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 of Group I, claims 1-12, without traverse in the reply filed on July 2, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 14-18, 21, and 22 have been amended to a method and depend on elected claim 1. Claims 1-12, 14-18, 21, and 22 are examined.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 8, 10-12, 14, 17, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Peng et al. ("Impurity removal with highly selective and efficient methods and the recycling of transition metals from spent lithium-ion batteries." RSC advances 9.38 (2019): 21922-21930, cited in the IDS filed May 2, 2024).
Regarding claim 1, Peng et al. teaches a method of removing impurities using an electrochemical apparatus, comprising:
introducing a leaching solution into an electrochemical membrane reactor (see reactor apparatus in Fig. 1), the leaching solution comprising copper, aluminum, iron, cobalt, manganese, and nickel (see Experimental section, page 21923), the electrochemical membrane reactor comprising at least one positive electrode (i.e., counter electrode in Fig. 1) and at least one negative electrode (i.e., working electrode in Fig. 1), and the leaching solution in contact with the at least one negative electrode (i.e., the metal solution is in contact with the working electrode as seen in Fig. 1);
applying a current through the electrochemical membrane reactor to adjust a pH of the leaching solution (see “Removing copper(ii) impurity” section, page 21926; applying the current inherently adjusts the pH of the deposition solution since the composition of the solution changes as copper is removed from the solution in the electroplating process);
depositing the copper on the at least one negative electrode (see “Removing copper(ii) impurity” section, page 21926; i.e., copper is electroplated on the cathode);
removing the aluminum and the iron from the leaching solution (i.e., aluminum and iron are removed from the solution by adjusting the pH; page 21925, left column, second full paragraph); and
recovering the cobalt, the manganese, and the nickel from the leaching solution (page 21926, right column, first line of last paragraph; also Fig. 4).
Further addressing the phrase “the electrochemical membrane reactor,” the instant claims do not require a membrane and thus see apparatus in Fig. 1 of Peng et al. anticipates claim 1.
Further addressing the limitation “to adjust a pH of the leaching solution” is simply interpreted to read on a change in the pH and does not require the pH to change in any particular direction.
Regarding claim 2, Peng et al. teaches that the copper solution is aqueous (page 21926, left column, last full paragraph).
Regarding claim 3, Peng et al. teaches that the leaching solution is from spent lithium-ion batteries (Abstract).
Regarding claim 4, Peng et al. teaches recovering greater than or equal to about 95% of each of the cobalt, manganese, and nickel from the leaching solution (i.e., Peng et al. teaches the loss rate of cobalt, manganese, and nickel is 0.37%, thus the recovery of these metals would be at least 99%; see Abstract and Conclusions section).
Regarding claim 5, Peng et al. teaches a power source (i.e., power source shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Peng et al. teaches electroplating the at least one negative electrode with the copper (page 21923, right column, last full paragraph).
Regarding claims 10-12, Peng et al. teaches the loss rate of cobalt, manganese, and nickel is 0.37%, thus the recovery of these metals would be at least 99% (see Abstract and Conclusions section).
Regarding claim 14, Peng et al. teaches precipitating the aluminum and the iron ions (i.e., aluminum and iron are removed from the solution by adjusting the pH; page 21925, left column, second full paragraph).
Regarding claim 17, Peng et al. teaches at least one negative electrode comprises iron (i.e., stainless steel was used as the cathode; page 21923, right column, last full paragraph).
Regarding claim 22, Peng et al. teaches producing hydroxide ions by reducing water in the leaching solution (i.e., this is inherent since Peng et al. teaches electroplating copper in an aqueous solution which contains water and thus would be reduced to hydroxide ions as a result of electrolysis).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng et al.
Peng et al. teaches a method of removing impurities using an electrochemical apparatus, comprising:
introducing a leaching solution into an electrochemical membrane reactor (see reactor apparatus in Fig. 1), the leaching solution comprising copper, aluminum, iron, cobalt, manganese, and nickel (see Experimental section, page 21923), the electrochemical membrane reactor comprising at least one positive electrode (i.e., counter electrode in Fig. 1) and at least one negative electrode (i.e., working electrode in Fig. 1), and the leaching solution in contact with the at least one negative electrode (i.e., the metal solution is in contact with the working electrode seen in Fig. 1);
applying a current through the electrochemical membrane reactor to adjust a pH of the leaching solution (see “Removing copper(ii) impurity” section, page 21926; applying the current inherently adjusts the pH of the deposition solution since the composition of the solution changes as copper is removed from the solution. The electroplating process);
depositing the copper on the at least one negative electrode (see “Removing copper(ii) impurity” section, page 21926; i.e., copper is electroplated on the cathode);
removing the aluminum and the iron from the leaching solution (i.e., aluminum and iron are removed from the solution by adjusting the pH; page 21925, left column, second full paragraph); and
recovering the cobalt, the manganese, and the nickel from the leaching solution (page 21926, right column, first line of last paragraph; also Fig. 4).
Further addressing the phrase “the electrochemical membrane reactor,” the instant claims do not require a membrane and thus see apparatus in Fig. 1 of Peng et reads on the instant claim.
Further addressing the limitation “to adjust a pH of the leaching solution” is simply interpreted to read on a change in the pH and does not require the pH to change in any particular direction.
Peng et al. does not explicitly teach the pH is adjusted to a range from about 5.2 to about 12.
However, Peng et al. teaches that the pH of the aqueous solution for electroplating copper was adjusted to less than 5 (page 21926, left column, last paragraph). This broadly reads on about 5.2. According to MPEP 2144.05, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
Claims 7, 9 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng et al. in view of Fraser et al. (US 10995014).
Regarding claims 7 and 21, Peng et al. teaches a method of removing impurities using an electrochemical apparatus, comprising:
introducing a leaching solution into an electrochemical membrane reactor (see reactor apparatus in Fig. 1), the leaching solution comprising copper, aluminum, iron, cobalt, manganese, and nickel (see Experimental section, page 21923), the electrochemical membrane reactor comprising at least one positive electrode (i.e., counter electrode in Fig. 1) and at least one negative electrode (i.e., working electrode in Fig. 1), and the leaching solution in contact with the at least one negative electrode (i.e., the metal solution is in contact with the working electrode seen in Fig. 1);
applying a current through the electrochemical membrane reactor to adjust a pH of the leaching solution (see “Removing copper(ii) impurity” section, page 21926; applying the current inherently adjusts the pH of the deposition solution since the composition of the solution changes as copper is removed from the solution. The electroplating process);
depositing the copper on the at least one negative electrode (see “Removing copper(ii) impurity” section, page 21926; i.e., copper is electroplated on the cathode);
removing the aluminum and the iron from the leaching solution (i.e., aluminum and iron are removed from the solution by adjusting the pH; page 21925, left column, second full paragraph); and
recovering the cobalt, the manganese, and the nickel from the leaching solution (page 21926, right column, first line of last paragraph; also Fig. 4).
Further addressing the phrase “the electrochemical membrane reactor,” the instant claims do not require a membrane and thus see apparatus in Fig. 1 of Peng et al. reads on the instant claim.
Peng et al. does not explicitly teach increasing a pH of the leaching solution without adding a base to the leaching solution. Applicant’s Specification discloses that the pH can be increased by purging oxygen into the leaching solution (page 12, lines 15-25 of the Specification).
Fraser et al. teaches a process for leaching a feedstock and forming the aqueous solution comprising metal sulfate. The feedstock comprises any one or combination of mixed hydroxide precipitates, mixed sulfide precipitates, nickel sulfide concentrate, cobalt sulfide concentrate, nickel laterite, nickel matte, ferronickel, material derived from recycled lithium ion batteries or lithium ion battery manufacturing scrap (column 5 lines 35-49). Fraser et al. teaches during copper electrowinning process, oxygen was sparged into initial reactor tanks which promoted leaching of the matte (Example 3).
The references are analogous to the claimed invention because each relates to recovery and treatment of metal-containing leaching solutions. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have introduced oxygen as taught by Fraser et al. into the electrochemical treatment of Peng et al. because Fraser teaches oxygen-assisted leaching as a suitable process step for promoting dissolution and recovery of metal. Combining known process steps according to known methods would have been expected to yield predictable results. The process of Peng et al. modified with the oxygen purging of Fraser et al. would result in increasing the pH of the solution because oxygen would be reduced at the cathode during electrolysis.
Regarding claim 9, Peng et al. teaches precipitating aluminum and iron (see the subsection under “Leaching metal elements of spent lithium-ion batteries, removing iron(III) and aluminum(III) impurities, choosing pH buffer and optimizing the pH value of the buffer” on pages 21924-21925).
Peng et al. does not explicitly teach filtering the precipitates.
Fraser et al. teaches metal hydroxides may be recovered by filtration, thickening and filtration, or centrifugation, and then washed on the filter or centrifuge to form the cake. The precipitation circuits can be used to selectively precipitate the metal hydroxides from impurities in the metal hydroxides due to their presence in the mother liquor.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Peng et al. by filtering the precipitates as taught by Fraser et al. in order to remove the impurities from the leaching solution.
Claims 15, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng et al. in view of Diaz et al. ("Electrochemical-assisted leaching of active materials from lithium ion batteries." Resources, Conservation and Recycling 161 (2020): 104900, cited in the IDS filed May 2, 2024).
Regarding claim 15, Peng et al. does not explicitly teach the reactor comprising a membrane and the membrane is formulated to conduct SO42- ions from the at least one positive electrode to the at least one negative electrode.
Diaz et al. teaches a process of recovering valuable constituents from lithium ion batteries (Abstract). Diaz et al. teaches leaching in a membrane separated two-compartment electrochemical cell contributes to decrease the acid requirements as H+ can be generated electrochemically (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by incorporating the membrane of Diaz et al. in the reactor of Peng et al., because it would decrease the acid requirements as taught by Diaz et al. Furthermore, Diaz et al. teaches that the membrane is bipolar, thus it would be capable of connecting SO42- ions from the at least one positive electrode to the at least one negative electrode.
Regarding claim 16, Peng et al. does not explicitly teach the anode comprising the metal of the instant claim.
Diaz et al. teaches a process of recovering valuable constituents from lithium ion batteries. Diaz et al. teaches recovering copper by electroplating using a nickel anode (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modified the anode of Peng et al. with the anode made of nickel as taught by Diaz et al., because an anode made of nickel is suitable for electroplating copper in a leaching solution.
Regarding claim 18, Since Diaz et al. teaches that the membrane is a bipolar Fumasep FBM-PK membrane (page 104900, left column, last paragraph) which is the same type of membrane as used by the instant invention, the membrane of Diaz et al. would be expected to have an ionic conductivity greater than or equal to about 1.5 millisiemens per centimeter (mS/cm).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUAN V VAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8521. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00.
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, Patricia Mallari can be reached at (571) 272-4729. 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.
/LUAN V VAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights