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
Claim 16 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 7/30/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-15 and 17-23 in the reply filed on 7/30/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority found unity of invention and that there is no additional search burden for searching the claims. This is not found persuasive because the examiner may make a lack of unity requirement in a national stage application even if no such requirement was made by the ISA (MPEP 1893.03). The argument for the lack of unity is the following:
Groups I and II lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of "contacting the black mass with an aqueous medium comprising at least one salt chosen from calcium hypochlorite, lithium hypochlorite, and combinations thereof, and separating solids from liquids to obtain an aqueous solution comprising lithium ions.", this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Higuchi (JP 2015203131 A, cited in the IDS).
Higuchi teaches of contacting the black mass with an aqueous medium [0025] comprising calcium hypochlorite [0026], and separating solids from liquids to obtain an aqueous solution comprising lithium ions [0035]-[0037].
In addition, the lack of additional search burden does not affect restriction requirements for national stage applications submitted under 35 U.S.C. 371.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-7, 9-10, 17, and 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Higuchi (JP 2015203131 A, cited in the IDS, machine translation attached).
Regarding claim 1, Higuchi teaches a process for removing lithium from a battery material comprising:
contacting the battery material with an aqueous medium comprising at least one salt ([0019], treated with an aqueous solution containing calcium salts) chosen from calcium hypochlorite, lithium hypochlorite, and combinations thereof to form a mixture ([0031], calcium hypochlorite), and
separating in the mixture solids from liquids to obtain an aqueous solution comprising lithium ions ([0019] solid-liquid separation).
Regarding claim 2, Higuchi teaches the process according to claim 1, wherein the battery material comprises black mass derived from a lithium ion battery ([0020], lithium-ion battery waste). Since the instant specification defines black mass as materials comprising lithium derived from, for example, a lithium ion battery, lithium ion battery waste, lithium ion battery production scrap, lithium ion cell production scrap, lithium ion cathode active material, and/or combinations thereof by mechanical processes such as mechanical comminution [0028], Higuchi’s lithium-ion battery waste applies to the instant claim.
Regarding claim 6, Higuchi teaches the process according to claim 1, wherein the battery material comprises nickel, cobalt, manganese, copper, aluminum, iron, phosphorus, or combinations thereof (Table 1, [0041]).
Regarding claim 7, Higuchi teaches the process according to claim 1, wherein the battery material has a weight ratio of around 0.08% of lithium to a total weight of nickel, cobalt, manganese, copper, aluminum, iron, and phosphorus (Table 1). The calculations are shown below.
3.9
g
L
i
2.4
g
N
i
+
34
g
C
+
2
g
M
n
+
5.7
g
A
l
+
4.9
g
C
u
+
0.09
g
F
e
≈
0.08
w
t
%
Regarding claim 9, Higuchi teaches the process according to claim 1, wherein the contacting step is at a temperature ranging from 45°C to 70°C [0030] for 2 hours [0041].
Regarding claim 10, Higuchi teaches the process according to claim 1, wherein the separating step comprises filtration to separate the solids from the liquids ([0033] filter press).
Regarding claim 17, Higuchi teaches the process according to claim 1, wherein the at least one salt is calcium hypochlorite [0031].
Regarding claim 22, Higuchi teaches the process according to claim 1, wherein the battery material and/or the black mass comprises less than 5 weight % lithium carbonate, Li2CO3, by total weight of the battery material and/or the black mass [0020]. Since the battery material composition does not mention lithium carbonate, the wt % of lithium carbonate is assumed to be 0% or not a significant amount.
Regarding claim 23, Higuchi teaches the process according to claim 1, wherein the battery material and/or the black mass comprises less than 5 weight % lithium iron phosphate and iron phosphate by total weight of the battery material and/or the black mass [0020]. Since the battery material composition does not mention lithium iron phosphate, the wt % of lithium carbonate is assumed to 0% or not a significant amount.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higuchi.
Regarding claim 8, Higuchi teaches the process according to claim 1 and that a weight ratio of calcium hydroxide salt to a total weight of the battery material is around 31.2% [0041] (
156
g
c
a
l
c
i
u
m
h
y
d
r
o
x
i
d
e
500
g
b
a
t
t
e
r
y
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
≈
31.2
%
)
.
Higuchi does not specifically teach that a weight ratio of calcium hypochlorite salt to a total weight of the battery material ranges from 0.1 to 100.
However, Higuchi does teach that the amount of calcium is 0.5 to 2 molar times the amount of lithium [0027], so the weight of calcium hypochlorite added would be around the same as the amount of calcium hydroxide added, meaning the weight ratio range would overlap with the claimed range of 0.1 to 100. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F. 2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F. 2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higuchi in view of Kochhar et al. (US 10919046 B2).
Regarding claim 3, Higuchi teaches the process according to claim 1, wherein the battery material is a positive active material, but does not specifically teach that the battery material comprises lithium metal phosphate of formula LixMPO4 wherein x is an integer greater than or equal to one, and M is chosen from metals, transition metals, rare earth metals, and combinations thereof.
Kochhlar, however, teaches of a process for recovering materials from lithium ion batteries (Col. 2 lines 26-28). Kochhlar also teaches that the positive electrode battery material comprises lithium metal phosphate of formula LiFePO4 (Col. 5, lines 11-18).
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date that the positive electrode battery material can be lithium iron phosphate. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use, in the instant case suitable material for a positive electrode used in a battery, supports prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 4, Higuchi teaches the process according to claim 1, wherein the battery material is a positive active material, but does not specifically teach that the battery material comprises lithiated nickel cobalt manganese oxide of formula Lil+x(NiaCobMncM1d)1-x02, wherein
M1 is chosen from Mg, Ca, Ba, Al, Ti, Zr, Zn, Mo, V, and Fe,
zero ≤ x ≤ 0.2,
0.1 ≤ a ≤ 0.95,
zero ≤ b ≤ 0.9, or 0.05 < b ≤ 0.5,
zero ≤ c ≤ 0.6,
zero ≤ d ≤ 0.1, and
a + b + c + d = 1.
Kochhlar, however, teaches that the battery material comprises lithiated nickel cobalt manganese oxide of formula LiNixMnyCozO2 (Col. 5, lines 11-18).
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date that the positive electrode battery material can be comprises lithiated nickel cobalt manganese oxide. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use, in the instant case suitable material for a positive electrode used in a battery, supports prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 5, Higuchi teaches the process according to claim 1, wherein the battery material is a positive active material, but does not specifically teach that the battery material comprises lithiated nickel-cobalt aluminum oxides of formula Li[NihCoiAlj]02+r, wherein
h ranges from 0.8 to 0.90,
i ranges from 0.1 to 0.3,
j ranges from 0.01 to 0.10, and
r ranges from zero to 0.4.
Kochhlar, however, teaches that the battery material comprises lithiated nickel-cobalt aluminum oxides of formula LiNi0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2 (Col. 5, lines 11-18).
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date that the positive electrode battery material can be comprises lithiated nickel-cobalt aluminum oxide. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use, in the instant case suitable material for a positive electrode used in a battery, supports prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07).
Claim(s) 11-12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higuchi in view of Buckley et al. (US 20110044882 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Higuchi teaches the process according to claim 1 and that the lithium solution may be added to a lithium refining process to recover the lithium [0032], but does not specifically teach that it further comprises purifying the aqueous solution comprising lithium ions by at least one process chosen from adsorption, ion exchange, precipitation, crystallization, nanofiltration, concentration by water removal, drowning-out crystallization, re-dissolution of a lithium salt in an organic solvent, and combinations thereof.
Buckley, however, teaches a process for producing a high purity lithium product (Abstract). Buckley also teaches that this process comprises purifying the aqueous solution comprising lithium ions by fractional crystallization [0050].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the process of removing lithium to further include a step of fractional crystallization in order to recover a lithium compound of high purity which is also readily convertible into other highly pure lithium compounds (Buckley et al. [0019]).
Regarding claim 12, Higuchi teaches the process according to claim 1, but does not specifically teach that it further comprises the aqueous solution comprising lithium ions to a chlor-alkali-electrolysis process to obtain lithium hydroxide and chlorine gas.
Buckley, however, teaches a process comprising subjecting the aqueous solution comprising lithium ions to a chlor-alkali-electrolysis process to obtain lithium hydroxide and chlorine gas [0051].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the process of removing lithium to further include a step of chlor-alkali-electrolysis in order to recover a lithium compound of high purity which is also readily convertible into other highly pure lithium compounds (Buckley et al. [0019]).
Regarding claim 14, Higuchi teaches the process according to claim 1, but does not specifically teach that calcium hydroxide is recovered from the solids.
Buckley, however, does teach that calcium hydroxide is recovered from the solids [0098].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the process of removing lithium to further include a step where calcium hydroxide is recovered from the solids to lower amounts of unwanted ion (Buckley et al. [0098]).
Claim(s) 13, 15, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higuchi in view of Buckley et al. as applied to claims 12 and 14 above, and further in view of Smith et al. (US 4849201 A).
Regarding claim 13, modified Higuchi teaches the process according to claim 12, but does not specifically teach that the chlorine gas is used to produce chlorinated lime and/or lithium hypochlorite.
Smith, however, teaches a process wherein chlorine gas is used to produce chlorinated lime and/or lithium hypochlorite (Col. 1, lines 16-20).
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the lithium removal process to further include that the chlorine gas is used to produce chlorinated lime and/or lithium hypochlorite to recycle toxic gas emissions (Smith et al. Col. 1, lines 51-53).
Regarding claim 15, modified Higuchi teaches the process according to claim 14, but does not specifically teach that the calcium hydroxide is used to produce chlorinated lime.
Smith, however, teaches a process wherein the calcium hydroxide is used to produce chlorinated lime (Col. 1, lines 15-23, hydrated lime).
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the effective filing date to modify the lithium removal process to further include that the calcium hydroxide is used to produce chlorinated lime so that disposal of supertropical bleach, or a mixture of chlorinated lime and calcium hydroxide, is reduced (Smith Col. 1, lines 55-57).
Regarding claim 18, further modified Higuchi teaches the process according to claim 13, wherein the chlorinated lime and/or lithium hypochlorite produced from the chlorine gas obtained from the chlor-alkali- electrolysis (Smith Col. 1, lines 16-20) is used for removing lithium from the battery material (Higuchi [0026]).
Claim(s) 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higuchi et al. in view of Mays et al. (WO 2021183094 A1, cited in the IDS).
Regarding claim 19, Higuchi teaches the process according to claim 1, but does not specifically teach that an initial pH at the contacting step of the mixture is less than 11.
Mays, however, teaches of a process for removing lithium from an electrochemically active composition [0001]. Mays also teaches that an initial pH at the contacting step of the mixture is greater than 3 [0027]. The pH stays in this range throughout the entire step and overlaps with the claimed range of less than 11.
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the initial pH of the mixture at the contacting step so that it falls within the Mays range because some transition metals, such as Ni2+, have increased solubility in acidic solutions so an elevated pH is needed (Mays et al. [0027]). Also, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F. 2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F. 2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 20, Higuchi teaches the process according to claim 1, but does not specifically teach that a final pH at the contacting step of the mixture is less than 10.
Mays, however, teaches the final pH at the contacting step of the mixture is greater than 3 [0027]. The pH stays in this range throughout the entire step and overlaps with the claimed range of less than 10.
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the final pH of the mixture at the contacting step so that it falls within the Mays range because some transition metals, such as Ni2+, have increased solubility in acidic solutions so an elevated pH is needed (Mays et al. [0027]). Also, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F. 2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F. 2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 21, Higuchi teaches the process according to claim 1, but does not specifically teach that pH during the contacting step of the mixture ranges from 5 to less than 11.
Mays, however, teaches the pH during the contacting step of the mixture is greater than 3 [0027]. The pH stays in this range throughout the entire step and overlaps with the claimed range of 5-11.
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the pH of the mixture at the contacting step so that it falls within the Mays range because some transition metals, such as Ni2+, have increased solubility in acidic solutions, so an elevated pH is needed (Mays et al. [0027]). Also, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F. 2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F. 2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chen et al. (CN 111170376 A) teaches a process for obtaining materials from waste batteries through contacting the battery waste with a solution containing acid and oxidant ([0007], [0017]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YVONNE WEI whose telephone number is (571)270-0870. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30am-5pm, Friday 7:30am-4pm.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571) 272-3433. 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.
/YVONNE WEI/Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/NIKI BAKHTIARI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights