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 Objections
Claims 1, 3, and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “to obtain a lithium compound”. It is respectfully suggested to amend the limitation to “to obtain a reduced and heat-treated material comprising lithium and other compounds”.
Claim 3 recites “lithium aqueous solution”. It is respectfully suggested to amend the limitation to “aqueous lithium solution” for consistent recitation of the claim limitation.
Claim 4 recites “wherein, a sodium compound is further obtained after the heat treatment in the reduction and heat treatment step, and … is further dissolved in the first aqueous lithium solution”. It is respectfully suggested to amend the limitation to “wherein the remaining sodium, after the reduction and heat treatment step, is dissolved in the first aqueous lithium solution with water in the water washing step.”
Appropriate corrections are 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 1-12 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 regard(s) as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “adding a reducing agent to a raw material including the waste battery material and the waste cathode active materials and heat-treating the raw material to obtain a lithium compound” in lines 4-6, and then recites “a water washing step comprising adding water to the heat-treated raw material”. It is unclear whether to add water to the recited obtained lithium compound, the heat-treated raw material, or the reduced and heat-treated raw material. For the purposes of this examination and in view of the specifications (Figure 1), the claim will be interpreted to mean that water is added to the treated material after the raw material has been reduced and heated.
Claim 1 also recites “a valuable metal precipitation step comprising adding the pH adjuster to obtain a precipitation residue” in the sixth paragraph from the top. It is unclear as to what the pH adjuster is added to. Additionally, claim 1 recites “wherein the first aqueous lithium solution recovered in the water washing step is used for the pH adjuster” in the last two lines of claim 1. It is unclear whether the first aqueous lithium solution is recovered from the water washing step or from the first solid-liquid separation before acid washing.
Claim 3 recites “wherein, based the reduction and heat treatment step to the additional washing step being repeated, the water washing step comprising adding the wash liquid by replacing the water” which is phrased in a confusing manner. It is unclear what the applicant is trying to claim and the claim will only be read from the limitation that starts with “the water washing step comprising adding…”. For the purposes of examination and in view of the specifications (Figure 1), the limitation will be interpreted to mean that the wash liquid obtained from the additional washing step (recited earlier in claim 3) will be recycled as the water in the first water washing step. Claim 3 also recites “the high-concentration lithium aqueous solution” which lacks an antecedent basis.
Claim 5 recites “the water is added to the heat-treated raw material”. It is unclear whether to add water to the recited obtained lithium compound, the heat-treated raw material, or the reduced and heat-treated raw material. For the purposes of this examination and in view of the specifications (Figure 1), the claim will be interpreted to mean that the water is added to the treated material after the raw material has been reduced and heat treated. Claim 5 also recites “solid-liquid ratio”. It is unclear what exactly the solid and liquid are. For the purposes of this examination and in view of the specifications (paragraph [0079]), the solid will be interpreted as the reduced and heat-treated solid waste material, and the liquid will be interpreted as water.
Claims 2, 4, and 6-12 are also rejected under 35 USC § 112 by virtue of its dependence on claim 1.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 4-8, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Chen et al. (CN-110040786-A, hereinafter “Chen”) in view of Zhu et al. (CN-109280771-A, hereinafter “Zhu”) and Ariyoshi et al. (JP-2023100269-A, hereinafter “Ariyoshi”).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 7, and 8, Chen discloses a method for recycling cathode materials from waste lithium-ion batteries (paragraph [0002]) comprising:
Pretreating the waste material with a sodium hydroxide solution under heating conditions to separate lithium, nickel, cobalt, and manganese oxide powder and sodium aluminate solution (paragraph [0012]) which meets the recited reducing agent and heat treatment step;
A water washing step, washing the lithium, nickel, cobalt, and manganese oxide powder, to obtain a solid residue (containing lithium, nickel, cobalt, and manganese) and a solution with soluble components removed (paragraph [0013]) (i.e., water washing residue and first aqueous lithium solution containing dissolved lithium compounds),
An acid washing step, which includes filtering the solid residue from the liquid components (i.e., solid-liquid separation before acid washing), then adding the sulfuric acid solution to the solid residue to leach out a leaching solution (containing nickel, cobalt, manganese, and lithium) (paragraphs [0013]-[0015]) (i.e., acid solution containing valuable metals) and leaching residue (i.e., acid washing residue not dissolved), wherein the sulfuric acid meets the acid solubilizer recited in claims 7 and 8; and
A valuable metal precipitation step, comprising mixing sodium hydroxide with the leaching solution to obtain a solid containing nickel, cobalt, and manganese hydroxides (i.e., precipitation residue) and a liquor containing lithium (i.e., second aqueous lithium solution) (paragraph [0015].
However, Chen fails to disclose (i) an impurity precipitation step before the valuable precipitation step; or (ii) using the first aqueous lithium solution as the pH adjuster.
Regarding (i), Zhu discloses a method of leaching and recycling waste lithium-ion batteries comprising an impurity removal step (before recovering valuable metals) (i.e., impurity precipitation step), after a sulfuric acid wash, comprising of adding an alkaline regulator (i.e., pH adjuster) to the acid solution to precipitate aluminum, iron, and copper ions (i.e., the impurities) by adjusting the pH to 1.5-5 (paragraph [0073]), which meets the recited pH range in claim 2.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate (i) an impurity precipitation step into the method disclosed by Chen and before the valuable metal precipitation step, because Zhu discloses an impurity removal step of using an alkaline regulator to increase the pH of the acid washing solution, to remove the impurities, and improve the recovery of the valuable metals (nickel, cobalt, manganese, and lithium) in subsequent steps (Zhu, paragraphs [0058], [0073], and [0075]).
Regarding (ii), Ariyoshi discloses a method of recovering valuable metals, including lithium, from lithium-ion battery waste wherein the extracted lithium is then recycled as a pH adjuster in subsequent steps (paragraphs [0003] and [0011]), which meets the recited first aqueous lithium solution recovered and used as the pH adjuster.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate (ii) using the first aqueous lithium solution as the pH adjuster into the impurity and valuable metal recovery step disclosed by Chen in view of Zhu. Chen discloses using sodium hydroxide as the alkaline pH adjuster in the valuable metals recovery step (Chen, paragraph [0015]) and Zhu discloses using an alkaline regulator as the pH adjuster in the impurity recovery step (Zhu, paragraph [0072]). The instant application recites using an aqueous lithium solution as the pH adjuster in the impurity and valuable metals recovery steps. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, would recycle the first lithium aqueous solution as the pH adjuster for both recovery steps because (1) the lithium aqueous solution can be used instead of sodium hydroxide in the valuable metals recovery step disclosed by Chen since lithium is also an alkaline pH adjuster (as evidenced by Ariyoshi, paragraph [0012]); (2) the lithium solution can be used as the alkaline regulator disclosed by Zhu; and (3) Ariyoshi discloses the capabilities of a recycle stream consisting of the extracted lithium as the pH adjuster in later steps, thereby reducing costs because a separate alkaline regulator is not required to adjust the pH (Ariyoshi, paragraph [0011]).
Regarding claim 4, Chen discloses pretreating the waste material with a sodium hydroxide solution as the reducing agent, which meets the recited reducing agent containing sodium.
However, Chen does not disclose that the sodium is further obtained after the reduction and heat treatment step, and is further dissolved in the first aqueous lithium solution.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to realize that there would be some sodium compound left over after the reduction and heat treatment step if the sodium hydroxide is used as the reducing agent (as disclosed by Chen), which can then be further dissolved in the first lithium aqueous solution with water in the water washing step.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Chen discloses an example of a water washing step using a solid-liquid ratio of 1:2.5 at 80 °C for 90 minutes (paragraph [0061]), which meets the recited solid-liquid ratio in claim 5, and the recited time and temperature range in claim 6.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Chen discloses a valuable metal precipitation step, comprised of adjusting the pH of the leaching residue to 10-11 at 70 °C for 240 minutes (paragraph [0063]), which meets the recited target pH range in claim 11, and the time and temperature range in claim 12.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Chai (CN-110512080-A).
Regarding claim 3, Chen discloses an additional washing step to the nickel, cobalt, and manganese hydroxide solid (i.e. valuable metals precipitation residue) to yield a solution containing soluble lithium and sodium ions (paragraph [0050]) (i.e., an additional washing step of washing to obtain wash liquid wherein an alkaline substance and lithium compound are dissolved).
However, Chen fails to disclose recycling the resulting wash liquid after the additional washing step as the wash water in the initial water washing step
Chai discloses a method of recycling lithium-ion batteries comprising a step of returning the final wash water to the initial leaching step for a second lithium recovery (paragraph [0025]), which meets the recited recycling of wash water into the initial water washing step.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate recycling the final wash water back to the initial water washing step in the method disclosed by Chen because Chai discloses recycling the final wash water into the initial leaching step because it reduces lithium loss by allowing the wash water containing some lithium to undergo a secondary lithium recovery process, further improving overall lithium recovery (Chai, paragraphs [0025] and [0026]).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Zhu.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Chen discloses an acid washing step using sulfuric acid.
However, Chen fails to disclose the recited experimental conditions for the acid washing step, specifically the acid to residue ratio of 1:1-1:10 for 30-240 minutes in a temperature range of 5 to 90 °C.
Zhu discloses a method of recycling waste lithium-ion batteries wherein the sulfuric acid wash, before the impurity removal step, can be done at a ratio of 1:1.25 (acid to residue mass ratio) at temperatures of 25 °C to 80 °C and for 60 to 300 minutes (paragraphs [0057] and [0058]), which meets the recited ratio, and temperature and time range in claims 9 and 10.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the recited acid washing conditions into the acid washing step of the method disclosed by Chen because Zhu discloses an acid washing step at 1:1.25 liquid-solid ratio at temperatures of 25 °C to 80 °C and for 60 to 300 minutes, allowing for (1) a more gentle and thorough acidic reaction; (2) better safety; and (3) less waste of raw materials (Zhu, paragraph [0057]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of copending Application No. 18/508382 (hereinafter “Copending ‘382”) in view of Zhu. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each set of claims are directed to a method of removing and recovering valuable metals from waste battery material and waste cathode active materials. While instant claimed invention calls for an impurity precipitation step, Copending ‘382 does not.
Zhu discloses a method of leaching and recycling waste lithium-ion batteries comprising an impurity removal step (before recovering valuable metals
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate an impurity precipitation step into the method disclosed by claim 1 of the copending application and before the valuable metal precipitation step, because Zhu discloses an impurity removal step of using an alkaline regulator to increase the pH of the acid washing solution, to remove the impurities, and improve the recovery of the valuable metals (nickel, cobalt, manganese, and lithium) in subsequent steps (Zhu, paragraphs [0058], [0073], and [0075]).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN N HOANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1950. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7am-4pm and Fri 7am-11am.
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 (571) 272-5954. 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.
/NATHAN NGOC-NGOC HOANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1772
/IN SUK C BULLOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights