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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-12 are pending and are presented for this examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 09/25/2023 and is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 5, 9 and 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, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In claim 5, it is unclear whether “an addition of iron ore as iron source” is the same addition of an iron source of claim 1 or different. Clarification is required. It is further unclear as to whether 94% iron oxide FeO3 is with respect to the entire iron ore or something else.
In claim 9, it is unclear whether “this fraction being used to receive” means this fraction is the same quantity as the new feed of black mass and iron source or something else. Term “being used to” needs clarification.
The terms “single basicity” and “global basicity” in claim 12 are both relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The term “single” and “global” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim Objection
Claim 1 recited “(100)”, “(E1)”, “(110)”, “(E2)”, “(130)”, “(E3)”, “(160)” and “(150)”, claim 12 recited “(140) and claim 4 recited “(200)” are merely schematic symbols in Figure 4 of instant application. Hence, they are not claim limitations. It is suggested to remove these symbols in claim 1 to avoid confusion.
Claim Interpretations
Instant claim 2 limitation after “if a supplement is needed..” is considered optional limitation.
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:
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) 1-3, 6, 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ren (NPL document “Recovery of Valuable metals from spent lithium ion batteries by smelting reduction process based on FeO-SiO2-Al2O3 slag system from IDS 09/25/2023) in view of Pyrometallurgy (NPL document “Pyrometallurgy_Wikipedia”) and evidenced by Pyrometallurgy_refining (NPL document “Pyrometallurgy: How Gold Is Refined Using Fire”)
As for claims 1-3, 6 and 9-10, Ren discloses a recovery of valuable metals from spent lithium ion batteries by pyrometallurgical process (Page 450 Col 12 paragraph 2), comprising mixing sheared spent Li-ion batteries with a copper slag former which mains consists of strip like fayalite and magnetite (i.e. iron ore). (Page 451 Col 2 paragraph 1) Hence, instant claim 1 required addition of an iron source to the black mass is expected as iron ore is expected to have an iron source. Magnetite meets instant claim 10 required iron ore. Sheared spent Li-ion batteries meets instant claim 3 agglomeration into pellets and instant claim 6 limitation.
The mixture is held in an alumna crucible and smelted in an electrical melting furnace. Ren explicitly discloses smelting is to deoxidize Co and Ni contained in cathode material to metallic Co and Ni by metallic aluminum or graphite which is plenty present in Li-ion battery (Page 450 Col 2 paragraph 2 and Page 452 Col 2 formula (4) and (5)). Instant claim 2 is met. Hence, Ren suggests carburizing smelting the mixture to obtain a carburized metal bath. Since smelting is a reduction process which produced a large amount of energy (Page 450 Col 2 last paragraph bridging Page 451 Col 1 paragraph 1), instant claim 1 required carburizing smelting by supply of energy is expected.
After the carburizing smelting, a slag of FeO, SiO2, Al2O3, CaO and MgO is analyzed which suggests separating a first slag.
Ren does not explicitly disclose “oxidizing treatment of the carburized metal bath thus refine and separation of a second slag to obtain a ferroalloy”.
Pyrometallurgy discloses refining is the final stage in extracting metals from ore, where the goal is to purify the metal by removing trace impurities. This is often done by selectively oxidizing base metal impurities which leaving the desired metal in the melt as evidenced by Pyrometallurgy_refining.
Ren desired to remove impurity in the alloy after carburizing smelting.
Hence, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art, at the time the invention is made to further oxidizing the carburized metal bath thus refining the alloy, in the process of Ren because Pyrometallurgy and Pyrometallurgy_refining disclose oxidizing refining is a final stage to purify the metal by removing trace impurities as desired by Ren.
Instant claim 1 required separation of a second slag to obtain a ferroalloy is expected as a result of oxidizing the carburizing metal bath.
Instant claim 9 required continuous production would have been obvious in light of the bath process of the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04 V.
Table 3 discloses CaO (lime) and MgO (magnesia) in the obtained slag (i.e. claimed first slag) after carburizing smelting which suggests the addition of lime and magnesia to the mixture before carburizing smelting as required by instant claim 12.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ren (NPL document “Recovery of Valuable metals from spent lithium ion batteries by smelting reduction process based on FeO-SiO2-Al2O3 slag system from IDS 09/25/2023) in view of Holzer (NPL document “A Novel Pyrometallurgical Recycling Process for Lithium-Ion Batteries and Its Application to the Recycling of LCO and LFP” published on 1/2021).
As for claims 1-3, 6 and 9-10, Ren discloses instant claims limitation as indicated in rejection above.
Ren does not explicitly disclose “oxidizing treatment of the carburized metal bath thus refine and separation of a second slag to obtain a ferroalloy”.
Holzer discloses a Novel Pyrometallurgical Recycling Process for Lithium-Ion Batteries and Its Application to the Recycling of LCO and LFP.
Holzer explicitly discloses a downstream post combustion chamber in which external air or oxygen are used to convert elemental phosphorus to P2O5, after which the resulting material is divided into a metal and a slag fraction which can be further separated from each other. (Page 6 paragraph 1) The downstream post combustion chamber is after carbo reduction reactor.
Hence, Holzer suggests oxidizing treatment of the carburized metal bath thus refine and separation of a second slag to obtain a ferroalloy as required by instant claim 1 to remove impurity such as phosphorus.
Hence, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art, at the time the invention is made, to further oxidizing the carburized metal bath thus refining the alloy as suggested by Holzer, in the process of Ren because Holzer discloses oxidizing refining is a final stage to purify the metal by removing trace impurities as desired by Ren.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ren in view of Pyrometallurgy and Pyrometallurgy_refining as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Rohde (US 20220352570).
As for claim 4, Ren does not disclose smelting in a rotary converter.
Rhode discloses PROCESS FOR THE RECOVERY OF LITHIUM AND OTHER METALS FROM WASTE LITHIUM ION BATTERIES. Rhode expressly discloses [0099] smelting furnace are electric arc furnace or rotary converter.
Hence, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art, at the time the invention is made, to replace electric melting furnace of Ren with functional equivalent smelting furnace such as rotary converter with expected success as Rhode discloses electric arc furnace or rotary converter serves as same purpose of carburizing smelting. See MPEP 2144.06.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ren in view of Holzer as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Rohde (US 20220352570).
As for claim 4, Rhode indicates smelting in a rotary converter would have been obvious for the same reason set forth in rejection of claim 4 above.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ren in view of Pyrometallurgy and Pyrometallurgy_refining as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Mandal (NPL document “Utilization of Lime Fines as an Effective Binder as well as Fluxing Agent for Making Fluxed Iron Ore Pellets”).
As for claim 7, Ren does not disclose utilizing slaked lime as binder to facilitate agglomeration of the black mass and iron ore.
Mandal discloses Utilization of Lime Fines as an Effective Binder as well as Fluxing Agent for Making Fluxed Iron Ore Pellets is well known in the agglomeration iron pellet art since 2015 due to its low melting point which enhances sticking behavior of pellets, as well as imparts strength to the pellet. (Abstract)
Hence, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art, at the time the invention is made, to add slake lime as binder as suggested by Mandal, in the process of Ren in view of Pyrometallurgy because Mandal teaches adding of fine limes effectively enhance sticking behavior and imparts strength to the pellet.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ren in view of Holzer as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Mandal (NPL document “Utilization of Lime Fines as an Effective Binder as well as Fluxing Agent for Making Fluxed Iron Ore Pellets”).
As for claim 7, Mandal indicates instant claimed feature would have been obvious for the same reason set forth in rejection of claim 7 above.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ren in view of Pyrometallurgy and Pyrometallurgy_refining as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Takahashi (US 20140345422).
As for claim 8, Ren does not disclose oxidizing treatment with addition of quick lime.
Takahashi discloses method for revering valuable metal when discarded batteries such as lithium ion are treated. (abstract).
Takahashi discloses during a melting step in which an oxidizing agent is blown into the furnace, SiO2 and CaO (i.e. quick lime) are added as fluxes to lower the melting point of the slag. [0036][0052]
Hence, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art, at the time the invention is made, to add quick slime of Takahashi, in the process of Ren in view of Pyrometallurgy because Takahashi teaches addition of quick slime advantageously lowers the viscosity of the slag.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ren in view of Holzer as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Takahashi (US 20140345422).
As for claim 8, Takahashi indicates instant claimed feature would have been obvious for the same reason set forth in rejection of claim 8 above.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ren in view of Pyrometallurgy and Pyrometallurgy_refining as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Myerson (US5,855,645).
As for claim 11, Ren discloses iron ore as the iron source to mix with black mass but does not disclose iron source as scrap iron.
Myerson discloses production of more concentrated iron product from industrial waste material such as spent lithium battery.
Myerson expressly discloses scrap iron can also be used as a feed, along with iron ore and coke to the iron smelting furnace. (Col 2 lines 44-45)
Hence, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art, at the time the invention is made, to include scrap iron which is rich in iron oxide along with iron ore, as additional iron source as disclosed by Myerson, in the process of Ren in view of Pyrometallurgy as Myerson teaches scrap iron is rich in iron oxide which can further enhance iron production yield.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ren in view of Holzer as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Myerson (US5,855,645).
As for claim 11, Myerson indicates instant claimed feature would have been obvious for the same reason set forth in rejection of claim 11 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNY R WU whose telephone number is (571)270-5515. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 AM-5:00 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, Keith Hendricks can be reached on (571)272-1401. 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.
/JENNY R WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights