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 1-21 are pending and presented for examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 17 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claims recite “chosen from” this should read --selected from the group consisting of--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to claim 1 (and those dependent thereon owing to their dependency form such), line 6 sets froth “or”, however it does not seem like this should be in the claim as it implies that baking or leaching can occur, but the remainder of the claim necessitates that the material be leached, so for the purposes of compact prosecution “or” is being ignored.
Regarding claim 18, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of compact prosecution “gaseous oxidant” is not being limited to the species following it.
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, 2, 10, 12-14, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN113603119 to Qiao et al. (hereinafter, “Qiao at __”; citations made to the English equivalent, US20230332273).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Qiao discloses a method for recovering lithium from electrochemical scrap waste or black mass containing LFP (Qiao at “Abstract”) comprising:
Acid baking the scrap waste of LFP in the presence of sulfuric acid at 150-250 C (Qiao at [0012] & [0019]) thereby producing an acid baked composition;
Leaching lithium ions, non-lithium ions (iron and phosphate) and sulfate (as lithium sulfate exists later this must be present) via water addition ([0012] recites this is Step 3) thereby producing an acidic leachate comprising dissolved lithium ions, one or more non-lithium cations, and sulfate;
Adding a basic reagent to the acid leachate (via raising the pH to 9-11 via addition of lithium or sodium carbonate in Step 4, “Claim 7”) and producing one or more solid leachate tailings of iron and a lithium-enriched liquor containing dissolved lithium and sulfate; and
Separating the lithium-enriched liquor from all fo the tailings to produce a liquor (solution) comprising dissolved lithium sulfate (Step S5 via IX).
As to claims 2 and 10, sodium carbonate is added to precipitate lithium carbonate and this is collected (Id. & “Abstract”).
Turning to claims 12-14, LFP has a Li content of 4.41% based on the stoichiometry.
Turning to claim 17, given the breadth of “roasting furnaces”, the apparatus utilized in Qiao is considered to meet this.
Concerning claim 20, 99% efficiency is achieved ([0012]).
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiao as applied to claim 1 above.
Turning to claim 9, the pH of the initial application to remove iron is 9-11, and precipitation of lithium sulfate occurs at 10.5 and iron phosphate at pHs above 7.8 such that raising it to 9 would minimize the risk of precipitation iron sulfate early for one of ordinary skill in the art and thusly they would raise it first to 9 and then above 10.5 given this range (see KSR v Teleflex 550 398 (US) 2007)).
Claims 1, 2, 9-14, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2022256903 to Shahreman et al. (hereinafter, “Shahrehman at __”; cited and provided by Applicants) in view of Qiao.
Regarding claim 1, Shahreman discloses a method for recovering lithium from electrochemical scrap waste of LFP (Shahreman at “Fig. 1” & [0203] discloses that LFP can be the starting material for the process) comprising:
Acid treating LFP (Shahreman at [0204]);
Leaching Li+, one or more type sof non-lithium cations (Al and Fe cations), and sulfate from the acid baked composition water water (“Fig. 1”) thereby producing an acidic leachate comprising lithium and sulfate;
Adding a basic reagent (calcium hydroxide, Id.,) to precipitate aluminum and iron phosphate and produce a lithium-enriched liquor comprising dissolved lithium and sulfate (PLS) and tailings (Id.);
Separating the lithium-enriched liquor from all of the soldi leachate tailings (S/L which separates out gypsum thereby producing a liquor containing dissolved lithium sulfate (Id.).
However, Shahreman does not expressly state that the waste LFP is subjected to acid treatment in sulfuric acid at ~150~350 C.
Qiao also in a method of recovering materials from waste batteries (Yan at “Abstract”) that LFP can be subjected to baking in sulfuric acid at 150-250 C (Qiao at [0019]).
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 Shahreman in view of the acid baking conditions of Qiao. The teaching or suggested motivation in doing so being efficiency with lower energy usage (Id.).
As to claims 2 and 10, LiOH can be recovered via precipitation (Shahreman at [0019]) and as can lithium carbonate via sodium carbonate (Shahreman at [0041]) and then separated (Shahreman at “Fig. 1”).
Turning to claim 9, calcium hydroxide is added to raise the pH to 4.75 and then calcium hydroxide is again added to increase the pH to 10 (Shahreman at “Fig. 1”).
As to claim 11, calcium hydroxide can be added (Id.).
Turning to claims 12-14, LFP has a Li content of 4.41% based on the stoichiometry.
Turning to claim 17, given the breadth of “roasting furnaces”, the apparatus utilized in Qiao is considered to meet this.
With respect to claim 20, above ~54 wt% is recovered (Shahreman at “Claim 63”).
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9-14, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN115893457 to Yan et al. (hereinafter, “Yan at __”; citations to the attached English machine translation) in view of Shahreman.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 5 and 10, Yan discloses a method for recovering lithium from LFP waste material (Yan at “Example 1”) comprising:
Caid baking LFP waste in sulfuric acid at 200 C for 3.5 hours;
Leaching lithium, non-lithium cations, and sulfate from the acid baked composition with water for five hours (RT is assumed as no temperature is given and this is a separate device than that used for the baking, Id.);
Separating lithium-enriched liquor (Id.) obtaining lithium sulfate liquid which can be turned into lithium carbonate via sodium carbonate addition (Id.).
However, Yan does not expressly state that a basic reagent is added to the acidic leachate to remove one or more non-lithium cations and produce tailings.
Shahreman also in a method of recycling LFP discloses that addition of calcium hydroxide in two steps can be utilized to remove iron as iron hydroxide and magnesium as magnesium hydroxide (Shahreman at “Fig. 1” & [0235]).
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 Yan in view of the precipitation of Shahreman. The teaching or suggested motivation in doing so being avoiding the need to perform cation exchange which has drawbacks (Shahreman at [0002]).
As to claim 4, decrepitation ofhte LFP can be at 800 or 850 C (Yan at 3).
Turning to claim 9, calcium hydroxide is added to raise the pH to 4.75 and then calcium hydroxide is again added to increase the pH to 10 (Shahreman at “Fig. 1”).
As to claim 11, calcium hydroxide can be added (Id.).
Turning to claims 12-14, LFP has a Li content of 4.41% based on the stoichiometry.
Turning to claim 17, given the breadth of “roasting furnaces”, the apparatus utilized in Qiao is considered to meet this.
With respect to claim 20, above ~54 wt% is recovered (Shahreman at “Claim 63”).
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Less Common Nonferrous Metals” to Cardarelli in view of Shahreman.
As to claims 1-4, 8, 10 and 17-19, Caradarelli discloses a method of forming lithium carbonate discloses heating alpha spodumene in a rotary kiln at 1075-1100 C in an oxidizing atmosphere (as roasting is done in an air environment) and then acid roasted at 250-300 C utilizing sulfuric acid which is then leached in cold water for two hours. The pH of the solution is then raised to 6.5 via calcium carbonate addition and then filtered to separate from the tailings from the lithium sulfate solution and then sodium carbonate is added to precipitate out lithium carbonate (Cardarelli at 331).
Shahreman sets forth that lithium sources can be from natural or synthetic sources (Shahreman at [0012]) and that natural sources can include spodumene ([0201]). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention would have found it obvious to use both lithium sources together in Cadarelli as they are art recognized equivalents for the same purpose as both produce lithium sulfate.
As to claim 5, “cold water” is considered to be less than room temperature and it is done for two hours (Cardarelli at 331).
Turning to claims 6 and 7, the alpha is converted to beta under the deprepitation aspects and it is a floated concentrate (Id.).
Turning to claim 9, calcium hydroxide is added to raise the pH to 4.75 and then calcium hydroxide is again added to increase the pH to 10 (Shahreman at “Fig. 1”).
As to claim 11, calcium hydroxide can be added (Id.).
Regarding claims 12-16, the LFP+alpha spodumene is treated under the same conditions of conversion at 1075 C so, absent evidence to the contrary, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the lithium content is the same, i.e. ~2.6-2.8 wt% (but also covering 1-20, 1-5, 23.5 wt% Li) 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))".
With respect to claim 20, above ~54 wt% is recovered (Shahreman at “Claim 63”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21 is 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 claim 21, none of the cited prior art, either alone or in combination, discloses or reasonably suggests combining LFP/LFMP:spodumene ratio of ~90:10~10:90. Shahreman is the closest piece of prior art and it does not set forth any such ratio. “Lithium: Sources, Production, Uses, and Recovery Outlook” to Peiro et al., discloses the generic process of alpha to beta spodumene but also does not disclose a ratio of LFP/LFMP:spodumene.
Conclusion
Claims 1-21 are rejected.
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