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 .
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.
Status of Application
Claims 1-20 are pending and presented for examination.
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.
Claims 1, 6-8, 12 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US PG Pub No. 20200115774 to Lien.
Regarding claim 1, Lien discloses a method of generating a purified lithium salt (Lien at [0009]) from a recycling stream of Li-ion batteries ([0004]) comprising:
Leaching black mass from the recycling stream in an aqueous solution of an oxidizing agent (mineral acid, “Fig. 1” & [0022]);
Filtering delithiated black mass from the aqueous solution to generate a leach solution (Id., via ultrafiltration fibers);
Subjecting the leach solution to nanofilitration to form a nanofilitraiton permeate and a concentrate (Id.); and
Obtaining the purified lithium salt (LiOH) from the nanofiltration permeate.
Turning to claims 6-8, the NF permeate is concentrated via RO to form a concentrated Li solution which is then combined with a water-soluble salt such as sodium hydroxide to obtain the purified lithium salt (“Fig. 1”).
Concerning claim 12, better selectivity is desired (Lien at [0032]) so the NF is based on the selectivity over other ions.
Concerning claim 17, while Lien does not expressly state that the NF produces nickel sulfate, the same method as that instantly claimed is utilized, absent evidence to the contrary one of ordinary skill in the art would thusly expect nickel sulfate to be formed though the Office cannot test for this. See MPEP 2112 V, "[T]he PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on inherency' under 35 U.S.C. 102, on prima facie obviousness' under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same." The burden of proof is similar to that required with respect to product-by-process claims. In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 70, 205 USPQ 594, 596 (CCPA 1980) (quoting In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430,433-34 (CCPA 1977))".
As to claim 18, the leach solution is iteratively subjected to NF via process recycling (Lien at “Fig. 1”).
Concerning claim 19, ultrafilitration is utilized to remove suspended submicron particles prio rot NF (Lien at [0008]).
As to claim 20, the pH is set to 2.5 (Lien at [0009]).
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.
Claims 1, 5-9 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Sulfuric acid leaching of metals from waste Li-ion batteries without using reducing agent” to Guimaraes et al. (hereinafter, “Guimaraes at __”) in view of Lien.
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Guimaraes discloses a method for generating a purified lithium salt (lithium sulfate, Guimaraes at 5 R col) from a recycling stream of lithium ion batteries (NCM 811, Id.) comprising:
Leaching black mass from the recycling stream in an aqueous solution of an oxidizing agent (sulfuric acid, Id.) and obtaining the lithium sulfate.
However, Guimaraes does not expressly state an initial filtering of the delithiated black mass from the aqueous solution o generate a leach solution which is then subjected to nanofilitration to form a permeate and a concentrate.
Lien discloses in a method of recovering lithium values from an acidic solution (Lien at “Abstract”) that an initial ultrafilitration step (Lien at [0008]) which is then subjected to nanofiltration ot yield a permeate (Lien at [0029]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to perform the method of Guimaraes in view of the filtration steps of Lien. The teaching or suggested motivation in doing so being decreased lithium losses (Lien at [0033]).
As to claim 5, leaching occurs for 2 hours at 90 C (Guimaraes at 7 L col).
Turning to claims 6-8, reverse osmosis can be performed (Lien at “Fig. 1”) and is then mixed with sodium sulfate or sodium hydroxide (Id.) to form LiOH.
Turning to claim 9, up to 99% (Lien at [0030]) is the yield and it is prima facie obvious as it overlaps at least 95% by weight (supra).
Concerning claim 12, better selectivity is desired (Lien at [0032]) so the NF is based on the selectivity over other ions.
Regarding claim 14, the limitation that the quantity of leach acid based on a molar quantity of lithium in the granular mass, as Guimarães explains on Page 7, Col. 1, rows 10-12, sulfuric acid is added based on the stoichiometry of the reaction of Equation (1) (Guimarães, Page 5, Section 3.2), which includes a molar quantity of the cathode material. A molar quantity of lithium is implicit in the molar quantity of cathode material, so the leach acid is also being added based on a molar quantity of lithium in the granular mass.
Guimarães does not explicitly teach that the determination of a quantity of a leaching acid is for achieving a molar ratio in a range between 0.4-0.70 of leach acid to Li in the black mass. However, Guimarães teaches that the quantity of the leach acid affects the amounts of Li and Ni that are extracted during leaching (Guimarães, Fig. 11, Extraction (%) vs. Concentration (mol/L)). As the amounts of Li and Ni that are extracted during leaching are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the quantity of the leach acid, with the amounts of Li and Ni that are extracted during leaching both increasing/decreasing as the quantity of the leach acid is increased/decreased, the precise quantity of the leach acid would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed quantity of the leach acid cannot be considered inventive. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the quantity of the leach acid in Guimarães to obtain the desired amounts of Li and Ni that are extracted during leaching as taught by Guimarães in Fig. 11 (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223). "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Regarding claim 15, Guimaraes does not expressly state 0.4-0.7 mol of Li added to the acid. However, Guimaraes teaches that the quantity of the leach acid affects the amount of Li and Ni that are extracted during leaching (Guimaraes at “Fig. 11” & ”Extraction (%) vs. Concentration (mol/L)”).
As the amounts of Li and Ni that are extracted during leaching are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the quantity of the leach acid, with the amounts of Li and Ni that are extracted during leaching both increasing/decreasing as the quantity of the leach acid is increased/decreased, the precise quantity of the leach acid would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed quantity of the leach acid cannot be considered inventive. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the quantity of the leach acid in Guimarães to obtain the desired amounts of Li and Ni that are extracted during leaching as taught by Guimarães in Fig. 11 (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223). "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Turning to claim 16, recycling of the filtered, delithiateed black mass to an NMC recycling process is performed (Lien at “Fig. 1”).
Concerning claim 17, while Guimaraes and Lien do not expressly state that the NF produces nickel sulfate, the same method as that instantly claimed is utilized, absent evidence to the contrary one of ordinary skill in the art would thusly expect nickel sulfate to be formed though the Office cannot test for this. See MPEP 2112 V, "[T]he PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on inherency' under 35 U.S.C. 102, on prima facie obviousness' under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same." The burden of proof is similar to that required with respect to product-by-process claims. In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 70, 205 USPQ 594, 596 (CCPA 1980) (quoting In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430,433-34 (CCPA 1977))".
As to claim 18, the leach solution is iteratively subjected to NF via process recycling (Lien at “Fig. 1”).
Concerning claim 19, ultrafilitration is utilized to remove suspended submicron particles prio rot NF (Lien at [0008]).
As to claim 20, the pH is set to 2.5 (Lien at [0009]).
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guimaraes and Lien as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of “Process for the recovery of cobalt oxalate from spent lithium-ion batteries” to Chen et al. (hereinafter, “Chen at __”).
Regarding claims 2-4, Guimaraes nor Lien expressly state a persulfate addition to the oxidizing solution.
Chen, in a method of recovering spent values from lithium ion battery recycling solutions (Chen at “Abstract”) discloses the addition of ammonium persulfate (Chen at 83 L col).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to perform the method of Guimaraes and Lien in view of the APS addition of Chen. The teaching or suggested motivation in doing so being precipitation of manganese oxide (Id.).
Claims 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lien as applied to claims 1 and 6 above respectively.
As to claim 5, leaching occurs for 2 hours at “about 50 to about 70 C” which overlaps that range instantly claimed of >60 C which is prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05).
Turning to claim 9, up to 99% (Lien at [0030]) is the yield and it is prima facie obvious as it overlaps at least 95% by weight (supra).
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lien as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Chen.
Regarding claims 2-4, Lien does not expressly state a persulfate addition to the oxidizing solution.
Chen, in a method of recovering spent values from lithium ion battery recycling solutions (Chen at “Abstract”) discloses the addition of ammonium persulfate (Chen at 83 L col).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to perform the method Lien in view of the APS addition of Chen. The teaching or suggested motivation in doing so being precipitation of manganese oxide (Id.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 11 are 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.
As to claims 10 and 11, Lien is the closest piece of prior art and it performs IX after RO, not between NF and RO and there is no rationale provided to modify Lien or any of the cited prior art taken in combination to perform it that way.
Conclusion
Claims 1-9 and 12-20 are rejected. Claims 10 and 11 are objected to.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD M RUMP whose telephone number is (571)270-5848. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 06:45 AM to 04:45 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, Curtis 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.
RICHARD M. RUMP
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
/RICHARD M RUMP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights