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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim(s) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshioka et al. (JP2012229481).
Regarding claim 1, Yoshioka et al. a method of separately collecting valuable materials such as nickel and lithium from used lithium ion batteries which meets the limitation a method for recovering a lithium precursor from a lithium secondary battery (lines 5-20). Yoshioka et al. teaches disassembly of used lithium ion batteries after preliminary roasting can be performed using a crushing facility including a crusher, and the particle size after disassembly is not excessively fine which meets a broad and reasonable interpretation of pulverizing a cathode of the lithium secondary battery to provide a cathode powder (lines 150-160). Yoshioka et al. teaches the cathode comprising a lithium-transition metal oxide as a cathode active material (lines 95-110). Yoshioka et al. teaches an appropriate amount of an alkaline earth metal hydroxide such as Ca (OH) 2 or Mg (OH) 2 to the powdered product and mixing it with air containing appropriate moisture which meets a broad and reasonable interpretation of after pulverizing, mixing the cathode powder with a calcium compound to provide a cathode active material mixture (lines 180-190). Yoshioka et al. teaches reducing the cathode active material mixture to form a preliminary precursor mixture; and recovering a lithium precursor from the preliminary precursor mixture (lines 215-225).
Regarding claim 2, Yoshioka et al. teaches used lithium ion batteries in which the positive electrode active material is various lithium composite oxides, aluminum and copper used in battery case materials and current collectors, and cobalt constituting the positive electrode active material which meets a broad and reasonable interpretation of wherein the cathode comprises a waste cathode derived from scrap (lines 10-20).
Regarding claim 3, Yoshioka et al. teaches disassembly of used lithium ion batteries after preliminary roasting can be performed using a crushing facility including a crusher wherein the step of pulverizing comprises dry pulverizing the cathode of the lithium secondary battery.
Regarding claim 4, Yoshioka et al. teaches lithium ion batteries in which the positive electrode active material is various lithium composite oxides, aluminum and copper used in battery case materials and current collectors, and cobalt constituting the positive electrode active material which meets the limitation of wherein the cathode comprises a current collector and a cathode active material layer formed on the current collector and including a binder and a cathode active material, and the cathode powder comprises components derived from the cathode active material and the binder (lines 10-20).
Regarding claims 5 and 7, Yoshioka et al. teaches wherein the step of mixing or the step of reducing comprises reacting a component derived from the binder with the calcium compound to at least partially remove the component (lines 250-280).
Regarding claim 6, Yoshioka et al. teaches wherein the component derived from the binder comprises a fluorine component and a carbon component (lines 250-280).
Regarding claim 8, Yoshioka et al. teaches wherein the step of mixing comprises mixing the cathode powder with a calcium compound containing 0.5 to 1.5 times more calcium element than fluorine element contained in the cathode powder (lines 395-405).
Regarding claim 9, Yoshioka et al. teaches wherein the step of mixing comprises performing heat treatment on the cathode powder and the calcium compound together at a temperature of 300 to 600°C (lines 195-205).
Regarding claim 10, Yoshioka et al. teaches wherein the step of reducing comprises dry reduction using a hydrogen gas or a carbon-based material (lines 215-225).
Regarding claim 11, Yoshioka et al. teaches wherein the step of reducing is performed at a temperature is-of 400 to 600°C (lines 215-225).
Regarding claim 12, Yoshioka et al. teaches the first step in the separation and recovery method of the present invention is a method in which used lithium ion batteries are immersed in water in which alkaline earth metal hydroxide is dissolved or suspended which meets the limitation of wherein the step of recovering comprises obtaining a lithium precursor hydrate by washing the preliminary precursor mixture with water (lines 110-115).
Regarding claims 13-15, Yoshioka et al. teaches wherein the lithium-transition metal oxide has a composition represented by Formula 1: LixM1aM2bM3eOy (Formula 1) wherein M1, M2 and M3 are each a transition metal selected from Ni, Co, Mn, Na, Mg, Ca, Ti, V, Cr, Cu, Zn, Ge, Sr, Ag, Ba, Zr, Nb, Mo, Al, Ga or B, 0<x<1.1,2<y<2.02, 0<a<1, 0<b<1, 0<c<1, and 0<a+b+c<1 (lines 95-110).
Regarding claim 16, Yoshioka et al. teaches wherein the step of reducing further includes a carrier gas selected from the group consisting of nitrogen, helium, or argon (lines 245-250).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GUINEVER S GREGORIO whose telephone number is (571)270-5827. The examiner can normally be reached M-W 11 am - 9 pm.
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, Coris Fung 571-270-5713 can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/GUINEVER S GREGORIO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 07/24/2062
Prosecution Insights