DETAILED ACTION
Claim 1 is pending.
Claim 1 is rejected.
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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
It is noted that the abstract filed 08/23/2023 exceeds 150 words. Furthermore, abstract, line 1 discloses “The embodiments disclosed herein relates to” (emphasis added).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-4 and 6-14 of co-pending Application No. 18472586 (co-pending). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the reasons set forth below.
The present claims require A method for producing a secondary battery material from black mass, comprising: leaching a roasted black mass to separate a lithium (Li) solution and a cake;
producing lithium carbonate (Li2CO3) crystals from the lithium (Li) solution; neutralizing a leaching solution and separating the leaching solution into another lithium (Li) solution and another cake containing Ni, Co, and Mn (NCM cake); feeding the lithium carbonate (Li2CO3) crystals and the another lithium (Li) solution to produce a lithium hydroxide (LiOH).
The co-pending claims meet all limitations of the present claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rohde et al., US 2021/0147960 A1 (Rohde) (provided in IDS received on 08/23/2023) in view of Satoshi et al., JP 2012106874 A1 (Satoshi) (provided in IDS received on 04/12/2024) and Byun et al., US 2018/0170763 A1 (Byun) (provided in IDS received on 04/12/2024).
The examiner has provided a machine translation of Satoshi et al., JP 2012106874 A1. The citation of the prior art set forth below refers to the machine translation.
Regarding claim 1, Rohde teaches process for the recovery of transition metal from spent lithium ion batteries containing nickel, wherein said process comprises the steps of (a) heating a lithium containing transition metal oxide material to a temperature in the range of from 400 to 1200° C (reading upon a roasted black mass), (b) treating said heat-treated material with water (reading upon leaching a roasted black mass), (c) treating the solid residue from step (b)with an acid selected from sulfuric acid, hydrochloric acid, nitric acid, methanesulfonic acid, oxalic acid and citric acid (Rohde, Abstract);
by solid-liquid separation an aqueous solution containing , Li2CO3 based on the respective acids employed in step (b) can be obtained. From this solution Li2CO3 with low solubility in water may be precipitated directly or after a concentration by water evaporation (reading upon producing lithium carbonate from the lithium solution) (Rohde, [0050]).
Given that Rohde teaches an identical or essentially identical process and using identical and essentially identical material, i.e., precipitation of Li2CO3 from concentrate, with those of the present invention (specification, [0030]), therefore, it is clear that the Li2CO3 precipitate of Rohde would necessarily be crystals.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Rohde further teaches the optional step (f) includes the precipitation of the transition metals as mixed hydroxides or mixed carbonates, preferably as mixed hydroxides; in cases where nickel and cobalt have been recovered by one of the methods described above (e.g. by hydrogen injection or electrolysis) step (f) serves to precipitate manganese and residual nickel and cobalt if applicable (reading upon separating into another cake containing Ni, Co, and Mn (NCM cake), the solution used for step(f) reads upon a leaching solution) (Rohde, [0087]);
step (f) is performed by the addition of ammonia and sodium hydroxide (i.e., to previously material treated in acid, therefore reading upon neutralizing a leaching solution) (Rohde, [0088]).
Rohde does not explicitly disclose (a) feeding the lithium carbonate (Li2CO3) crystals to produce a lithium hydroxide (LiOH); or (b) separating the leaching solution into another lithium (Li) solution and feed the another lithium (Li) solution to produce a lithium hydroxide (LiOH).
With respect to the difference (a), Satoshi teaches recovery of valuable metals from the lithium ion battery, such as lithium (Satoshi, page 2, 3rd-4th paragraphs). Satoshi specifically teaches lithium present in a lithium ion battery or during a valuable metal recovery process is recovered as lithium carbonate, which is a lithium carbonate. Lithium carbonate is refined into a lithium hydroxide crystal (LiOH·nH2O) (Satoshi, page 2, 4th paragraph).
As Satoshi expressly teaches, lithium carbonate is refined into a lithium hydroxide crystal (LiOH·nH2O) by a wet method in order to be used as, for example, a battery material (such as a positive electrode active material of a lithium ion battery) (Satoshi, page 2, 4th paragraph).
Satoshi is analogous art as Satoshi is drawn to recovery of valuable metals from the lithium ion battery.
In light of the motivation of refining lithium carbonate into a lithium hydroxide, as taught by Satoshi, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to refine the lithium carbonate of Rohde into lithium hydroxide (reading upon LiOH), in order to be used as a battery material, such as a positive electrode active material of a lithium ion battery, thereby arrive at the claimed limitation.
With respect to the difference (b), Byun teaches recovering lithium from waste solution of a waste lithium battery (Byun, [0007]). Byun specifically teaches…
As Byun expressly teaches, the lithium carbonate prepared through the above-described method (steps 1 to 7, S10 to S70), when performing the above-described method once, a solid lithium carbonate including 60 wt % to 80 wt % of lithium relative to the lithium content of a lithium waste solution of step 1 may be prepared, and if the above method is continuously performed and stabilized, only 3 wt % to 8 wt % of lithium relative to the lithium content of the lithium waste solution in step 1 can be disposed without being used (Byun, [0153]).
Byun is analogous art as Byun is drawn to recovering lithium from waste solution of a waste lithium battery.
In light of the motivation of continuously performing lithium carbonate formation from a lithium waste solution, as taught by Byun, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply the lithium carbonate formation technique continuously to the leaching solution after precipitation of Mn, Ni Co of Rohde and Satoshi, prior lithium hydroxide formation from the produced lithium carbonate, to further recover lithium, e.g., only 3 wt % to 8 wt % of lithium relative to the lithium content of the lithium waste solution can be disposed without being used, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Furthermore/However, the recitation in the claims that the method is “for producing a secondary battery material from black mass” is merely an intended use. Applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
It is the examiner’s position that the intended use recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. Given that Rohde in view of Satoshi and Byun teaches the method as presently claimed, it is clear that the method of Rohde in view of Satoshi and Byun would be capable of performing the intended use, i.e. for producing a secondary battery material from black mass, presently claimed as required in the above cited portion of the MPEP, and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELING ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8043. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00am-5:00pm EST.
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, Ching-Yiu Fung can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/KELING ZHANG/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1732