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 .
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 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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deb (US 9,748,616) in view of CN111276767B. Deb discloses a method for recovering a lithium precursor, comprising preparing a powder including lithium and a metal such as Co, Mn or Ni, followed by a reduction treatment. (See col. 7, lines 12-50.) Deb teaches in Example 1 that the cobalt oxides precipitated out and were dried and washed four times. The differences between the process disclosed by Deb, and that recited in applicant’s claims, are that Deb does not disclose at two solid-liquid separation steps, and that a calcium compound is added in one of the washing steps. It would have been obvious from CN111276767B to include the addition of a calcium compound to one of the washing steps in the process of Deb. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, since CN111276767B teaches in Paragraphs [0013] and [0014] of the English translation that the addition of a calcium-containing powder such as calcium oxide or calcium carbonate will absorb waste gas generated during roasting of the anode, cathode and diaphragm of a battery. It would have been further obvious to provide a solid-liquid separation step for each of the washings in the process of Deb, since the process is directed to recovering cobalt oxide.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deb in view of WO 2021/182452. EP 4,119,245 A1 is considered to constitute an English translation of WO 2021/182452. Deb discloses a method for recovering a lithium precursor, comprising preparing a powder including lithium and a metal such as Co, Mn or Ni, followed by a reduction treatment. (See col. 7, lines 12-50.) Deb teaches in Example 1 that the cobalt oxides precipitated out and were dried and washed four times. The differences between the process disclosed by Deb, and that recited in applicant’s claims, are that Deb does not disclose at two solid-liquid separation steps, and that a calcium compound is added in one of the washing steps. It would have been obvious from EP 4,119,245 A1 to include the addition of a calcium compound during the washing step. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, since EP 4,119,245 A1 discloses an analogous process for recovering lithium from secondary batteries and teaches ion Paragraphs [0143] through [0147] that the addition of calcium hydroxide allows impurities in a decrease in impurities in the lithium-containing solution. It would have been further obvious to include a solid-liquid separation step for each of the washing steps in the process of Deb, since Deb discloses a solid-liquid separation step in Paragraphs [0138] through [0142], and one would have appreciated that a solid-liquid separation step should be provided for each washing step to remove impurities.
Regarding claim 2, Deb discloses hydrogen as a reducing agent at col. 7, lines 20-26.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Deb discloses lithium hydroxide in Example 1.
Regarding claim 6, Deb discloses in Example 1 that the mixture of oxides was hydrated. It is conventional to carry out reactions in a fluidized state to increase contact between the reactants.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, the washing steps in the process of Deb would presumable be carried out at ambient temperature, since there is no indication that an elevated temperature. Was used. It would have also been within the level of skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to determine a suitable washing period.
Regarding claim 9, Deb discloses the recited components of the battery at col. 1, lines 18-27, and discloses a binder in the paragraph bridging columns 4 and 5.
Regarding claims 10 and 12, the calcium hydroxide of EP 4,119,245 A1would react with the components to no less extent than in the method recited in applicant’s claims.
Regarding claim 11, EP 4,119,245 A1 discloses in Paragraph [0178] that the components include a current collector coated with carbon, and suggests in Paragraph [0152] that the solution includes fluorine.
Regarding claim 13, EP 4,119,245 A1 discloses in Paragraph [0189] that the housing of the battery contains aluminum.
Regarding claim 14, EP 4,119,245 A1 discloses the addition of calcium hydroxide in Paragraphs [0148] and [0149].
Regarding claims 15 and 16, it would have been within the level of skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to determine suitable amounts of the calcium hydroxide and water for washing to be used.
Regarding claim 17, EP 4,119,245 A1 discloses a pulverization step in Paragraphs [0112] through [0118], and a heat-treating step-in Paragraphs [0109] and [0110].
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of copending Application No. 18/694416 in view of Deb. It would have been obvious from Deb to perform an additional washing and solid-liquid separation of the precipitate in the process recited in the claims of SN 18/632296.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Song (US 2019/0144295) is made of record for disclosing a method for producing high0purity lithium carbonate from lithium secondary batteries.
LEE et al (US 2023/0250507) is made of record for disclosing a method for recovering active metal of a lithium secondary battery.
WO 2011/103298 A2 is made of record for disclosing the production of highly pure lithium carbonate, and teaching in Paragraph [0051] that washing the lithium carbonate multiple times minimizes dissolution d lithium carbonate in the water.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAYNE A LANGEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-1353. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:15 am to 4:15 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3591. 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.
/WAYNE A LANGEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights