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
Claims 19-27 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/29/2026.
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) 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 11-13, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1-2) as being anticipated by Nishikawa et al. (US20230104457A1).
Regarding Claims 1 and 16, Nishikawa teaches a method of recovering lithium comprising:
Loading a waste lithium-ion secondary battery [0070] into a pyrolysis furnace [0245]
Increasing the internal temperature and maintaining to induce self-heating “self-sustained combustion” [0248] (reading on Claim 16 as the heat used is from the self-sustained reaction)
Product was pulverized into powder [0251];
Injecting the powder, dissolving a lithium component of the powder, separating and recovering an aqueous solution (lithium-leached liquid), a precipitate (non-magnetically attractable particles), and a floating material into water (magnetically attractable particles) [0253]
Regarding Claim 2, the prior art teaches the powder was injected or immersed in water [0253] and it is implied that heating was not performed and the temperature was of the water was room temperature (around 20 C) reading on the claimed range of 30 C or less.
Regarding Claim 4, evaporative concentration is used to recover lithium carbonate [0202-0203]
Regarding Claim 5 alkali is added to increase the pH to recover lithium hydroxide [0191]
Regarding Claims 7-8, the precipitate comprises Ni and Co (residue, Fig 1); regarding claim 8, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect at least a trace amount of Fe to be in the residue as lithium batter comprises Fe (See Fig 1)
Regarding Claim 11-12, the secondary battery is undischarged and unpulverized in step A.
Regarding Claim 13, the battery is from defective batteries [0003]
Regarding Claim 18, The heat treatment atmosphere was an inert atmosphere [0105]
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishikawa et al. (US20230104457A1) in view of Song et al. (US9061255B2).
Regarding Claim 3, Nishkiwaka teaches CO2 is added to the solution with a nozzle [0198-0199] but does not teach microbubbles with a size of 20 microns or less are injected. However, Song teaches a rotating bubble generator for forming micro-sized bubbles with gas in water (Abstract) for the purpose of forming a highly dissolved solution (Col. 9, Lines 27-50) where the bubbles may have a size of 50 microns or less (Col. 19, 8-11); therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art seeking dissolve CO2 into the solution of Nishikawa would have been motivated to apply microbubbles in the claimed range for the purpose of improving the solubility of CO2 in the solution.
Claim(s) 6, 15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishikawa et al. (US20130104457A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Nishkiwaka is silent regarding recovering metals from the metal residue with acid aqueous solution, however, one of ordinary skill in the art seeking to recover nickel or cobalt from the residue for a separate application would have been motivated to acid leach the residue to predictably recover metal product.
Regarding Claim 15, the heating temperature is 350-550 C [0114] which is considered to overlap with the claimed range of an internal temperature of 400 C or less. (See MPEP 2144.05(I))
Regarding Claim 17, the prior art teaches the thermal treatment time is not limited and may be taken at least until the secondary battery reaches the thermal temperature [0119], therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to thermally treat for the claimed time period for the purpose of ensuring thermal treatment has been adequately completed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 and 14 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record is Nishikawa et al. (US20230104457A1) as used above, however the prior art does not teach each and every limitation as required by Claim 9 and 14.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICARDO D MORALES whose telephone number is (571)272-6691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9 am- 4 pm.
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 at 5712726297. 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.
/RICARDO D MORALES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights