Detailed Office Action
Notice of Pre-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 .
Restriction/Election
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1 – 25 and 32 in the reply filed on 06/12/26 is acknowledged. Claims 26 – 31 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/12/26.
Claim Rejections – U.S.C. § 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 2 – 5, 8 – 12, 15, and 17 – 24 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.
Regarding claims 2 – 5, 8, 10 – 12, 15, 17, 19 – 20, 22 – 24, the use of “preferably” is indefinite exemplary claim language. The inclusion of the word throughout the claims creates confusion as to the metes and bounds of the claims because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention or merely a preferred narrower embodiment. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of examination, the limitations following the word are interpreted as not required. A broad limitation together with a narrow imitation that falls within the broad 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.
Regarding claims 4, 9 – 10, and 20, the use of “such as” is indefinite exemplary claim language. The inclusion of the word throughout the claims renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention or merely an example. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of examination, the limitations following the word are interpreted as not required. A broad limitation together with a narrow imitation that falls within the broad 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.
Regarding claims 18 and 21 – 22, the use of “e.g.” is indefinite exemplary claim language. The inclusion of the abbreviation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention or merely an example. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of examination, the limitations following the word are interpreted as not required. A broad limitation together with a narrow imitation that falls within the broad 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.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase “in oxide form” is indefinite. The phrase is indefinite because it is not clear whether it only applies to only the elements of cobalt, manganese, and aluminum, or if it also encompasses lithium and nickel. For purposes of examination, the former interpretation is taken.
Regarding claim 4, the claim limitation is indefinite. 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 less than 3%, and the claim also recites less than 1.5% which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are 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.
Regarding claim 10, the phrase “as well as phosphates” is indefinite because it is not clear whether this phrase is included as an exemplary embodiment along with “such as iron and aluminum” or whether the removal of phosphates is required. The former interpretation is taken for purposes of examination.
Regarding claims 18 and 21, the phrase “which solution is utilized as such” is indefinite because it is not clear what the phrase is intended to mean. It is not clear whether the phrase is requiring that the sulphate solution is used in a further process or whether the phrase is intended to mean that the solution can be optionally purified further (i.e., “produces a nickel/cobalt sulphate solution which can be optionally purified further”). For purposes of examination, the latter interpretation is taken.
Claim Rejections – U.S.C. §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 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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1 – 4, 6 – 13, and 15 – 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morin (WO2019/060996, cited with the OA on 04/17/26) and Hu (CN108899601, using espacenet translation provided herewith, cited with the OA on 04/17/26).
Regarding claim 1, Morin teaches a process for recovering metals from Li-ion batteries [Title]. The anode and cathode materials including nickel and lithium [0049, Fig 2, 3]. The process includes:
A plurality of processing steps for separating non-metallic material (i.e. “organic separation”) and recovering black mass [Fig 1., Fig 2; 0050].
Meeting the claimed limitation of one or more pretreatment steps wherein a fraction of non-metallic material is separated from black mass
Subjected the combined cathode and anode materials (i.e., black mass/black powder) to a leaching step [Fig 2, Fig 3, “17”]. The leaching is acidic and the metals are dissolved in the sulfuric acid leachate [0047, 0061].
Meeting the claimed limitation of the black mass containing anode and cathode material and using a pre-treated black mass as a metal-containing leaching feed in an acid leaching step with sulfuric acid, whereby metals are dissolved.
The leachate is then subjected to a plurality of steps which separate/recover individual fractions of metals from the solution [Fig 4].
Meeting the claimed limitation of metal separation steps wherein initial fractions of metallic material are separated from the leach solution.
The nickel recovery occurs after several metals and is upstream of the lithium steps [Fig 4].
Meeting the claimed limitation of main fractions containing at least nickel and lithium and lithium is recovered after recovery of nickel.
The lithium recovery includes precipitating the lithium as lithium carbonate [Fig 4] and recycling the remaining solution back to the leaching solution to recover any unrecovered lithium/increase recovery yield of lithium [0090]
Meeting the claimed limitation of reacting lithium into lithium carbonate, separating the solids, and recovering the solids.
Morin does not expressly teach a second precipitation step of reacting the effluent with a phosphate agent and a fraction of the precipitate being recycled to the acid leaching.
Hu teaches an arrangement of recovering lithium/metals from lithium batteries [Title]. Hu teaches that the arrangement can have two precipitation steps prior to recycling including precipitation by lithium carbonate followed by recovering additional lithium from the liquid/filtrate by introducing phosphate to precipitate lithium phosphate [0012 – 0014]. The remaining filtrate/effluent can also be recycled to recover unrecovered lithium [0014], meeting the claimed limitation of reacting the effluent with a phosphating agent to precipitate lithium phosphate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have taken the method of Morin and added an additional precipitation step using a phosphating agent for the lithium recovery area, as disclosed in Hu. Morin and Hu are directed to the same field of endeavor and comprise similar methods of separation and recovery of metals from lithium batteries. As such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have considered the teachings of Hu to be pertinent to the disclosure of Morin. Moreover, Hu shows that an additional precipitation step can be used to further recover lithium in the process, a benefit an ordinarily skilled artisan would have appreciated.
Lastly, Morin expressly discloses that the acidic solution/filtrate after lithium precipitation is recycled to the leaching step [Fig 4]. Given that solid-liquid filtration is not 100% efficient in all particles being retrieved, at least some of the lithium phosphate would be recycled back to the leaching step. The claimed limitation/range of “at least a fraction” includes amounts as small as a few particles and therefore, the recycling of the filtrate after phosphate precipitation would meet the broadest reasonable interpretation of recycling at least a fraction of the lithium phosphate back to the leaching step.
Regarding claim 2, Morin in view of Hu teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Morin teaches/shows in Fig 2 that the black mass includes Li and Ni as well as Co, Al, and Mn, in the form of oxides [0047], meeting the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 3, Morin in view of Hu teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Morin teaches that the batteries are subjected to washing and drying, in addition to others, in order to separate non black mass material such as organics and plastic [Fig 1, 2, 0050 – 0056], meeting the claimed limitation of pre-treatment steps including washing and/or heating.
Regarding claim 4, Morin in view of Hu teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Morin teaches that the light organics are removed from residue by drying [Fig 1, 0054 – 0055] and the heavy organics are removed from the residue through various additional steps [Fig 1, 0056]. Therefore, there is a reasonable expectation to an ordinarily skilled artisan that the organics present in the black mass materials after treating in Fig 1. would be ~0 wt%, falling within the claimed range.
Alternatively, Morin teaches that the process steps of Fig 1 are specifically for removing/separating the organics of the recycled batteries [see Fig and 0050 – 0056] and as such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have controlled/optimized the process of Morin to ensure that the organics content was essentially 0% with a reasonable expectation of success in achieving predictable results given that the process steps disclosed in Fig 1 are intentionally designed to separate the organics.
Regarding claim 6, Morin in view of Hu teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Morin teaches that the leaching is performed in one step to form metal sulfates and non-leachable materials [0047, Fig 3], meeting the claimed limitation. Morin in view of Hu suggests that lithium precipitates are recycled back to the leaching to improve purity/recovery efficiency.
Regarding claim 7, Morin in view of Hu teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Morin shows that other metals such as copper, aluminum, and iron are recovered prior to the recovery of lithium and nickel, meeting the claimed limitation of initial fractions of metallic materials are recovered from the leach solution prior to recovering the main fractions of metallic material (which include nickel and lithium).
Regarding claim 8, Morin in view of Hu teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Morin teaches that the leachate following leaching contains at least iron and aluminum [Fig 3], meeting the claimed limitation of initial fractions including iron and aluminum ions. Moreover, Morin in view of Hu results in recycling of a filtrate to the leaching step that contains phosphate ions. Therefore, there is a reasonable expectation to an ordinarily skilled artisan that the combination of Morin in view of Hu would naturally result in phosphate ions being present in the leachate.
Alternatively or in addition to this, Morin teaches that lithium iron phosphate batteries can also be recycled in the process [0049] with would result in both iron and phosphate ions being present in the leachate [Fig 2, Fig 3].
Regarding claim 9, Morin in view of Hu teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Morin shows in Fig 3 that solvent extraction is performed to recover cobalt and manganese [0067, Fig 3], meeting the claimed limitation of separating initial fraction metallic material from the leaching solution by solvent extraction to remove impurities.
Regarding claims 10 – 11, Morin in view of Hu teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Morin shows in Fig 3 that a precipitation step is used to recover copper prior to recovery of nickel and lithium [0065], meeting the claimed limitation of separating initial fraction metallic material by precipitation and the limitation of recovering copper from the leach solution of claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, Morin in view of Hu teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Morin shows in Fig 3 and states in [0067] that solvent extraction is performed to recover cobalt and manganese, meeting the claimed limitation of recoveries of main fraction metallic material including manganese and/or cobalt.
Regarding claim 13, Morin in view of Hu teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Morin shows in Fig 3 and Fig 4 that manganese, cobalt, and/or nickel are recovered before lithium, meeting the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 15, Morin in view of Hu teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Morin states that the pH can be controlled so that nickel and cobalt are recovered together or separately [0067], meeting the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 16, Morin in view of Hu teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Morin teaches that nickel is recovered from the leachate in a latter step than other metals [Fig 4]. Morin in view of Hu results in recycling of a filtrate to the leaching step that contains phosphate ions. Therefore, there is a reasonable expectation to an ordinarily skilled artisan that the combination of Morin in view of Hu that phosphate ions from the recycle stream to the leaching step would be captured/recovered during subsequent metal separation steps.
Regarding claim 17, Morin in view of Hu teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Morin teaches that solvent extraction is used to recover a nickel sulphate solution [Fig 4, 0067, 0072], meeting the claimed limitation of producing a nickel sulphate solution by solvent extraction.
Regarding claim 18, Morin in view of Hu teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Morin teaches that solvent extraction is used to recover a nickel sulphate solution and precipitated as hydroxide [Fig 4, 0067, 0072], meeting the claimed limitation of producing a nickel sulphate solution by solvent extraction and precipitated into hydroxide.
Regarding claim 19, Morin in view of Hu teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Morin states that the pH can be controlled so that nickel and cobalt are recovered together or separately [0067], meeting the claimed limitation of recovering cobalt either before or with nickel.
Regarding claim 20, Morin in view of Hu teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Morin shows in Fig 4 that solvent extraction is used during the recovery/separation of cobalt from the leachate and that a solution containing cobalt sulfate is produced, meeting the claimed limitation of recovering cobalt by solvent extraction and producing a cobalt sulfate solution.
Regarding claim 21, Morin in view of Hu teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Morin shows in Fig 4 that solvent extraction is used during the recovery/separation of cobalt from the leachate and that a solution containing cobalt sulfate is produced, meeting the claimed limitation of recovering cobalt by solvent extraction, producing a cobalt sulfate solution, and optionally purifying.
Regarding claim 22, Morin in view of Hu teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Morin teaches/shows that manganese is recovered from the leach solution by solvent extraction [Fig 4], meeting the claimed limitation of recovering manganese from the leaching solution by solvent extraction.
Regarding claim 23, Morin in view of Hu teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Hu teaches that the phosphoric reagent added to the lithium carbonate [0013] can be sodium phosphate [0025], meeting the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 24, Morin in view of Hu teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Hu teaches that the phosphating agent is added at a reaction temperature of 60 – 90°C [0025], which falls within the claimed temperature of 50 – 90°C.
Regarding claim 25, Morin in view of Hu teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Hu teaches that a phosphating agent is added to the lithium carbonate liquor to precipitate lithium phosphate [0041] and said liquor is at 12 – 13.0 pH [0012, 0013], which falls within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 26, Morin in view of Hu teaches the process as applied in claim 1.
The plurality of pretreatment steps for separating non-metallic material and recovering black mass containing anode and cathode materials [Fig 1., Fig 2] meet the limitation of one or more pretreatment units for recovering pre-treated black and separating non-metallic components.
Subjecting the combined cathode and anode materials (i.e., black mass/black powder) to a leaching step [Fig 2, Fig 3, “17”] in which the solution is acidic and the metals are dissolved in the sulfuric acid leachate [0047, 0061] meets the claimed limitation of one or more leaching units for dissolving metals by acid leaching.
The leachate is then subjected to a plurality of steps which separate/recover individual fractions of metals from the solution [Fig 4] which meets the claimed limitation of metal separation units for separating initial fractions of metallic material and recovering metallic material.
The nickel recovery is upstream of the lithium steps [Fig 4], meeting the claimed limitation of a lithium recovery units positioned downstream of a nickel recovery unit.
The lithium recovery includes precipitating the lithium [Fig 4] and recycling the remaining solution back to the leaching solution to recover any unrecovered lithium/increase recovery yield of lithium [0090, Fig 4], meeting the claimed limitation of precipitation unit for carbonation and a recycle line.
Hu teaches the inclusion of an additional precipitation unit for forming lithium phosphate, meeting the claimed limitation of a reaction unit.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morin (WO2019/060996) and Hu (CN108899601, using espacenet translation provided herewith), as applied in claim 1, Napier (WO2022/032345)
Regarding claim 5, Morin in view of Hu teaches the invention of claim 1. Morin teaches that the battery (which would include the black mass) is shredded and subjected to washing/submergence in solvent to remove electrolyte salt [0051, 0052], meeting the claimed limitation of washing the black mass with an organic solvent to separate non-metallic material.
Morin does not teach extracting lithium phosphate from the washing lithium.
Napier teaches a method of recovering valuables from batteries [Title], in particular lithium-ion batteries [Abstract]. Napier teaches a similar process of shredding the batteries, washing and treating them to recover anode, cathode, a washing liquid with electrolyte(s), and copper, aluminum and plastic [Fig 5]. Napier shows in Fig 5 and states in [0092 – 0093] that the washing liquid stream contains lithium and that said lithium can be recovered via precipitating using phosphate [Fig 5, 0198], meeting the claimed limitation of reacting the washing solution with a phosphate agent to cause precipitation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have taken the method of Morin as-modified and combined it with the process steps of recycling washing solution and recovering components, as disclosed Napier, including the precipitation of lithium phosphate. Napier suggests that lithium is present in the washing solution when shredding and cleaning lithium-ion batteries and as such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had motivation to combine the processes taught by Morin as-modified and Napier. Moreover, Morin acknowledges that various steps can be applied to recover non-metallic components from the battery shredding [Fig 1] and as such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving predictable results when combining the teachings.
Lastly, Morin teaches lithium that has not been carbonated can be recycled to the leaching step [0094] and as such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to direct the formed lithium phosphate solution/precipitate to the leaching step so that the lithium could be carbonated and recovered as lithium carbonate.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morin (WO2019/060996) and Hu (CN108899601), as applied in claim 1, Tae (KR101957707, using espacenet translation)
Regarding claim 14, Morin in view of Hu teaches the invention of claim 1. Morin teaches that lithium carbonate is formed [0079] but does not teach forming the solid/precipitate into lithium hydroxide.
Tae teaches a method of manufacturing lithium hydroxide from lithium compound [Title]. Tae teaches that lithium hydroxide, instead of lithium carbonate, is an important feedstock ingredient in the manufacturing of particular types of battery cathode materials [0003]. Tae discloses that that method taught for forming lithium hydroxide from lithium carbonate is simple and highly efficient [0014] and involves combining lithium carbonate with a carbon raw material, calcining in inert atmosphere, and washing with hot water [0016, 0020]. The lithium hydroxide in water can be concentrated and crystallized [0055].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have taken the method of Morin as-modified and combined it with the step/process of converting lithium carbonate into lithium hydroxide as taught by Tae. The method of Tae uses lithium carbonate as the feedstock material and as such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings such that the lithium carbonate produced in Morin was used as feedstock to produce lithium hydroxide in the method of Tae. Moreover, Tae teaches that lithium hydroxide is more valuable as feedstock material in the formation of particular types of battery cathode material and as such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had motivation to combine the processes taught by Morin as-modified and Tae with no change in their respective functions.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US2023/0107938 – metal recovery of lithium ion batteries with overlapping steps and using carbonate formation to remove impurities
US2022/0017989 – metal recovery of lithium ion batteries with overlapping steps and disclosure of individual metal recovery circuits
US2021/0032721 – Recovery of metals from lithium batteries with disclosure of precipitating lithium through either phosphate or carbonate means
WO2022130793 – Using phosphate agent to recover different metals in process for recycling lithium ion
JP2014162982 – Forming mixed metal solution from lithium-ion batteries and recovering metals therefrom
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUSTIN POLLOCK whose telephone number is (571)272-5602. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (8 - 5).
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, Sally Merkling can be reached on (571) 272-6297. 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.
/AUSTIN POLLOCK/Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/SALLY A MERKLING/SPE, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights