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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). However, no certified English translation has been provided.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/29/2023, is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“whereby, on the one hand, the lithium …..are put into solution and, on the other hand, the manganese is dissolved, which selectively precipitates in the form of a manganese oxyhydroxide” is difficult to understand, especially the presence of the phrase “on the one hand” and “on the other hand”. Applicant may amend the claim like “whereby, the lithium …..are put into solution and, the manganese is dissolved, which selectively precipitates in a form of a manganese oxyhydroxide”.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“oxohydroxide” in line 3, Examiner interprets this as a typographical error, needed to be replaced with “oxyhydroxide”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b)
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 1-15 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the term “possibly cobalt and/or nickel” in line 3 and 6, renders the claim indefinite, because using of the term “possibly”, makes the limitation of “cobalt and/or nickel” as optional limitation, therefore, it is not clear whether this limitation is required by the instant claim or not.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the form" in last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the duration" and “the leaching” in line 2. There are insufficient antecedent basis for both of these limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the volume" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4-6, and 13-15 recite the term “the volume concentration of hydrogen peroxide”, renders the claim indefinite, because it is not clear whether this limitation is representing the concentration of hydrogen peroxide or the volume percentage of hydrogen peroxide in the acid solution, as claim 1 recites “the acid solution contains hydrogen peroxide”. The page 16 in the section of Example 5 of the instant specification, describes “The volume concentrations of hydrogen peroxide are 0% vol, 2% vol, 4% vol and 6% vol. The amount of H2O2 is transcribed in volume percentage with respect to the amount of liquid” but did not specify which liquid, and then in the same example, it has been further described “in the sulfuric acid solution according to the added volume percentage of H2O2 at 30%”.
The claim has been interpreted this limitation as “concentration of H2O2” and would be treated as a conventional manner in the relevant art.
Claim 4, recites a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 4 recites the broad recitation of “the volume concentration of hydrogen peroxide is between 1 % and 12%,” in line 3, and the claim also recites “preferably between 1 % and 6%” in line 3, which is the narrower statement of the limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 8 recites the limitation " the solid/liquid ratio" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8, recites a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 8 recites the broad recitation of “the solid/liquid ratio is comprised between 5% and 40%” in line 2, and the claim also recites “advantageously between 5% and 20%” in line 3, which is the narrower statement of the limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the ratio between the volume concentration of hydrogen peroxide and the solid/liquid ratio" in line 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9, recites a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 8 recites the broad recitation of “the ratio between the volume concentration of hydrogen peroxide and the solid/liquid ratio is between 0.1 and 0.4” in line 2-3, and the claim also recites “preferably between 0.2 and 0.3” in line 3, which is the narrower statement of the limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 11 recites the limitation " the temperature" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Appropriate corrections are required for all the claims above
Claims 2-15-are also rejected due to their dependency on claim 1.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 7, 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rohde, Wolfgang, et.al. [WO2019197192A1] (Wolfgang hereafter).
Regarding claims 1, Wolfgang discloses a method for dissolving a positive electrode material of a battery comprising a step during which the positive electrode material, including lithium, manganese and possibly cobalt and/or nickel (the recovery of transition metal from spent lithium ion batteries) is immersed in an acid solution at a pH value in the range of from 1.5 to 2 (Wolfgang’s step c), and Wolfgang teaches the pH is adjusted to maintain an excess of acid [Page 9, line 1-10, and Claim 1].
Wolfgang’s pH value is within the as recited in the instant claim.
Wolfgang then teaches the acid solution contains hydrogen peroxide, and the lithium and the transition metal, cobalt and/or nickel are put into solution and one of the preferred examples of reducing agents in step (c) is hydrogen peroxide, as reducing agents can reduce residual Mn(+IV) or Mn(3+) to Mn(2+) and is advantageous in case that Mn is present [Page 10, line 1-5, 7-14, line 16-18].
Wolfgang teaches manganese selectively precipitates in the form of a manganese oxyhydroxide (Wolfgang’s step (f) serves to precipitate manganese and residual nickel and cobalt if applicable) [Page 9, line 1-10, Claim 2]. Wolfgang’s manganese can be precipitated manganese as (mixed) hydroxide, oxyhydroxide or carbonate [Claim 2], therefore, selecting a precipitate in the form of a manganese oxyhydroxide from Wolfgang’s teachings would be a prima facie case of obviousness. Wolfgang’s precipitation of manganese and other transition metal in step f is selective precipitation as Wolfgang teaches in step (f), use of different separating parameters and conditions like use of hydroxides, controlling temperature, pH, organic additive material, etc. that are suitable for separation of each of the different transition metal [Page 15, line 25-44, and Page 16, line 1-3].
It is to be noted, although Wolfgang meets the limitation of “possibly cobalt and/or nickel”, this limitation is an optional, and not required by the claim language as recited in the instant claim.
Wolfgang’s disclosed recycling process allows easy and efficient recovery of transition metals, nickel, cobalt and manganese including lithium, as well as other valuable elements in high purity form that is reusable [page 2, line 4-14].
Although prior art teachings are from different embodiments, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine these teachings of Wolfgang for separating each transitional metal, like manganese and/or other required target metals Ni and/or Co from the different source of the spent batteries wherever applicable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention was made, to have the teachings of Wolfgang for separating material from the spent batteries, to have a recycling process for effective dissolution of a positive cathode material of a used lithium battery in an easy and efficient way to recover manganese, nickel, cobalt and lithium, in high purity form that can be reused.
Regarding claims 3, all the above discussions regarding claim 1 are applicable, Wolfgang further teaches a duration of the leaching step in the range of from 10 minutes to 10 hours, preferably 1 to 3 hours (Wolfgang’s step (c)) [Page 9, line 38-39]. Wolfgang further teaches after carrying out step (c), the residual lithium and transition metals are in the solution [Page, 10 line 1-5].
Wolfgang’s duration of leaching is incorporated within the as recited in the instant claim.
Regarding claims 7, all the above discussions regarding claim 1 are applicable, wherein Wolfgang already teaches a pH value in the range of from 1.5 to 2 is adjusted to maintain an excess of acid [Page 9, line 1-10, Claim 1]. Wolfgang further teaches after carrying out step (c), the residual lithium and transition metals are in the solution [Page, 10 line 1-5].
Wolfgang’s pH value is within the as recited in the instant claim.
Regarding claims 10, all the above discussions regarding claim 1 are applicable, Wolfgang teaches the positive electrode is an NMC electrode (spent batteries containing transition metal oxide material is lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide ("NCM")) and different examples of NCM batteries [Page, 5 and 6].
Regarding claims 11, all the above discussions regarding claim 1 are applicable, Wolfgang further teaches the temperature of the solution is comprised between a preferred range of 20°C to 130°C [Page 9, line 16-17]. Wolfgang further teaches after carrying out step (c), the residual lithium and transition metals are in the solution [Page, 10 line 1-5].
Wolfgang’s temperature of the solution during leaching is overlapping the as recited in the instant claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have selected a temperature of the solution during leaching from the teachings of Wolfgang that falls within the instantly-claimed ranges, because “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)” [See MPEP § 2144.05.I].
Regarding claims 12, all the above discussions regarding claim 1 are applicable, in addition, Wolfgang teaches the positive electrode material is in a particulate form as Wolfgang teaches in step (a), the battery cells is comminuted (e.g. by shredders or hammermills) to facilitate the separation of different fractions, for example ferrous and non-ferrous metals and fractions containing particulate matter comprising materials from the electrodes like lithium and transition metal containing particles (positive electrode). Particulate matter is separated by sieving or classifying [Page 3 line 11-17].
Therefore, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have Wolfgang’s teaching for having particulate form of material for facilitate the separation the positive electrode material from the rest of other battery material, for recovering the positive electrode material from the used battery.
Claims 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over as being unpatentable over Rohde, Wolfgang, et.al. [WO2019197192A1] (Wolfgang hereafter) as applied of claim 1 and in view of Li Changqing et.al. [CN105932351A] (machine translation) (Li hereafter).
Regarding claims 2, all the above discussions regarding claim 1 are applicable, wherein Wolfgang teaches manganese can be precipitated manganese as (mixed) hydroxide, oxyhydroxide or carbonate [Claim 2] (Wolfgang’s step (f)) [Claim 2].
But Wolfgang is silent about the manganese of the positive electrode material is entirely recovered in the form of manganese oxyhydroxide.
However, Li discloses the manganese of the positive electrode material is entirely recovered in the form of manganese oxyhydroxide as Li discloses a method for dissolving a positive electrode material of a battery and a step during which the positive electrode material including lithium, and manganese (the recovery of transition metal from spent lithium ion batteries, and an example of Li-Mn battery) is immersed in an acid solution contains hydrogen peroxide (Li’s dissolving of electrode materials step) (Claim 2, [0020], Example 3), wherein lithium and the transition metal manganese are dissolved in the solution (Li’s Example 3 teaches the filtrate contains Mn², Li and SO²) (Claim 2, [0021], Example 3), and manganese is selectively precipitated from this filtrate in the manganese separation step, in the form of a manganese oxyhydroxide, (MnOOH) precipitate, by controlling pH, addition of sodium hydroxide and temperature while lithium is still in the filtrate (Example 3). Li’s process of recycling of positive electrode materials of batteries, is beneficial as the separation avoids using any organic solvents, as well as the process comprises "zero discharge", low energy consumption and is easy to implement and ensures the healthy and sustainable development of the lithium-ion battery industry ([0045]-[0047]).
Li’s teaching is directed to the recovery of positive electrode material and analogous to the instant claim as well as Wolfgang.
Therefore, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have Li’s teaching of precipitating manganese hydroxide precipitate to modify the recovery of positive electrode material of Wolfgang to avoid organic solvents, while promoting a "zero discharge", low energy consumption, easy implementation as well as ensuring the healthy and sustainable development of the lithium-ion battery industry.
Claims 4-6, 8-9 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokota Wolfgang, et.al. [WO2019197192A1] (Wolfgang hereafter) as applied to claim 1, and in view of Wei-Sheng Chen “Recovery of Valuable Metals from Lithium-Ion Batteries NMC Cathode Waste Materials by Hydrometallurgical Methods”, Metals 2018, 8, 321] (Chen hereafter).
Regarding claims 4-6, all the above discussions regarding claim 1 are applicable, wherein Wolfgang discloses the acid solution contains hydrogen peroxide, and the lithium and all the transition metal, cobalt, nickel, manganese al are dissolved in the solution and the reducing agents is helpful to reduce residual Mn(+IV) or Mn3+ to Mn2+ and is advantageous when Mn is present [Page 10, line 1-5, 7-14, line 16-18].
But Wolfgang is silent about the concentration of hydrogen peroxide.
However, Chen teaches an improved process of metal recovery from lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) and lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide (NMC) cathode waste materials by using hydrometallurgical methods and the essential effects of H2O2 concentration, leaching time, liquid-solid mass ratio, and reaction temperature with the leaching percentage in the acid leaching step [Abstract]. Chen’s leaching procedure comprises the cathode material dissolved in sulfuric acid, and the chemical equation (3) demonstrates the cathode waste materials from LIBs are dissolved in the sulfuric acid solution with hydrogen peroxide [Page 3, and 4, 2.2 Leaching]. Chen then teaches the effect of H2O2 concentration in the leaching process as illustrated in the Figure 3(b), wherein the concentration of H2O2 is varied in the range from 0.2% to 21%, and the leaching efficiency significantly increase at around 8.16%, after that H2O2 concentration has no effect on leaching of cathode material. This phenomenon is attributed to the reductions of Mn4+ to Mn2+ helps these metals to dissolve more readily [Page 5, and 6, 3.1.1. Effect of H2O2 Concentration, Figure 3(b)].
Chen’s H2O2 concentration is overlapping with as recited in the instant claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have H2O2 concentration selected from Chen, because “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)” [See MPEP § 2144.05.I].
Chen’s teaching is directed to the leaching of positive electrode material and thus, analogous to the instant claim as well as Wolfgang.
Therefore, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have Chen’s teaching of H2O2 concentration to modify Wolfgang for reducing the cathode metals to dissolve more readily in the dissolving process.
Regarding claims 8, all the above discussions regarding claim 1 are applicable, but Wolfgang is silent about the solid/liquid ratio is comprised between 5% and 40%.
However, Chen teaches an improved process of metal recovery from lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) and lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide (NMC) cathode waste materials by using hydrometallurgical methods and the essential effects of H2O2 concentration, leaching time, liquid-solid mass ratio, and reaction temperature with the leaching percentage in the acid leaching step [Abstract]. Chen then teaches the effect of the liquid-solid mass ratio is shown in Figure 3c. The leaching percentages of all metals investigated were generally increased, while the liquid-solid mass ratio increased from 3/1 to 30/1. When the liquid-solid mass ratio is low, there is insufficient acid to react in the process. In other words, when the liquid-solid mass ratio is high, there is more acid readily able to react and available to obtain a higher leaching percentage [Page 6, 3.1.2. Effect of Liquid-Solid mass Ratio, Figure 3(b)].
Chen’s solid-liquid ratio (calculated from Chen’s liquid- solid mass ratio) is 1/30 to 1/3, i.e. 0.03 to 0.33, i.e. 3.33% to 33.00%.
Chen’s solid-liquid ratio is overlapping with as recited in the instant claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have solid-liquid ratio selected from Chen, because “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)” [See MPEP § 2144.05.I].
Regarding claims 9, all the above discussions regarding claim 1 are applicable to claim 9, but Wolfgang is silent about the concentration of hydrogen peroxide and the solid/liquid ratio, therefore, Wolfgang is silent about the ratio between the volume concentration of hydrogen peroxide and the solid/liquid ratio is comprised between 0.1 and 0.4 and preferably between 0.2 and 0.3.
Chen teaches the effect of H2O2 concentration in the leaching process in the Figure 3, wherein the concentration of H2O2 is varied in the range from 0.2% to 21%, and Figure 3b illustrates that the leaching efficiency significantly increase at around 8.16%, after that H2O2 concentration has no effect on leaching of cathode material. This phenomenon is attributed to the fact that the reductions of Mn4+ to Mn2+ would help these metals to dissolve more readily [Page 5, and 6, 3.1.1. Effect of H2O2 Concentration, Figure 3(b)]. Chen also teaches the effect of the liquid-solid mass ratio is shown in Figure 3c. The leaching percentages of all metals investigated were generally increased, while the liquid-solid mass ratio increased from 3/1 to 30/1. When the liquid-solid mass ratio is low, there is insufficient acid to react in the process. In other words, when the liquid-solid mass ratio is high, there was more acid readily able to react and available to obtain a higher leaching percentage [Page 6, 3.1.2. Effect of Liquid-Solid mass Ratio, Figure 3(b)]. Chen’s solid-liquid ratio (calculated from Chen’s liquid- solid mass ratio) is 1/30 to 1/3, i.e. 0.03 to 0.33, i.e. 3.33% to 33.00%.
Given Chen’s teaching of H2O2 concentration and liquid-solid mass ratio, the calculated ratio between the concentration of hydrogen peroxide and the solid/liquid ratio is 0.06 (0.2/3.33) to 0.24 (8.16/33.33).
Chen’s calculated ratio between the concentration of hydrogen peroxide and the solid/liquid ratio is overlapping with as recited in the instant claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have calculated ratio between the concentration of hydrogen peroxide and the solid/liquid ratio selected from Chen, because “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)” [See MPEP § 2144.05.I].
Regarding claims 13 and 14, all the above discussions regarding claim 1 are applicable to claim 13 and 14, but Wolfgang is silent about the concentration of hydrogen peroxide and the solid/liquid ratio.
However, Chen teaches the effect of H2O2 concentration in the leaching process as illustrated in the Figure 3(b), wherein the concentration of H2O2 is varied in the range from 0.2% to 21%, and the leaching efficiency significantly increase at around 8.16%, after that H2O2 concentration has no effect on leaching of cathode material. [Page 5, and 6, 3.1.1. Effect of H2O2 Concentration, Figure 3(b)]. Chen also teaches the effect of the liquid-solid mass ratio is shown in Figure 3c. The leaching percentages of all metals are generally increased, while the liquid-solid mass ratio increased from 3/1 to 30/1. [Page 6, 3.1.2. Effect of Liquid-Solid mass Ratio, Figure 3(c)] and Chen’s solid-liquid ratio (calculated from Chen’s liquid- solid mass ratio) is 3.33% to 33.00%.
Chen’s concentration of hydrogen peroxide and the solid/liquid ratio values are overlapping with as recited in the instant claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have concentration of hydrogen peroxide and the solid/liquid ratio selected from Chen, because “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)” [See MPEP § 2144.05.I].
Regarding claims 15, all the above discussions regarding claim 1 are applicable, Wolfgang teaches in the leaching step (step (c) with an acid and the said aqueous acid has a pH value in the range of from 1.5 to 2 is adjusted to maintain an excess of acid [Page 9, line 1-10, Claim 1].
Wolfgang’s pH value is within the as recited in the instant claim.
But Wolfgang is silent about the concentration of hydrogen peroxide and the solid/liquid ratio.
However, Chen teaches the effect of H2O2 concentration in the leaching process in the Figure 3, wherein the concentration of H2O2 is varied in the range from 0.2% to 21%, and Figure 3b illustrates that the leaching efficiency significantly increase at around 8.16%, after that H2O2 concentration has no effect on leaching of cathode material [Page 5, and 6, 3.1.1. Effect of H2O2 Concentration, Figure 3(b)]. Chen also teaches the effect of the liquid-solid mass ratio is shown in Figure 3c. The leaching percentages of all metals are generally increased, while the liquid-solid mass ratio increased from 3/1 to 30/1. [Page 6, 3.1.2. Effect of Liquid-Solid mass Ratio, Figure 3(c)]. Chen’s solid-liquid ratio (calculated from Chen’s liquid- solid mass ratio) is 3.33% to 33.00%.
Chen’s concentration of hydrogen peroxide and the solid/liquid ratio values are overlapping with as recited in the instant claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have concentration of hydrogen peroxide and the solid/liquid ratio selected from Chen, because “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)” [See MPEP § 2144.05.I].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAZMUN NAHAR SHAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-5421. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00 AM - 7:00PM (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, Merkling Sally can be reached on (571)2726297. 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.
/NAZMUN NAHAR SHAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/SALLY A MERKLING/SPE, Art Unit 1738