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 claims 1-3, 7, 12-13, 15, 17-19, and 23 in the reply filed on 8/3/2026 is acknowledged.
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 13 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.
In claim 13, line 2, the phrase “and preferably” is indefinite as to whether it is required by the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-3, 7, 17-19, 23, and 52-54 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hanisch US 2022/0320619.
Regarding claim 1, Hanish teaches a method for recycling Li batteries for recovery of e.g. copper, graphite, and lithium (Abstract, claims). The process includes precipitating a copper sulfate stream in a precipitation apparatus (Fig. 1, Item 24) using a sulfide reductant to form copper sulfide slurry (Paragraph [0069]). The separation of copper may occur between 1 and 720 minutes (Paragraph [0067]).
Regarding claim 2, Hanish does not expressly state the ORP of the reductant stream, but the steams would inherently have an ORP within the claimed range because it uses the same reduction method.
Regarding claim 3, the copper depleted stream is then sent to oxidation (Fig. 3, Item 24), which would increase the ORP.
Regarding claim 7, the reductant may be sodium hydrosulfide (Paragraph [0069]).
Regarding claims 17-18 and 54, Hanish does not expressly state the pH of the precipitation step. However, the pH would inherently be within the claimed ranges of 17-18, and 54 according to the contents of the reaction liquids described in Hanish.
Regarding claim 19, the copper sulfide is separated by filtration (Fig. 1, Item 24).
Regarding claim 23, the process includes digestion of lithium batteries in a mixture including lithium, graphite, and copper (Fig. 1, Paragraph [0038]-[0058]). The mass is leached at a pH of less than 4 and substantially most of the lithium and copper are leached from the mass (Paragraph [0052]).
Regarding claim 52-53, the process further includes oxidation of the copper depleted stream to remove iron, which would inherently be according to the conditions recited in claims 52-53 (Fig. 1, Item 28).
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.
Claim(s) 12-13, 15, and 48-51 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanisch US 2022/0320619.
Regarding claim 12-13, and 50, the precipitation step may occur at temperature of 0 to 100 deg. C, which overlaps the claimed ranges of claims 12-13 and 50. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claims 15 and 49, the separation of copper may occur between 1 and 720 minutes (Paragraph [0067]), which overlaps the claimed ranges of claims 15 and 49. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 48, Hanisch does not expressly state that the sulfide reductant is added at an amount of 1.2 to 1.6 times the feed stream. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to select a reductant amount in this range to achieve the described result of lowering the copper content to 10 mg per liter or less (Paragraph [0069]).
Regarding claim 51, Hanisch does not expressly state that 99wt% of the copper in the feed stream is precipitated. However, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to remove copper in an amount sufficient to achieve the described result of lowering the copper content to 1 mg per liter or less (Paragraph [0069]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES A FIORITO whose telephone number is (571)272-9921. 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, Amber Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-3149. 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.
/JAMES A FIORITO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights