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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-15 are examined in this office action.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over "Simultaneous recycling of critical metals and aluminum foil from waste LiNi1/3Co1/3Mn1/3O2 cathode via ethylene glycol–citric acid system.” (cited on IDS dated 5/24/24) Of Zeng.
As to claims 1 and 3, Zeng discloses recycling of critical metals and aluminum foil from waste LiNi1/3Co1/3Mn1/3O2 cathode via ethylene glycol–citric acid system (Zeng, title), meeting the limitation of recycling lithium-ion battery materials as this is a lithium-ion cathode material. Zeng discloses where waste LIBs were immersed in a 1.0M sodium chloride solution to discharge the battery followed by dismantling the batteries to remove the plastic and steel case coverings and where the cathode has active material on its surface (Zeng, pg. 16134, right column, last paragraph and Figure 8), meeting the limitation of isolating a composite electrode, the composite electrode comprising an electrode material adhered to a current collector. Zeng discloses where the cathodes were then placed into a leaching agent of citric acid and dihydric alcohol where the dihydric alcohol is ethylene glycol (Zeng, pg. 16134, right column, last paragraph – pg. 16135, left column first paragraph and pg. 16135, right column first paragraph), meeting the limitations combining the composite electrode with a dual function solution comprising an organic acid and polyol to form a leaching mixture where citric acid and ethylene glycol are the organic acid and polyol recited in claim 3. Zeng discloses where this mixture was stirred and after leaching the leaching slurry is filtered to obtain a leachate and solid residue and the aluminum foil was recovered from the solid residue by sieving (Zeng, pg. 16135, left column first paragraph), meeting the limitation of leaching and as filtering and sieving is separating the electrode material from the current collector in the leaching mixture to give a metal ion containing leachate, a corrosion-free current collector (the aluminum foil) and a binder/carbon mixture and recovering each of the metal ion containing leachate, the corrosion-free current collector and the binder mixture from the leaching mixture. While Zeng does not explicitly disclose where there is a binder/carbon black mixture, Zeng does disclose where the main phase of the powder residue is carbon and PVDF (Zeng, pg. 16139, only paragraph and Figure 8). As carbon black is a form of carbon, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select carbon black as this is a common powdery form of elemental carbon that is appropriate for use in catalysts, fuel cells and batteries.
As to claim 2, Zeng discloses where the process is applied to waste LIB cathode materials (Zeng, pg. 16134, Experimental Section, 1st paragraph), meeting the limitation where the composite electrode is a spent cathode.
As to claim 4, Zeng discloses where the leaching agent and the cathode pieces were heated in a three-necked glass reactor (Zeng, pg. 16135, left column, 1st paragraph), meeting the limitation of wherein the step of leaching and separating the electrode material from the current collector further comprises the step of heating the leaching mixture to leach metal ions from the composite electrode into the dual function solution.
As to claim 5, Zeng discloses where after the leaching, the leaching slurry was filtered to obtain a leachate and solid residue, and aluminum foil (corrosion-free current collector) was recovered from the solid residue by sieving where the leachate includes Co, Li, Ni, and Mn (Zeng, pg. 16135, left column, 1st paragraph), meeting the limitation wherein the step of recovering each of the metal ion containing leachate, the corrosion-free current collector and the binder/carbon black mixture from the leaching mixture further comprises the step of heating the leaching mixture to give a coprecipitated cathode precursor and a lithium-ion leachate from the metal ion containing leachate.
As to claim 6, Zeng discloses using a molar ratio of citric acid to ethylene glycol of 1:1, 1:1.5, 1:2, 1:2.5, 1:3, and 1:3.5 (Zeng, pg. 16135, Figure 3(a)), meeting the limitation of where the organic acid and polyol is in a molar ratio of 1:1 to 1:30.
As to claim 7, Zeng discloses where molar ratios of citric acid to ethylene glycol of 1:1 to 1:3.5 all leach Co, Li, Ni, and Mn without leaching Al (Zeng, Figure 3(a)). Zeng teaches where the leaching rate is a function of the molar ratio of citric acid and ethylene glycol, temperature, solid-liquid ratio, and time (Zeng, pg. 16140, left column, 2nd paragraph). Thus, Zeng is recognizing the molar ratio of citric acid and ethylene glycol as a result effective variable, and it would therefore be obvious to select a ratio of 1:9 to 1:11 to carry out the process in Zeng. Claimed ranges of a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result, which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art, see MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A).
As to claims 8 and 9, Zeng discloses where 5-30 g/L of solid to liquid is used and specific example where 15 g/L of solid to liquid is used (Zeng, pg. 16136, Figure 4(b)), meeting the claim 8 limitation of solid to liquid ratio of 10 g/L to 35 g/L as well as the claim 9 limitation of a solid to liquid ratio of 12.5 g/L to 17.5 g/L.
As to claims 10 and 13, Zeng discloses carrying out the leaching at 80°C, 90°C, 95°C and 100°C (Zeng, pg. 16136, Figure 4(a)), meeting the claim 10 limitation wherein the leaching mixture is heated to a leaching temperature of from 80 to 190 °C to leach metal ions from the composite electrode into the dual function solution as well as claim 13 limitations of wherein the leaching mixture is heated to a precipitation temperature of from 80 to 190 °C to give the coprecipitated cathode precursor and the lithium-ion leachate.
As to claim 11, Zeng discloses where the mixture is stirred at 300 rpm (Zeng, pg. 16135, left column, 1st paragraph), meeting the limitation wherein the step of heating the leaching mixture to leach metal ions from the composite electrode further comprises stirring the leaching mixture at a rate of from 150 to 450 rpm.
As to claims 12 and 14, Zeng discloses where leaching is carried out for 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 hours (Zeng, pg. 16135, left column, 1st paragraph and Figure 4(c)), meeting the claim 12 limitation wherein the leaching mixture is heated to leach metal ions from the composite electrode into the dual function solution for a leaching time of from 30 minutes to 120 minutes and the claim 14 limitation wherein the leaching mixture is heated for a precipitation time of 1 to 15 hours to give the coprecipitated cathode precursor and the lithium-ion leachate.
As to claim 15, Zeng discloses preparing a leaching agent by mixing citric acid with a dihydric alcohol at 80°C to perform the cathode leaching process and Zeng discloses where the dihydric alcohol is ethylene glycol (Zeng, pg. 16134, right column last paragraph – pg. 16135, left column first paragraph and pg. 16135, right column, last paragraph), meeting the limitation of wherein the dual function solution consists of the organic acid consisting of citric acid and the polyol consists of ethylene glycol as Zeng does not disclose where the leaching agent contains any other reagents.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joshua S Carpenter whose telephone number is (571)272-2724. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:30 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, Keith Hendricks can be reached at (571) 272-1401. 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.
/JOSHUA S CARPENTER/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/JOPHY S. KOSHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights