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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim 1 remains for examination.
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 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Scheunis et al (US-PG-pub 2022/0017990 A1, listed in IDS filed on 2/26/2024, updated as US 11,952,643 B2, thereafter PG’990).
Regarding claim 1, PG’990 teaches a manufacturing process for recovery of metals from used battery (title, claims , and par.[0004]-[0008] of PG’990), which reads on the process for recovering metals from a spent secondary battery as claimed in the instant claim. PG’990 specify that: “The process comprises the steps of: providing a metallurgical molten bath furnace; preparing a metallurgical charge comprising lithium-bearing material, transition metals, and fluxing agents; smelting the metallurgical charge and fluxing agents in reducing conditions in said furnace, thereby obtaining a molten bath with an alloy and a slag phase; and, optionally separating the alloy and the slag phase; characterized in that a major part of the lithium is fumed as LiCl from the molten slag, by addition of alkali or earth alkali chloride to the process. Using a single smelting step, valuable transition metals such as cobalt and nickel also present in the charge are collected in an alloy phase, while the lithium reports to the fumes. The lithium in the fumes is available in concentrated form, suitable for subsequent hydrometallurgical processing.” (abstract of PG’990), which reads on all of the essential process steps including applying chlorinating agent; forming molten solution from spent secondary battery; and recovering metals as claimed in the instant claim. PG’990 specify that: “one could opt for a hybrid process comprising a pyrometallurgical first step. Pyrometallurgy has the notorious advantage of being robust and flexible with respect to the composition of the feed, from which specific elements can readily be concentrated in one of the metallurgical phases.” (par.[0008] of PG’990), which reads on the pre-process as claimed in the instant claim. Since PG’990 teaches all of the claimed limitations as claimed in the instant claim, Claim 1 is anticipated by PG’990.
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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness type double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-8 of copending application No. 18/472,372, (US-patent 12,046,727 B2).
Regarding claim 1, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentable distinct from each other because the Claims 1-8 of copending application No. 18/472,372, (US-patent 12,046,727 B2) teaches a manufacturing process recovering valuable metals from a spent secondary battery, the method comprising: a pre-processing process of pre-processing the spent secondary battery; a melting process of heating the pre-processed spent secondary battery to generate a molten solution; and a recovery process of recovering the valuable metals from the molten solution, wherein, in the melting process, a chlorinating agent is added (cl.1 of copending application No. 18/472,372, (US-patent 12,046,727 B2), which reads on all of the essential manufacturing process for recovering metals from a spent secondary battery as claimed in the instant claim. Thus, no patentable distinction was found in the instant claims in view of the Claims 1-8 of copending application No. 18/472,372, (US-patent 12,046,727 B2).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIE YANG whose telephone number is (571) 270-1884. The examiner can normally be reached on IFP.
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, Jonathan J Johnson can be reached on 571-272-1177. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JIE YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734