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
Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage application from the International Bureau.
Information Disclosure Statement
An Information disclosure statements (IDS) was submitted on 13 January 2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS was considered by the examiner.
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 13, 16, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2022234884 of Moon in view of CN213679855 of Ye.
Regarding claim 13, Moon teaches a method for recovering lithium from waste lithium secondary battery using dry smelting in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Moon teaches the pulverization of a waste lithium secondary battery, Para[0045]. Moon discloses Nickel, Cobalt, Manganese, Iron and Carbon, Para[0046]. Moon also teaches melting the material into a metal phase/slag, Para[0063]. Moon discloses that the lithium recovery agent contains chlorine and fluorine, and lithium in crushed materials or powder is recovered in the form of a lithium compound by the lithium recovery agent. The lithium compound is LiCl or/and LiF, Para[0055]. Moon teaches discharging of the lithium in the form of LiF, Para[0058], and the oxidation of the carbon through lancing of oxygen, Para[0064].
Additionally, Ye discloses a recovery system for fluorine-containing lithium salt of negative electrode of retired lithium-ion battery in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Ye teaches that LiF generates LiF(g) at a high temperature of 1200℃, that is, the solid phase transforms into the gas phase, Para[0070]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce LiF as taught by Moon resulting in a solid to gas phase transformation as taught by Ye. Thus, Moon in view of Ye covers all limitations of claim 13.
Claim 16 further limits claim 13 by claiming a fluorine content of 0.05 to 15.0% by weight is added via the fluorinating agent in relation to the active material fraction.
Moon teaches that the weight ratio of the crushed material and the flux was set to 40:60, and the equivalent weight of Cl/Li or Cl/F was set to 2.0, and the lithium recovery rate according to the reaction time was measured, Para[0107]. Moon also discloses a weight of lithium in the crushed battery material of 3.4 wt%, Para[0092]. This would result in an equivalent weight of F of 6.8 wt%. This lies within the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, Moon teaches the additional limitation of claim 16. Thus, Moon in view of Ye covers all limitations of claim 16.
Claim 24 further limits claim 13 by claiming separating an electrolyte-comprising fraction from the lithium-containing electrochemical energy storage devices and/or from the comminuted material, and using the electrolyte-comprising fraction as the fluorinating agent.
Moon teaches that the object of the present invention is a method for recovering lithium from a waste lithium secondary battery using a dry melting method, a waste lithium secondary battery containing nickel, cobalt, copper and lithium, a flux having a melting temperature of 1,400 ° C or less, and lithium Melting the recovery agent to separate and obtain slag, a metal phase, and a lithium compound, wherein the lithium recovery agent includes at least one of chlorine and fluorine, Para[0008]. Moon’s lithium recovery agent meets the limitations of the claimed fluorinating agent. Thus, Moon in view of Ye covers all limitations of claim 24.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2022234884 of Moon in view of CN213679855 of Ye, as cited above, further in view of CA3144716 of Rohde.
Claim 14 further limits claim 13 by claiming that converting the lithium (Li) contained in the molten slag phase and/or in the molten metal phase into the gas phase produces a lithium fluoride- containing gas, and converting the carbon (C) into the gas phase includes oxidizing the carbon (C) with the oxygen-containing gas to carbon monoxide (CO).
Moon teaches discharging of the lithium in the form of LiF, Para[0058], and the oxidation of the carbon through lancing of oxygen, Para[0064].
Rohde discloses a process for the recovery of lithium and other metals from waste lithium-ion batteries in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Rhode discloses an example of providing a reduced mass from waste lithium-ion batteries an amount of about mechanically treated battery scrap containing spent cathode active material containing nickel, cobalt and manganese, organic carbon in the form of graphite and soot and residual electrolyte. Rhode teaches that the atmosphere within the roasting system is air whose oxygen reacts with the carbon in the battery scrap to form carbon monoxide, Para[0038]. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce carbon monoxide as taught by Rohde in the method taught by Moon in order to provide a reduced mass from waste lithium-ion batteries. Thus, Moon in view of Ye and Rohde covers all limitations of claim 14.
Claim 15 further limits claim 14 by claiming thermally reacting the lithium fluoride-containing gas with the carbon monoxide (CO) and oxygen to form lithium carbonate (Li2CO3).
Moon teaches that Lithium exists in the form of LiCl, LiCl·(H2O), or Li2CO3. Thus, Moon in view of Ye and Rohde covers all limitations of claim 15.
Claims 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2022234884 of Moon in view of CN213679855 of Ye and CA3144716 of Rohde, as cited above, further in view of US2021175556 of Hanisch.
Claim 17 further limits claim 14 by claiming continuously detecting a proportion of the lithium fluoride-containing gas and/or a proportion of the carbon monoxide (CO) in the gas phase and/or in the discharge gas.
Moon does not teach continuously detecting a proportion of the discharge gas.
Hanisch discloses a recycling method for treating used batteries, in particular rechargeable batteries, and battery processing installation in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Hanisch teaches that the method comprises the steps of a continuous recording of an oxygen concentration and a reduction of the oxygen concentration when a pre-determined threshold value is exceeded, Para[0037]. Hanisch teaches that the advantage of the invention is that the amount of electrolyte that can be obtained from the comminuted material through drying is such that an electrochemical reaction is no longer possible, or only to a negligibly small extent. In addition, no flammable or explosive gas phase forms above the battery fragments, as the organic carbonates of the electrolyte that have a low boiling point have been removed [from the fragments]. The comminuted material is therefore largely inert and can be safely transported or processed further, especially if it is packed under vacuum, Para[0011]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to continuously detect the proportion of oxygen in the atmosphere as taught by Hanisch in the method disclosed by Moon in order to avoid the formation of explosive gases above the battery fragments. Thus, Moon in view of Ye, Rohde, and Hanisch covers all limitations of claim 17.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2022234884 of Moon in view of CN213679855 of Ye, as cited above, further in view of US2021175556 of Hanisch.
Claim 18 further limits claim 13 by claiming that the method is carried out in the presence of a carrier gas.
Moon does not teach a carrier gas.
Hanisch teaches that the drying device preferably has an entry valve for supplying it (the drying device) with inert gas; this entry valve is connected to an inert gas supply device for feeding an interior of the drying device with inert gas, Para[0089], and that the shielding gas may refer, for example, to nitrogen, a noble gas, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide or another gas which is preferably not toxic, Para[0099]. Hanisch teaches that the invention refers to a method for the treatment of used batteries, in particular used lithium batteries, such as lithium-ion batteries, with the steps (a) comminuting the batteries such that comminuted material is obtained, (b) inactivating of the comminuted material such that an inactive comminuted material is obtained, Para[0001]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the carrier gas taught by Hanisch in the method disclosed by Moon in order to obtain an inactive comminuted material. Thus, Moon in view of Ye, Rohde, and Hanisch covers all limitations of claim 18.
Claim 19 further limits claim 18 by claiming that the carrier gas is nitrogen.
Moon does not teach a carrier gas.
Hanisch teaches that the drying device preferably has an entry valve for supplying it (the drying device) with inert gas; this entry valve is connected to an inert gas supply device for feeding an interior of the drying device with inert gas, Para[0089], and that the shielding gas may refer, for example, to nitrogen, a noble gas, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide or another gas which is preferably not toxic, Para[0099]. Hanisch teaches that the invention refers to a method for the treatment of used batteries, in particular used lithium batteries, such as lithium-ion batteries, with the steps (a) comminuting the batteries such that comminuted material is obtained, (b) inactivating of the comminuted material such that an inactive comminuted material is obtained, Para[0001]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the nitrogen gas taught by Hanisch in the method disclosed by Moon in order to obtain an inactive comminuted material. Thus, Moon in view of Ye, Rohde, and Hanisch covers all limitations of claim 19.
Claims 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2022234884 of Moon in view of CN213679855 of Ye and US2021175556 of Hanisch, as cited above, further in view of CN110408796 of Liu and CN106119447 of Zhang.
Claim 20 further limits claim 18 by claiming that the carrier gas is blown into the melt-down unit at a flow rate of at least 300 Nm3/h in relation to an amount of 1000 kg of active material
Moon does not teach a flow rate.
Liu teaches a method for efficiently and selectively extracting lithium from waste lithium battery through flash reduction in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Liu discloses that the flow rate of the control carrier gas is 100L-400L/(Kg waste lithium battery positive powder), Para[0012]. Liu teaches a specific example with a flow rate of 300L/(Kg used lithium battery positive powder) and the reaction is completed within 5 seconds, Para[0064]. This is equivalent to a flow rate of 3600 L/min per 1 kg of material or 3,600,000 L/min per 1000 kg of material. This value overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Liu discloses that in addition, in the flow rate and particle size range of the present invention, the anode powder of the waste lithium-ion battery can be effectively controlled to complete the reduction from the top to the bottom through the high temperature reduction zone of the flash furnace in a specific time, if the particle size or flow rate is excessive small, will cause the fall time to be too fast, resulting in a complete restore transformation, Para[0014]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the flow rate disclosed by Liu in the method taught by Moon in order to avoid a complete restore transformation of the battery material.
Additionally, Zhang discloses a method for smelting reduction production and quenching and tempering treatment of rare earth and niobium containing mixed slag in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Zhang teaches that the relationship between the time and flow rate of oxidizing gas is 1~90L/(min·kg), Para[0054]. This is equivalent to 0.06-5.4 nm3/h per 1 kg of material or 60-5400 nm3/h per 1000 kg. This overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Zhang teaches that the blowing time and the flow rate are determined according to the slag quality, the temperature, and the degree of reduction oxidation, Para[0114]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the flow rate disclosed by Zhang in the method taught by Moon in order to achieve the desired degree of reduction oxidation.
Thus, Moon in view of Ye, Rohde, Hanisch, Liu and Zhang covers all limitations of claim 20.
Claim 21 further limits claim 20 by claiming that the carrier gas is blown into the melt-down unit at a flow rate of at least 1000 Nm3/h in relation to an amount of 1000 kg of active material.
Moon does not teach a flow rate.
Liu teaches a method for efficiently and selectively extracting lithium from waste lithium battery through flash reduction in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Liu discloses that the flow rate of the control carrier gas is 100L-400L/(Kg waste lithium battery positive powder), Para[0012]. Liu teaches a specific example with a flow rate of 300L/(Kg used lithium battery positive powder) and the reaction is completed within 5 seconds, Para[0064]. This is equivalent to a flow rate of 3600 L/min per 1 kg of material or 3,600,000 L/min per 1000 kg of material. This value overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Liu discloses that in addition, in the flow rate and particle size range of the present invention, the anode powder of the waste lithium-ion battery can be effectively controlled to complete the reduction from the top to the bottom through the high temperature reduction zone of the flash furnace in a specific time, if the particle size or flow rate is excessive small, will cause the fall time to be too fast, resulting in a complete restore transformation, Para[0014]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the flow rate disclosed by Liu in the method taught by Moon in order to avoid a complete restore transformation of the battery material.
Additionally, Zhang discloses a method for smelting reduction production and quenching and tempering treatment of rare earth and niobium containing mixed slag in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Zhang teaches that the relationship between the time and flow rate of oxidizing gas is 1~90L/(min·kg), Para[0054]. This is equivalent to 0.06-5.4 nm3/h per 1 kg of material or 60-5400 nm3/h per 1000 kg. This overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Zhang teaches that the blowing time and the flow rate are determined according to the slag quality, the temperature, and the degree of reduction oxidation, Para[0114]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the flow rate disclosed by Zhang in the method taught by Moon in order to achieve the desired degree of reduction oxidation.
Thus, Moon in view of Ye, Rohde, Hanisch, Liu and Zhang covers all limitations of claim 21.
Claim 22 further limits claim 20 by claiming continuously detecting the flow rate of the carrier gas.
Moon discloses that Melting may be performed in a batch operation method or a continuous operation method, Para[0064].
Liu teaches that since the carrier gas acts to disperse the waste powder of the waste lithium battery into a suspended state, and the hydrogen inside is a reducing gas, the inventors have found that when the carrier gas is selected from the mixed gas, the volume fraction of the hydrogen in the mixed gas is controlled to be 50-70. %, synergistically control the preferred carrier gas flow rate, that is, the waste powder of the waste lithium battery can be fully dispersed, and the hydrogen resource can be maximized, Para[0026]. Therefore, it would be obvious to on of ordinary skill in the art to continuously detect the flow rate of carrier gas in order fully disperse the waste lithium battery and maximize the hydrogen resource. Thus, Moon in view of Ye, Rohde, Hanisch, Liu and Zhang covers all limitations of claim 22.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2022234884 of Moon in view of CN213679855 of Ye, as cited above, further in view of CN204648919 of Yang.
Claim 23 further limits claim 13 by claiming continuously detecting a temperature of the gas phase and/or of the discharge gas.
Moon discloses that Melting may be performed in a batch operation method or a continuous operation method, Para[0064].
Yang teaches an old and useless power battery draws environment friendly integration roaster for rose vitriol in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Yang discloses that the temperature inside the lower portion of the furnace, were continuously detected, and the detected temperature feedback to the control system, Para[0025]. Yang also discloses that the technical problem to be solved by the present utility model is to provide a battery used to extract cobalt sulfate with environmentally friendly integrated roaster, Para[0011]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the temperature sensors that continuously detect temperature as taught by Yang in the method disclosed by Moon in order to extract battery components in an environmentally friendly way. Thus, Moon in view of Ye and Yang covers all limitations of claim 23.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2022234884 of Moon in view of CN213679855 of Ye, as cited above, further in view of JP2013091826 of Takahashi.
Claim 25 further limits claim 24 by claiming that the electrolyte-comprising fraction comprises lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6).
Moon does not teach lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6).
Takahashi teaches a valuable recovery method in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Takahashi discloses that in a lithium-ion battery, ethylene carbonate, diethyl carbonate and the like are used as an organic solvent, and LiPF6 (lithium hexafluorophosphate) and the like are used as an electrolyte as a lithium salt, Para[0034]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that lithium hexafluorophosphate, as taught by Takahashi, would be present in the electrolyte comprising portion of the waste lithium-ion batteries taught by Moon. Thus, Moon in view of Ye and Takahashi covers all limitations of claim 25.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2022234884 of Moon in view of CN213679855 of Ye, as cited above, further in view of Träger, Thomas, Bernd Friedrich, and Reiner Weyhe. "Recovery concept of value metals from automotive lithium‐ion batteries." Chemie ingenieur technik 87.11 (2015): 1550-1557 and Mossali, Elena, et al. "Lithium-ion batteries towards circular economy: A literature review of opportunities and issues of recycling treatments." Journal of environmental management 264 (2020): 110500.
Claim 26 further limits claim 13 by claiming that the active material fraction comprises aluminum (Al) in a proportion of at most 10.0% by weight.
Moon does not teach a specific weight proportion of aluminum.
Trager teaches recovery concept of value metals from automotive lithium-ion batteries in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Trager teaches 7.42 wt% aluminum in the used battery electrode powder. This overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Trager teaches that the electrode powder used for the experiments was generated out of spent Li-ion traction batteries, section[3.1].
Mossali discloses lithium-ion batteries towards circular economy: a literature review of opportunities and issues of recycling treatments in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Mossali discloses typical chemical composition of Lithium-ion batteries, Table 1. Mossali teaches a range for aluminum of 5-8 wt%. This overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05.
Therefore, based on the teachings of Trager and Mossali, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to include aluminum in the typical weight proportion in which it is included in lithium-ion batteries in the method disclosed by Moon. Thus, Moon in view of Trager and Mossali covers all limitations of claim 26.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB BENJAMIN STILES whose telephone number is (571)272-0598. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Hendricks can be reached at (571) 272-1401. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/Keith D. Hendricks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/JACOB BENJAMIN STILES/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights