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 .
Drawings
Figure 1 and Figure 2 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-17 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 claim 1, the phrase "e.g." renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). The point of infringement of claim 1 cannot be determined and the claim is indefinite.
Each of claims 2-9, 12, and 13 depends from claim 1 and is also indefinite.
Claim 3 includes similar language and is also indefinite.
Claim 11 includes similar language and is also 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 1 recites the broad recitation about 10 ° C to about 95 ° C, and the claim also recites about 20 ° C to about 100 ° C 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.
Each of claims 2-9, 12, and 13 depends from claim 1 and is also 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 14 recites the broad recitation about 10 ° C to about 95 ° C, and the claim also recites about 20 ° C to about 100 ° C 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.
Each of claims 15-17 depends from claim 14 and is also indefinite.
Each of claims 5 and 7-9 also includes multiple ranges and is also indefinite.
Claim 10 recites the limitation " separating the cathode components comprising separating an aluminum foil in the cathode from a lithium containing material to recover one or more lithium compounds;" in step a). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No cathode components are mentioned prior to this, and it is not clear whether the claim is limited to what is described elsewhere in step a) or not. Additionally, it is described that the lithium containing compounds are recovered in this step. However the claim requires “recovering metal.” It is not clear from the claim how the recovery of the lithium compounds is integrated into the method. It is believed that the lithium containing material comprises such lithium compounds. As the claim is written, instead the compounds are recovered from the material, and then after that, the lithium is recovered from the same material from which lithium compounds were removed. Claim 10 as written is not believed to be a part of an inventive method.
The point of infringement of claim 10 cannot be determined and the claim is indefinite.
Claim 11 requires the step of “collecting resulting or separated said lithium containing material.” It is not clear from the claim what is happening. “separated said lithium containing material” would seem to imply both that a separation has occurred (“separated”) and also that it has not yet occurred (“said lithium containing material”) simultaneously. The point of infringement of claim 11 cannot be determined and the claim is indefinite.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "said lithium containing material comprises LiCoO2." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No lithium containing material is mentioned in parent claim 14. The point of infringement of claim 17 cannot be determined and the claim is indefinite.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 17 recites that the lithium containing material comprises LiCoO2. No lithium containing material is mentioned in parent claim 14. The claim fails to further limit any claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li, et al., “Recovery of metals from spent lithium-ion batteries whit organic acids as a leaching reagents and environmental assessment”, Journal of Power Sources, 233, 180-189, 2013 (hereinafter “Li”).
Regarding claim 1, Li teaches recovery of metals from spent lithium batteries (See title). Li teaches that the method includes separating material of the cathode from aluminum foil (see 2. Experimental and 2.2 Dismantling…). Li teaches that an aqueous solution of L-aspartic acid is made with hydrogen peroxide (see 2.1. Materials and reagents and 2.3. Metal leaching). Li teaches that the LiCoO2 powder is leached at 90 ° C (see 2.1. Materials and reagents and 2.3. Metal leaching and Table 1). The temperature 90 ° C falls in the range as claimed, anticipating the entire range. Applicant is directed to MPEP 2131.03. Li teaches that Co and Li values are recovered (See 2.4 Analytical Methods).
Regarding claim 2, Li teaches that the LiCoO2 powder is leached at 90 ° C (see 2.1. Materials and reagents and 2.3. Metal leaching and Table 1).
Regarding claim 3, Li teaches that Co and Li values are recovered (See 2.4 Analytical Methods).
Regarding claim 9, Li teaches 120 minutes (Table 1), falling in the range claimed and anticipating the range.
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.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li.
Regarding claim 8, Li does not describe the pH of the solution. However Li describes that the acid concentration has an effect on the leaching of the material (3.2.1. Effect of acid concentration on leaching), and that the pH is adjusted when it is desired to precipitate metals out of solution (see 4. Environmental Assessment on p 187).
It would have been an obvious matter to the skilled artisan at time of filing to have optimized the pH of the solution, where Li teaches that the acid concentration affects the leaching, and that adjusting the pH causes the metal to come out of solution (as cited above). Applicant is directed to MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li as applied in the rejections above, and further in view of US 20130287654 A1 (hereinafter “Yamada”).
Regarding claim 4, Li is applied to the claim as stated in the rejection of claim 1. Li does not teach to add glycine, histidine, or lysine.
Yamada teaches a method of recovering metal values from lithium batteries (Se title, SUMMARY, claim 9). Yamada teaches that the solution includes an acid, a buffer, and a spontaneously disappearing oxidizer (see SUMMARY, [0031]-[0033]). Yamada teaches that the spontaneously disappearing oxidizer may be hydrogen peroxide (see [0031]-[0033] and claim 15). Yamada teaches that the solution includes a buffering agent (See [0030] and claim 9). Yamada teaches that the buffering agent is glycine (See [0050] and claim 13). Yamada teaches that the buffering agent prevents that decomposition of the hydrogens peroxide (See [0030], [0037], [0055]-[0057]).
It would have been an obvious matter to the skilled artisan at time of filing to have practiced the invention of Li and to have further added a glycine in order to act as a buffer, because Yamada teaches that the buffering agent prevents that decomposition of the hydrogens peroxide (See [0030], [0037], [0055]-[0057]).
Regarding claim 5, Yamada envisions about 0.1 M ([0050]).
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li as applied in the rejections above, and further in view of US 20220384868 A1 (hereinafter “Xu”).
Regarding claim 6, Li is applied as stated in the rejection of claim 1. Li does not teach to add sodium metabisulfite. Li teaches to use hydrogen peroxide (see 2.1. Materials and reagents and 2.3. Metal leaching and Table 1).
Xu teaches a method of recovering metal values form lithium batteries (See SUMMARY). Xu teaches that material from both anode and cathode of the battery is mixed with a solution of an acid and a reducing agent (SUMMARY). Xu teaches that the process allows the recovery of a mixture of Ni, Co, and Mn, while still recovering the lithium values (see SUMMARY). Xu teaches at [0006] that the reducing Agent used is one or a mixture of at least two of hydrogen peroxide, sulfur dioxide, sodium sulfite and sodium pyrosulfite (which is inherently the same thing as sodium metabisulfite).
It would have been an obvious matter to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of filing to have practiced the method of Li, and to have altered the method by either one of adding sodium pyrosulfite to the reducing agent, or replacing the reducing agent with sodium pyrosulfite because Li teaches that this is a suitable reducing agent to be added to an acidic leach solution for recycling metal values from lithium batteries (SUMMARY). The combination of prior art elements used for the same function according to known methods to yield predictable results is prima facie obvious. The simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 7, Li teaches that the hydrogen peroxide is 4 vol% (Table 1).
Xu teaches that the amount of reducing agent is 1-3 times that of the theoretical stoichiometric amount, but that the amount should be in excess of a stoichiometric amount in order to ensure full dissolution (see [0018]).
It would have been an obvious matter to the skilled artisan at time of filing to have optimized the concentration of the reducing agent of the solution, where Xu teaches that excess amount should be added in order to ensure that the metal is properly leached (as cited above). Applicant is directed to MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 10-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, in view of Yamada and Xu.
Regarding claim 10, Li is applied to the claim as stated in the rejections above. Li does not teach to add sodium metabisulfite or glycine.
Yamada teaches a method of recovering metal values from lithium batteries (Se title, SUMMARY, claim 9). Yamada teaches that the solution includes an acid, a buffer, and a spontaneously disappearing oxidizer (see SUMMARY, [0031]-[0033]). Yamada teaches that the spontaneously disappearing oxidizer may be hydrogen peroxide (see [0031]-[0033] and claim 15). Yamada teaches that the solution includes a buffering agent (See [0030] and claim 9). Yamada teaches that the buffering agent is glycine (See [0050] and claim 13). Yamada teaches that the buffering agent prevents that decomposition of the hydrogens peroxide (See [0030], [0037], [0055]-[0057]).
Xu teaches a method of recovering metal values form lithium batteries (See SUMMARY). Xu teaches that material from both anode and cathode of the battery is mixed with a solution of an acid and a reducing agent (SUMMARY). Xu teaches that the process allows the recovery of a mixture of Ni, Co, and Mn, while still recovering the lithium values (see SUMMARY). Xu teaches at [0006] that the reducing Agent used is one or a mixture of at least two of hydrogen peroxide, sulfur dioxide, sodium sulfite and sodium pyrosulfite (which is inherently the same thing as sodium metabisulfite).
It would have been an obvious matter to the skilled artisan at time of filing to have practiced the invention of Li and to have further added a glycine in order to act as a buffer, because Yamada teaches that the buffering agent prevents that decomposition of the hydrogens peroxide (See [0030], [0037], [0055]-[0057]), and further to have altered the method by either one of adding sodium pyrosulfite to the reducing agent, or replacing the reducing agent with sodium pyrosulfite because Li teaches that this is a suitable reducing agent to be added to an acidic leach solution for recycling metal values from lithium batteries (SUMMARY).
Regarding claim 11, Li teaches to mill the material (see 2.2. Dismantling, anode/cathode separation and metal characterization).
Regarding claim 12, Li teaches to remove, calcine and mill the desired material (see 2.2. Dismantling, anode/cathode separation and metal characterization), reading on a concentrate).
Regarding claim 13, Li teaches that the LiCoO2 powder is leached at 90 ° C (see 2.1. Materials and reagents and 2.3. Metal leaching and Table 1).
Regarding claim 14, Li in view of Yamada and Xu is applied as stated in the rejection of claim 10. Li does not teach recovering Mn and/or Ni. Li envisions the lithium and cobalt.
Xu teaches a method of recovering metal values form lithium batteries (See SUMMARY). Xu teaches that material from both anode and cathode of the battery is mixed with a solution of an acid and a reducing agent (SUMMARY). Xu teaches that the process allows the recovery of a mixture of Ni, Co, and Mn, while still recovering the lithium values (see SUMMARY). Xu teaches at [0006] that the reducing Agent used is one or a mixture of at least two of hydrogen peroxide, sulfur dioxide, sodium sulfite and sodium pyrosulfite (which is inherently the same thing as sodium metabisulfite).
It would have been an obvious matter to the skilled artisan at time of invention to have practiced the method of Li, and to have added anode and cathode materials, because Xu teaches that the process allows the recovery of a mixture of Ni, Co, and Mn, while still recovering the lithium values (see SUMMARY).
Regarding claim 15, It would have been an obvious matter to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of filing to have practiced the method of Li, and to have altered the method by either one of adding sodium pyrosulfite to the reducing agent, or replacing the reducing agent with sodium pyrosulfite because Li teaches that this is a suitable reducing agent to be added to an acidic leach solution for recycling metal values from lithium batteries (SUMMARY). The combination of prior art elements used for the same function according to known methods to yield predictable results is prima facie obvious. The simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is prima facie obvious.
Regarding claims 16-17, Li teaches that the LiCoO2 powder is leached at 90 ° C (see 2.1. Materials and reagents and 2.3. Metal leaching and Table 1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20230420761 A1 teaches that sodium metabisulfite is a suitable reducing agent when leaching metal values from lithium batteries. US 20230136670 A1 teaches delamination of composites using acids, which may include amino acids. US 20210246527 A1 teaches to use glycine or derivatives for leaching precious metals. US 10490866 B2 is representative of methods of leaching spent battery material for recycling. The Wu thesis is a doctoral thesis related to the same invention. However the thesis is not prior art under 35 USC 102.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER S KESSLER whose telephone number is (571)272-6510. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Curt Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
CHRISTOPHER S. KESSLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1734
/CHRISTOPHER S KESSLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights