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
Applicant’s election of Group II (Claims 18-19 and 21-44) in the reply filed on 07/29/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 1-17 are withdrawn. Claims 18-19 and 21-44 are examined herein.
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 42-44 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.
Claim 42 recites the gaseous sublimation product includes at least one of the at least one solid non-lithium metal carbonyl of the post-carbonylation residual solid material. It’s unclear how a gaseous product includes a solid compound. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 18-19, 21 and 38-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2021/0269894), and further in view of Nair (US 2024/0002978).
Regarding claims 18-19, 21 and 38-41, Wang teaches a process for recovering Ni and Co from a recycled lithium battery containing lithium nickel cobalt oxide, comprising: separating lithium from the lithium nickel cobalt oxide material and obtaining a residue containing nickel oxide, cobalt oxide and nickel cobalt oxide (i.e. a lithium-depleted material); and reacting the residue with CO (i.e. a reducing agent) to form Co metal powder and nickel carbonyl that is decomposed to nickel powder ([0043] to [0073]), which meets the recited processing limitations in claims 18 and 38-41.
Wang does not explicitly disclose that the lithium cobalt aluminum oxide from the recycled lithium battery is a black mass. Nair teaches a method of recovery metal from waste lithium battery and discloses that the waste battery is processed to obtain a black mass containing lithium compound, nickel compound, cobalt compound, manganese compound and carbon and that the black mass is used to recover valuable metal ([0051] to [0099]). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to obtain a black mass from waste lithium battery as taught by Nair in the process of Wang in order to recover valuable metal from waste lithium battery with success. Nair further discloses that the reduced particular matter (i.e. the treated black mass) contains 6.17 wt.% lithium and the treated particulate matter (i.e. the lithium-depleted black mass) contains 0.41 wt.% lithium (Table 1), which meets the recited composition in claim 19.
Wang discloses that after separating lithium carbonate, the residue (i.e. lithium-depleted black mass) containing nickel oxide, cobalt oxide and nickel cobalt oxide is heated in a carbon monoxide (i.e. a reducing agent) atmosphere to form nickel powder and cobalt metal powder ([0054] to [0074]), which meets the limitation recited in claim 21.
Claims 22-25, 27 and 29-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2021/0269894) in view of Nair (US 2024/0002978), as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of IN’165 (IN202111040165A, IDS dated 09/20/2024).
Regarding claims 22-25, 27, 29 and 35-36, Wang discloses contacting the mixture with water to obtain a mixture containing lithium carbonate, nickel oxide, cobalt oxide and nickel cobalt oxide; and separating the mixture into a lithium carbonate solution (i.e. lithium-rich liquid) and a residue containing nickel oxide, cobalt oxide and nickel cobalt oxide (i.e. the lithium-depleted residual solid material) ([0054]; [0055]).
Wang in view of Nair does not disclose that the mixture contains a lithium-comprising ionic compound. IN’165 teaches a method of recovering metal from a lithium battery and discloses that mixing the black mass with sodium chloride and performing roasting improves lithium recovery ratio (Page 16). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to mix the black mass with sodium chloride and perform roasting as taught by IN’165 in the process of Wang in view of Nair to improve lithium recovery ratio as disclosed by IN’165. IN’165 discloses that mass ratio of sodium chloride to black mass is 0.1 to 2 (Table 4), which overlap the recited ratio in claim 25. 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). See MPEP 2144.05 I. Thus, claim 25 is obvious over Wang in view of Nair and IN’165. IN’165 does not explicitly disclose that the recited halogen atom to lithium atom ratio is 1:1. However, IN’165 discloses that the mass ratio of NaCl to black mass determines the lithium recovery rate. It would be obvious to optimize the mass ratio of NaCl to black mass (which encompass optimizing the atomic ratio of NaCl to lithium) through routine experimentation to optimize the added amount of NaCl in order to improve lithium recovery rate. See MPEP 2144.05 II. Thus, claim 24 is obvious over Wang in view of Nair and IN’165.
Regarding claim 30, IN’165 discloses that the lithium concentration of lithium-rich material (i.e. first liquor) is 6.62 g/L and the lithium concentration of the lithium-depleted material (i.e. residue after acid leaching) is 0.67 g/L (Table 5), which meets the recited ratio in claim 30.
Regarding claims 31 and 37, Wang discloses that the separation of lithium-rich solution from residue is by filtration ([0077]), which meets the limitation recited in claim 31 and 37.
Regarding claim 32 and 33, Wang discloses that the non-lithium metal is Ni and Co ([0029]), which meets the limitation recited in claims 32 and 33.
Regarding claim 34, Nair further discloses that the reduced particular matter (i.e. the treated black mass) contains 6.17 wt.% lithium and the treated particulate matter (i.e. the lithium-depleted black mass) contains 0.41 wt.% lithium (Table 1), which meets the recited composition in claim 34.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2021/0269894) in view of Nair (US 2024/0002978) and IN’165 (IN202111040165A), as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of CN’927 (CN 110828927).
Regarding claim 28, Wang discloses contact the heated material with water ([0052]). Wang in view of Nair and IN’165 does not teach water quenching the calcinated material. CN’927 teaches a method of recovering metal from waste lithium battery and discloses after calcining the electrode material, water quenching is performed to obtain a lithium-rich solution having high lithium leaching rate ([0013]; [0058]). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform water quenching on the calcinated material as taught by CN’927 in the process of Wang in view of Nair and IN’165 in order to obtain a lithium-rich solution with high lithium leaching rate as disclosed by CN’927.
Nair discloses that the particle size of the black mass is 100 µm or less ([0058] to [0061]), which meets the recited size limitation in claim 28.
Claims 42-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2021/0269894) in view of Nair (US 2024/0002978), as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Zou (US 2024/0055681).
Regarding claims 42-44, Wang discloses contacting the residual solid material containing cobalt oxide, nickel oxide and cobalt nickel oxide with H2 to form a reduced residue, contacting the reduced residue with CO in a first reactor to form solid Co powder and a gaseous nickel carbonyl, injecting the gaseous nickel carbonyl from the first reactor to a second reactor and decomposing nickel carbonyl to make nickel powder ([0054] to [0071]).
Wang in view of Nair does not explicitly disclose the post-carbonylation residual solid material includes at least one solid non-lithium metal carbonyl. Zou teaches a method of recovering metal from waste lithium battery, comprising: performing first carbonylation to form cobalt carbonyl in solid form and nickel carbonyl in gaseous; removing the gaseous nickel carbonyl, performing second carbonylation on the solid cobalt carbonyl to form volatile cobalt carbonyl; decomposing the volatile cobalt carbonyl to make pure Co ([0061] to [0067]). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform first carbonylation to form cobalt carbonyl, perform second carbonylation on the solid cobalt carbonyl to form volatile cobalt carbonyl; and decompose the volatile cobalt carbonyl as taught by Zou in the process of Wang in view of Nair in order to recover pure cobalt as disclosed by Zou.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Xiaowei Su whose telephone number is (571)272-3239. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00.
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, Keith Hendricks can be reached at 5712721401. 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.
/XIAOWEI SU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights