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 .
This action is in response to the application filed 05/02/2024.
Claims 1-17 are pending and being examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 1-4, 6, 8, 10-14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ouyang et al. (CN 113896211 A).
Considering claims 1-4, Ouyang teaches a method for recycling waste lithium iron phosphate batteries comprising carrying out oxidation leaching operation on a roasted product and separating to obtain a first leaching solution and first leaching slag; carrying out impurity removal and refining operation on the first leaching solution to obtain a lithium sulfate solution, carrying out lithium precipitation operation on the lithium sulfate solution, and separating to obtain a second leaching solution and a second leaching residue; and washing and removing impurities from the second leaching residue to obtain a graphite carbon product (i.e., anode material) (Ouyang, abstract and claim 1). Thus, Ouyang teaches a method for producing a purified graphite from a battery recycling stream comprising the steps of leaching/roasting to obtain a purified graphite and washing the purified graphite for generating anode material for use in a recycled battery.
Ouyang does not explicitly teach roasting the precipitate at a temperature selected based on removal of the fluoride impurities while retaining graphite. However, Ouyang teaches roasting at temperatures of 400-800°C and in one example at a temperature of 500°C (Ouyang, page 4 of English translation and Example 3 on page 9 of English translation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to roast at a temperature of 500°C (a temperature at which fluoride impurities are removed while graphite is retained). One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to do so because such a temperature is known to be suitable for obtaining a purified graphite from a mass of exhausted lithium-ion batteries.
Page 6 of instant specification discloses that a fluoride impurity such as PVDF will begin to decompose and burn off at approximately 450°C while graphite will begin to burn off at or above 650°C. Thus, a temperature of 500°C is a temperature above which fluoride impurities decompose and below which graphite decomposes.
Considering claim 6, Ouyang teaches the black mass (i.e., mixed powder) comprises cathode materials and anode materials form the exhausted lithium-ion batteries (Ouyang, top half of page 2 of English translation).
Considering claim 8, Ouyang teaches discharging, disassembling and sorting the waste lithium iron phosphate battery to obtain a shell, a diaphragm, copper, aluminum and anode and cathode mixed powder (Ouyang, top half of page 2 of English translation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to agitate the exhausted Li-ion batteries for generating the black mass. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to do so in order to discharge, disassemble and sort the waste lithium iron phosphate battery with a reasonable expectation of success.
Considering claims 10-11, Ouyang teaches the recovered graphite carbon product is high in purity (Ouyang, abstract and middle of page 6 of English translation). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the purified graphite to have a purity of 99.5% and/or 99.9%. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to do so in order to have a high-quality/purity graphite product.
Considering claims 12-13, Ouyang teaches washing the purified graphite in an aqueous acidic solution such as hydrochloric acid (Ouyang, S6 middle of page 6 of English translation). Ouyang teaches washing and then drying to obtain a product (Ouyang, S4 on page 8 of English translation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to dry the purified graphite after washing with aqueous acidic solution. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to do so in order to remove moisture/liquid from the final product and obtain a dry purified graphite with a reasonable expectation of success.
Ouyang is silent regarding the temperature at which the washed purified graphite is dried and does not explicitly teach a temperature of at least 100°C.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to select a temperature including a temperature of at least 100C at which the aqueous hydrochloric acid would evaporate from the purified graphite product. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to do so in order to remove the aqueous hydrochloric acid/water/moisture from the purified graphite product to obtain a dry purified graphite product.
Considering claim 14, Ouyang teaches roasting at the selected temperature for at least 30 minutes (Ouyang, middle of phage 4 of English translation, Example 3 on page 9 of English translation).
Considering claim 17, Ouyang teaches the fluoride impurities comprise PVDF (Ouyang, middle of page 4 of English translation).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ouyang et al. (CN 113896211 A) in view of Gao et al. (CN 116053632 A).
Considering claim 5, all of the limitations are met by the prior art referenced in meeting claim 1 limitations except for the precipitate is roasted in an O2 environment.
Ouyang teaches roasting in a nitrogen environment (Ouyang, Example 3 page 9 of English translation), he does not explicitly teach roasting in an O2 environment.
However, Gao teaches a recovery method of waste lithium-ion battery comprising roasting in a low-oxygen environment (abstract, Gao). Gao teaches roasting under the condition of oxygen volume concentration of 0.5-1% results in better acid leaching of valuable metals (Gao, last page of English translation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to roast the precipitate in in an O2 environment. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to do so in order to recover desired amount of valuable metals with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ouyang et al. (CN 113896211 A) in view of Alemrajabi (CA 3238034 A1).
Considering claim 7, all of the limitations are met by the prior art referenced in meeting claim 6 limitations except for the cathode materials include Ni, Mn, and Co.
Ouyang does not explicitly teach they include Ni, Mn, and Co.
However, Alemrajabi teaches in lithium-ion batteries, lithium transition metal composite oxides including Ni, Co and/or Mn or lithium iron phosphate are typically used as the cathode material (Alemrajabi, page 7 lines 8-16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the cathode materials to include Ni, Mn, and Co. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to do so because such materials are known to be suitable cathode materials in lithium-ion batteries.
Considering claim 9, all of the limitations are met by the prior art referenced in meeting claim 1 limitations except for directing the leach solution to an NMC coprecipitation process.
Although Ouyang teaches a coprecipitation process to remove the cathode metal ion impurities (Ouyang, 3rd paragraph on page 5 of English translation), he does not explicitly teach directing the leach solution to an NMC coprecipitation process.
However, Alemrajabi teaches in lithium-ion batteries, lithium transition metal composite oxides including Ni, Co and/or Mn or lithium iron phosphate are typically used as the cathode material (Alemrajabi, page 7 lines 8-16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the cathode materials to include Ni, Mn, and Co. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to do so because such materials are known to be suitable cathode materials in lithium-ion batteries. It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to direct the leach solution to an NMC coprecipitation process. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to do so because coprecipitation process is known to be suitable for removing cathode metal ion impurities of lithium ion batteries.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ouyang et al. (CN 113896211 A) in view of Shi et al. (CN 104638316 A).
Considering claims 12-13, Ouyang teaches washing the purified graphite in an aqueous acidic solution such as hydrochloric acid (Ouyang, S6 middle of page 6 of English translation). Ouyang teaches washing and then drying to obtain a product (Ouyang, S4 on page 8 of English translation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to dry the purified graphite after washing with aqueous acidic solution. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to do so in order to remove moisture/liquid from the final product and obtain a dry purified graphite with a reasonable expectation of success.
Ouyang is silent regarding the temperature at which the washed purified graphite is dried and does not explicitly teach a temperature of at least 100°C.
However, Shi teaches a drying temperature of 160-180°C for graphite after being washed with an acidic solution (Shi, page 2 of English translation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to dry the washed purified graphite at a temperature of at least 100°C. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to do so because such a temperature is known to be suitable for drying a graphite product that has been washed with an aqueous acidic solution.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ouyang et al. (CN 113896211 A) in view of Yang et al. (CN 116903003 A).
Considering claims 15-16, all of the limitations are met by the prior art referenced in meeting claim 1 limitations except for the temperature is reached by a gradual temperature increase at about 10°C/min.
Ouyang teaches roasting at temperatures of 400-800°C for 0.1-5 hours and in one example at a temperature of 500°C for 1 hour (Ouyang, page 4 of English translation and Example 3 on page 9 of English translation), he does not explicitly teach the temperature is reached by a gradual temperature increase at about 10°C/min.
However, Yang teaches a method of waste lithium battery recycling comprising gradient temperature treatment of the waste material to recover lithium; when the number of temperature gradients increases, the recovery rate of lithium gradually increases (Yang, abstract, bottom of page 3 of English translation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to reach the roasting temperature by gradual temperature increase such as about 10°C/min. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to do so in order to achieve a higher recovery rate of lithium with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANITA NASSIRI-MOTLAGH whose telephone number is (571)270-7588. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-3:00.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1177. 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.
/ANITA NASSIRI-MOTLAGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights