioning the battery and the processing system.
However, Zhang teaches a method for recycling a lithium battery (Abstract, [0010]). Zhang teaches that prior to crushing under inert gas protection, the method comprises a loading of the battery into a processing system (i.e. a system for discharging, cleaning, purging, drying, and storing the battery), and a subsequent batched pre-conditioning of the battery and processing system (e.g. batched discharging of the battery, batched provision to the processing system with a means of cleaning, purging, drying, and storage of the battery) ([0013]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would ensure that the method of Li further comprises loading the battery into a processing system (i.e. a system for discharging, cleaning, purging, drying, and storing the battery) and a subsequent batched pre-conditioning of the battery and processing system (e.g. batched discharging of the battery, batched provision to the processing system with a means of cleaning, purging, drying, and storage of the battery), as taught by Zhang, given that such steps would, at least, enhance the safety of the crushing by first discharging the battery while also providing a means of clean storage of the lithium battery prior to recycle processing.
Li, as modified by Zhang, does not explicitly teach that the crushing is performed under a vacuum atmosphere.
However, Hanisch teaches a method for recycling used lithium batteries (Abstract). Hanisch teaches that the method comprises shredding battery material to form comminuted material ([0071]). Hanish teaches that it is, for example, especially beneficial for comminution to occur in an inert gas atmosphere under a vacuum pressure of at most 300 hPa ([0071]). Hanish teaches that such a comminution environment helps prevent the formation of side products and reduce electrochemical reactions from occurring during processing ([0071], [0104]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would, at least, perform the crushing of Li, as modified by Zhang, under a vacuum pressure of at most 300 hPa, as taught by Hanisch, given that such a crushing environment would help prevent the formation of side products and reduce electrochemical reactions from occurring during processing.
Regarding Claim 82, Li, as modified by Zhang and Hanisch, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 81, as previously described.
Furthermore, the crushing of the battery is interpreted to be continuous, for at least some span of time, given not only because the crushing in Li is performed until at least the battery material is fully crushed (i.e. the crushing is “continuous” for at least as long as it takes to achieve full crushing), but also because any amount of continuous crushing may be interpreted as being “continuous,” especially in the absence of any particular constraints on what does and does not constitute “continuous” in the claimed context.
Regarding Claim 83, Li, as modified by Zhang and Hanisch, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 81, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 81), the pre-conditioning of the battery and processing system is batched.
Regarding Claim 86, Li, as modified by Zhang and Hanisch, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 81, as previously described.
Furthermore, Li teaches that recovering the organic solvent comprises evaporating the organic solvent ([0026]-[0030]).
Regarding Claim 87, Li, as modified by Zhang and Hanisch, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 86, as previously described.
Furthermore, Li teaches that evaporating the organic solvent comprises heating the organic solvent to a temperature above a boiling point of the organic solvent ([0026]-[0030]).
Li, as modified by Zhang and Hanisch, does not explicitly teach that the heating occurs under the vacuum pressure.
However, Hanisch teaches a method for recycling used lithium batteries (Abstract). Hanish teaches that during processing, vacuum conditions help prevent the formation of side products and reduce electrochemical reactions from occurring during processing ([0071], [0104]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would perform the heating of Li, as modified by Zhang and Hanisch, under the vacuum pressure, as taught by Hanisch, given that such a condition would help prevent the formation of side products and reduce electrochemical reactions from occurring during processing.
Regarding Claim 88, Li, as modified by Zhang and Hanisch, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 87, as previously described.
Li, as modified by Zhang and Hanisch, does not explicitly teach the instantly claimed temperature range.
However, Li teaches that the heating of the organic solvent may occur across a range of temperatures ([0018], [0026]-[0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would optimize the heating of the organic solvent (for example, to a temperature in accordance with the instantly claimed range) of Li, as modified by Zhang and Hanish, based on the boiling point of the organic solvent being used so as to ensure for its removal and recovery (or to ensure for a desired amount of removal and recovery) before further processing, especially because such optimization would have only required routine experimentation with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 89, Li, as modified by Zhang and Hanisch, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 87, as previously described.
Li, as modified by Zhang and Hanisch, does not explicitly teach the instantly claimed temperature range.
However, Li teaches that the heating of the organic solvent may occur across a range of temperatures ([0018], [0026]-[0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would optimize the heating of the organic solvent (for example, to a temperature in accordance with the instantly claimed range) of Li, as modified by Zhang and Hanish, based on the boiling point of the organic solvent being used so as to ensure for its removal and recovery (or to ensure for a desired amount of removal and recovery) before further processing, especially because such optimization would have only required routine experimentation with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 92, Li, as modified by Zhang and Hanisch, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 86, as previously described.
Furthermore, Li teaches that recovering the organic solvent comprises condensing the organic solvent into a liquid after evaporation ([0026]-[0030]).
Regarding Claim 94, Li, as modified by Zhang and Hanisch, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 81, as previously described.
Li, as modified by Zhang and Hanisch, does not explicitly teach that the method comprises purging the processing system with an inert gas under the vacuum pressure.
However, and as previously describe (See Claim 1), the method comprises purging.
Furthermore, Hanisch teaches a method for recycling used lithium batteries (Abstract). Hanisch teaches that processing steps of the method can be performed under an inert shielding gas such as nitrogen or argon to help prevent oxidation of material ([0037]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would perform purging of the processing system of Li, as modified by Zhang and Hanisch, under the vacuum pressure and with an inert gas such as nitrogen or argon, as taught by Hanisch, given that such a shielding gas would help prevent material oxidation during processing.
Regarding Claim 96, Li, as modified by Zhang and Hanisch, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 94, as previously described.
Li, as modified by Zhang and Hanisch, does not explicitly teach that the method comprises maintaining the processing system at the vacuum pressure with the inert gas.
However, Hanisch teaches a method for recycling used lithium batteries (Abstract). Hanisch teaches that processing steps of the method can be performed under an inert shielding gas such as nitrogen or argon to help prevent oxidation of material ([0037]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would maintain the processing system of Li, as modified by Zhang and Hanisch, under the vacuum pressure with an inert gas such as nitrogen or argon, as taught by Hanisch, given that such a shielding gas would help prevent material oxidation during processing.
Regarding Claim 97, Li, as modified by Zhang and Hanisch, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 81, as previously described.
As previously described, the vacuum pressure is at most 300 hPa. It is noted that in the case where the claimed range(s) “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding Claim 98, Li, as modified by Zhang and Hanisch, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 94, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 94), the inert gas is nitrogen or argon.
Claim 84 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN110635191, using the provided machine translation for citation purposes), and further in view of Zhang (CN112103591, using the provided machine translation for citation purposes) and Hanisch et al. (US 2021/0032721) and Idota (JP H0822846, using the provided machine translation for citation purposes).
Regarding Claim 84, Li, as modified by Zhang and Hanisch, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 81, as previously described.
Li, as modified by Zhang and Hanisch, does not explicitly teach that the drying is performed with a stream of dry air.
However, Idota teaches a method for processing used batteries ([0001]). Idota teaches that the method comprises a step of drying, wherein drying is preferably performed using low-humidity air ([0033]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would perform the drying of Li, as modified by Zhang and Hansich, using a stream of low-humidity air (“dry air”), as taught by Idota, given that the use of such gas would help reduce the level of moisture in the drying atmosphere.
Claim 90 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN110635191, using the provided machine translation for citation purposes), and further in view of Zhang (CN112103591, using the provided machine translation for citation purposes) and Hanisch et al. (US 2021/0032721) and Kakuta et al. (US 2005/0241943).
Regarding Claim 90, Li, as modified by Zhang and Hanisch, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 81, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 81), the crushing generates crushed battery material (“comminuted material”).
Li, as modified by Zhang and Hanisch, does not explicitly teach that recovering the organic solvent further comprises heating and shaking the crushed battery material.
However, Kakuta teaches a method of recycling lithium battery materials (Abstract, [0031]). Kakuta teaches that the recycling process includes heating and further vibrating shredded materials with a vibrating sieve in order to help remove resinous packaging and help sort shredded material prior to further processing ([0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would ensure that recovering the organic solvent of Li, as modified by Zhang and Hanisch, further comprises heating and vibrating (“shaking”) with a vibrating sieve the crushed battery material, as taught by Kakuta, given that such steps would help remove resinous packaging and help sort crushed material prior to further processing.
Claim 93 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN110635191, using the provided machine translation for citation purposes), and further in view of Zhang (CN112103591, using the provided machine translation for citation purposes) and Hanisch et al. (US 2021/0032721) and Hanisch et al. (US 11,050,097, herein referred to as “Hanisch 2”).
Regarding Claim 93, Li, as modified by Zhang and Hanisch, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 92, as previously described.
Li, as modified by Zhang and Hanisch, does not explicitly teach that that the condensing comprises pulling the organic solvent into a condenser.
However, Hanisch 2 teaches the treatment of used lithium batteries (Abstract). Hanisch 2 teaches that the treatment involves evaporating volatile organic materials, and then condensing said materials in a cooled condenser (col. 5 lines 11-24, col. 6 lines 43-57).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would ensure that the condensing of Li, as modified by Zhang and Hanisch, further comprises pulling the evaporated organic solvent into a cooled condenser, as taught by Hanisch 2, given that such a cooled condenser would enhance the speed/rate at which condensing occurs (due to the cooling), while also providing a means and location for the storage of condensed organic solvent.
Claim 100 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN110635191, using the provided machine translation for citation purposes), and further in view of Hanisch et al. (US 2021/0032721).
Regarding Claim 100, Li teaches a processing system for recycling a lithium battery (“battery”) comprising an organic solvent (“solvent chemical”) (Abstract, [0026]-[0030]). Li teaches that the system comprises a crusher chamber comprising a crusher, wherein the crusher crushes (“shred”) the battery, wherein the system further comprises a recovery unit for recovery of the organic solvent ([0026]-[0030]).
Li does not explicitly teach that the crushing is performed under a vacuum atmosphere.
However, Hanisch teaches a method for recycling used lithium batteries (Abstract). Hanisch teaches that the method comprises shredding battery material to form comminuted material ([0071]). Hanisch teaches that it is, for example, especially beneficial for comminution to occur in an inert gas atmosphere under a vacuum pressure of at most 300 hPa ([0071]). Hanish teaches that such a comminution environment helps prevent the formation of side products and reduce electrochemical reactions from occurring during processing ([0071], [0104]). Furthermore, Hanisch teaches that the vacuum atmosphere can be formed using a vacuum pump ([0152]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would further include a vacuum pump, as taught by Hansich, in fluid communication with the crusher chamber of Li such that crushing is performed under a vacuum pressure, given that such a crushing environment would help prevent the formation of side products and reduce electrochemical reactions from occurring during processing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 85 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 85 further limits the method of Claim 81 by requiring that the pre-conditioning the battery and the processing system comprises placing an internal volume of the processing system under the vacuum pressure.
While the method of Li, as modified by Zhang and Hanisch, includes the provision of a vacuum pressure at least during crushing, said references neither teach nor suggest placing an internal volume of the processing system under the same/specific vacuum pressure under which the shredding of the battery occurs.
Claim 91 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 91 further limits the method of Claim 90 by requiring that recovering the solvent chemical further comprises rinsing the comminuted material with a working liquid.
While the method of Li, as modified by Zhang and Hanisch and Kakuta, includes recovery of the organic solvent, said references neither teach nor suggest rinsing of the crushed material with working liquid as a component of recovering the organic solvent.
Claim 95 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims (and written so as to overcome the relevant rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as previously described).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 95 further limits the method of Claim 93 by requiring that the condensing the solvent chemical into the liquid further comprises providing an inert gas to the processing system, wherein the inert gas carries recovered solvent chemical to the condenser.
While the method of Li, as modified by Zhang and Hanisch and Hansich 2, includes recovery of the organic solvent and it subsequent condensing in a condenser, said references neither teach nor suggest the provision of an inert gas to the processing system which carries recovered organic solvent to the condenser.
Claim 99 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 99 further limits the method of Claim 81 by requiring that the method further comprises recovering a plurality of solvent chemicals by heating the plurality of solvent chemicals according to a defined variable profile at a number of specific times, whereby at least one solvent chemical of the plurality of solvent chemicals are evaporated at the specific times.
While the method of Li, as modified by Zhang and Hanisch, includes recovery of the organic solvent, said references neither teach nor suggest the recovery of a plurality of solvent chemicals in the instantly claimed manner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN whose telephone number is (571)270-7595. The examiner can normally be reached 7AM-3PM EST M-F.
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 Martin can be reached at 5712707871. 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.
/MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights