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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph [0042], please change “As is oxidizes” to “As it oxidizes”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Paragraph [0035] of the present disclosure states “[f]or the purposes of the present disclosure, approaching zero should be interpreted to mean that the delta lambda value is between -0.001 and 0.001 (the absolute value of the delta lambda value is less than 0.001).” In view of the disclosure, all claimed instances of delta lambda approaching zero will be interpreted to mean that the delta lambda value is between -0.001 and 0.001 (the absolute value of the delta lambda value is less than 0.001). Claims that recite a delta lambda approaching zero include claims 4, 9, 18, and 19.
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 9-20 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.
Independent claims 9 and 16 recite oxidation steps if lithium-intercalated graphite is present, and recite reduction steps if transition metal oxides are present, but it is not clear from claims 9 and 16, as worded if claims 9 and 16 encompasses extracting lithium from a black mass that contains no lithium-intercalated graphite and no transition metal oxide. For example, it is not clear if and how claims 9 and 16 would apply to a black mass entirely of the polymer and lithium compounds of an electrolyte portion of a battery. “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim” (MPEP 2111.04). Note that claim 1 claims “monitoring completion of oxidation or reduction” which at least requires some oxidation or reduction reaction occur.
Claims 10-15 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) because they depend on claim 9. Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) because they depend on claim 16.
Claim 20 in its entirety states “The method of claim 16, wherein a reducing reagent is at least one of carbon, carbon monoxide and hydrogen gas.” As neither independent claim 16 nor claim 20 recites a step of adding a reducing reagent, it is not clear how stating a reducing reagent is at least one of carbon, carbon monoxide and hydrogen gas defines the metes and bounds of claim 20. Note that independent claim 1 and independent claim 9 recite a step of adding a reducing reagent.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US20250046899) in view of Zhang (CN117487572A). Suzuki is a publication of an application for patent in the United States effectively filed prior to the earliest effective filing date of the present application. References to Zhang are directed to the examiner-supplied English language translation.
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki discloses a method of extracting lithium (Fig. 3, [0027], [0055], [0062-63]) from a recovery body produced by battery recycling (an example of the recovery object is a used lithium ion secondary battery [0017], [0025], process end materials and defective parts [0030]). In examples, Suzuki discloses processing the recovery body into a black mass prior to the recovery process [0067]. Suzuki discloses analyzing the recovery body (which Suzuki exemplifies as a black mass [0067]) [0031]. Suzuki discloses conducting the analyzing step when the type of body, and therefore the type of lithium entrapment changes [0031-32]; Suzuki discloses that the analysis determines the composition relative to the type of lithium entrapment [0034], and Suzuki discloses determining whether or not additional agents are necessary as a result of the analysis [0036]. As Suzuki discloses that the analysis depends on the type of recovery body [0031-34] and that the analysis sets the recovery process [0036], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the analyzing step in some way results in a determination by one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, of the type of lithium entrapment. Suzuki discloses quantifying a carbon content of the recovery body by methods which include an oxygen stream combustion-nondispersive infrared analysis method, or a combustion capacity method [0033], both of which are methods of quantifying carbon in excess oxygen.
Suzuki discloses adding a reducing agent [0038] based on the result of the analyzing step [0036-37], which Suzuki discloses is based on the type of lithium entrapment [0031-35]. Suzuki discloses reducing the recovery body while maintaining the amount of oxygen low [0042]. Suzuki discloses extracting lithium from the black mass with a solvent [0046], [0062].
Suzuki discloses maintaining a level of oxygen during the reduction step [0042], but Suzuki does not disclose monitoring the reduction step with an oxygen sensor.
Zhang teaches a method of recovering materials produced by battery recycling [n0005], [n0009], [n0023]. Zhang teaches heat treating material in a furnace [n0019]. Zhang teaches an oxygen sensor inside the furnace to monitor the content of oxygen in the heat treatment process [n0017], [n0051]. Zhang teaches that the oxygen sensor monitors the content of oxygen within the furnace throughout the reaction [n0051-52], and Zhang teaches modifying system conditions when the sensors detect a deviation in oxygen content from a value to maintain concentration at that value [n0052].
Both Suzuki and Zhang teach methods of recycling battery materials wherein the content of oxygen is controlled in a heating step.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing to monitor the reduction reaction disclosed by Suzuki, applied above, with an oxygen sensor because Zhang teaches that an oxygen sensor in a heat treating step of a battery recycling processes permits controlling the oxygen content at that stage [n0051-52]. Such application of an oxygen sensor would predictably permit maintaining oxygen at levels disclosed by Suzuki [0042]. As Suzuki discloses extracting lithium following the reduction ([0055], Figs. 3-5), the reduction reaction disclosed by Suzuki has some conclusion. Monitoring the reaction with an oxygen sensor, includes monitoring the conclusion of that same reaction. Suzuki discloses providing feed material relative to that stoichiometrically necessary to perform the reduction [0038-39]. Suzuki further discloses determining the amount stoichiometrically necessary by determining an amount of oxygen [0031], [0034]. In order to both apply the measurements of the oxygen sensor to control feed material as taught by Zhang [n0051-52] and to provide the components with reference to the amount relative to that stoichiometrically necessary with reference to an amount of measured oxygen, as disclosed by Suzuki [0031], [0034], [0038-39], it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing to determine a difference between the measured content and that stoichiometrically necessary with the measurements of the oxygen sensor. A difference between the measured content and that stoichiometrically necessary is a delta lambda value.
Regarding claim 2, Suzuki discloses utilizing the carbon content to reduce transition metal oxides [0038-41]. As Zhang teaches that data from the oxygen sensor controls the system to maintain some value [n0051-52], application of the oxygen sensor, as taught by Zhang to the reduction step disclosed by Suzuki would enact changes until some target oxygen content value is reached.
Regarding claim 5, Suzuki discloses that reduction is performed at a temperature of 600°C to 1500°C [0041], which encompasses a range between about 600° C. and 900° C. When claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Note, that as claim 5 only modifies the reduction embodiment, and claim 5 is still open to the oxidation alternative, claim 5 can still be met by the oxidation alternative regardless of temperature.
Regarding claim 7, the mechanisms of carbon quantification in an excess oxygen disclosed by Suzuki [0033] require at least determining some amount of oxygen. In view of the effectiveness of oxygen sensors to detect an amount of oxygen taught by Zhang [n0051-52] it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing to apply, in some way, an oxygen sensor in the step of quantifying carbon an environment of excess oxygen disclosed by Suzuki [0033].
Claim(s) 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US20250046899) in view of Zhang (CN117487572A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gao (US20240055685).
Regarding claim 6, Suzuki discloses that the reducing reagent is not particularly limited as long as the reagent can reduce materials in the heating step [0032]. Suzuki does not disclose that the reducing reagent is at least one of carbon monoxide and hydrogen gas.
Gao teaches a method of extracting lithium from black mass produced by battery recycling (abstract, [0002], [0006]). Gao teaches analyzing the black mass to determine the composition (uppermost XRD plots of Figs. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, [0020-25]). Gao teaches adding a reducing reagent [0009], [0012-13], [0039], and subjecting the black mass to thermal reduction [0008], [0012], [0039]. Gao teaches that the reducing reagent may be hydrogen gas, or carbon monoxide gas as an alternative to or combination with (mixtures thereof) a carbon material reducing reagent [0009], [0013], [0039]. Gao teaches extracting lithium from the black mass with a solvent [0041].
Both Suzuki and Gao teach substantially similar processes of recovering lithium from a black mass in a battery recycling process comprising a thermal reduction step. The reducing agent identified by Suzuki is a carbon material reducing agent [0032].
The combination of Suzuki in view of Zhang discloses every limitation of present claim 6, but for a reducing reagent which is at least one of carbon monoxide and hydrogen gas. In view of Gao [0009], [0012], [0039], one of ordinary skill in the art of recovering materials in a battery recycling process, would know that both hydrogen gas and carbon monoxide are effective reducing reagents in a process of subjecting black mass to a reduction process either as an alternative to or combination with carbon material. One of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing would have regarded the process disclosed by Suzuki wherein the reducing reagent is hydrogen gas or carbon monoxide gas as an obvious substitution of a reducing agent with a reducing agent which Gao teaches as effective for performing that same reduction process as a carbon material reducing reagent [0009], [0013], [0039]. As Suzuki is open to any reducing agent capable of reducing black mass materials [0032], Suzuki is open to reducing reagents beyond that disclosed by Suzuki, and in view of Gao [0009], [0012-13], [0039] either of hydrogen or carbon monoxide would predictably function as an effective reducing reagent. See MPEP2143(B).
Regarding claim 8, Suzuki discloses analyzing the products by x-ray diffraction ([0071-72], Fig. 6), and Suzuki is open to different processes for analyzing the black mass [0033], but Suzuki does not disclose analyzing the black mass by x-ray diffraction. Gao teaches analyzing the black mass by x-ray diffraction and comparing black mass diffraction measurements with product diffraction measurements to demonstrate effectiveness of the disclosed process (Figs. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, [0020-25], [0055], [0058], [0060], [0067], [0071]). Considering Suzuki discloses analyzing products by x-ray diffraction ([0071-72], Fig. 6) in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the process disclosed by Suzuki in view of Zhang, applied above, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to analyze the black mass by x-ray diffraction as taught by Gao (Figs. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, [0020-25], [0055], [0058], [0060], [0067], [0071]).
Claim(s) 16-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US20250046899) in view of Zhang (CN117487572A), de Souza (de Souza Sobrinho, Antonio S., Francisco S. Cavalcante Junior, and Lutero C. de Lima. "Monitoring Industrial Combustion Through Automotive Oxygen Sensor." International Transaction Journal of Engineering, Management, & Applied Sciences & Technologies 3.2 (2012): 203-211) and Gao (US20240055685).
Regarding claim 16, Suzuki discloses a method of extracting lithium (Fig. 3, [0027], [0055], [0062-63]) from a recovery body produced by battery recycling (an example of the recovery object is a used lithium ion secondary battery [0017], [0025], process end materials and defective parts [0030]). In examples, Suzuki discloses processing the recovery body into a black mass prior to recovery treatment [0067]. Suzuki discloses analyzing the recovery body (which Suzuki exemplifies as a black mass [0067]) [0031]. Suzuki discloses conducting the analyzing step when the type of body, and therefore the type of lithium entrapment changes [0031-32]; Suzuki discloses that the analysis determines the composition relative to the type of lithium entrapment [0034], and Suzuki discloses determining whether or not additional agents are necessary as a result of the analysis [0036]. As Suzuki discloses that the analysis depends on the type of recovery body [0031-34] and that the analysis sets the recovery process [0036], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the analyzing step in some way results in a determination by one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, of the type of lithium entrapment. Suzuki discloses quantifying a carbon content of the recovery body by methods which include an oxygen stream combustion-nondispersive infrared analysis method, or a combustion capacity method [0033], both of which are methods of quantifying carbon in excess oxygen.
Suzuki discloses that transition metal oxides are present [0034]. Suzuki discloses adding a reducing agent [0038] based on the result of the analyzing step [0036-37], which Suzuki discloses is based on the type of lithium entrapment [0031-35]. Suzuki discloses reducing the recovery body while maintaining the amount of oxygen low [0042]. Suzuki discloses extracting lithium from the black mass with a solvent [0046], [0062].
Suzuki discloses maintaining a level of oxygen during the reduction step [0042], but Suzuki does not disclose monitoring the reduction step with an oxygen sensor.
Zhang teaches a method of recovering materials produced by battery recycling [n0005], [n0009], [n0023]. Zhang teaches heat treating material in a furnace [n0019]. Zhang teaches an oxygen sensor inside the furnace to monitor the content of oxygen in the heat treatment process [n0017], [n0051]. Zhang teaches that the oxygen sensor monitors the content of oxygen within the furnace throughout the reaction [n0051-52], and Zhang teaches modifying system conditions when the sensors detect a deviation in oxygen content from a value to maintain concentration at that value [n0052].
Both Suzuki and Zhang teach methods of recycling battery materials wherein the content of oxygen is controlled in a heating step.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing to monitor the reduction reaction disclosed by Suzuki, applied above, with an oxygen sensor because Zhang teaches that an oxygen sensor in a heat treating step of a battery recycling processes permits controlling the oxygen content at that stage [n0051-52]. Such application of an oxygen sensor would predictably permit maintaining oxygen at levels disclosed by Suzuki [0042]. As Suzuki discloses extracting lithium following the reduction ([0055], Figs. 3-5), the reduction reaction disclosed by Suzuki has some conclusion. Monitoring the reaction with an oxygen sensor, includes monitoring the conclusion of that same reaction.
The mechanisms of carbon quantification in an excess oxygen disclosed by Suzuki [0033] require at least determining some amount of oxygen. In view of the effectiveness of oxygen sensors to detect an amount of oxygen taught by Zhang [n0051-52] it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing to apply, in some way, an oxygen sensor in the step of quantifying carbon an environment of excess oxygen disclosed by Suzuki [0033].
The oxygen sensor taught by Zhang [n0051-52] must necessarily be some type of oxygen content sensor. Zhang is silent on the type of oxygen sensor applied to monitor content.
De Souza teaches monitoring the content of oxygen in industrial processes (abstract, last paragraph of section 1 page 205). De Souza teaches that the most common types of oxygen detector is a zirconia cell or electrochemical sensor, of which de Souza indicates a UEGO sensor (wide band Lambda sensor) as an option (page 204). De Souza teaches that lambda sensors may be applied to detect changes in oxidizing or reducing conditions (page 204 in reference to Wiesendorf et al.).
Both de Souza and Suzuki in view of Zhang teach monitoring reaction conditions with an oxygen sensor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing to provide a UEGO (wide-band Lambda sensor) as the oxygen sensor of the process disclosed by Suzuki in view of Zhang because de Souza teaches that UEGO (wide-band Lambda) sensors as a type of oxygen detector which may be applied in industrial settings (abstract, pages 203-205). Zhang’s silence on the specific type of oxygen detector would have motivated one of ordinary skill in the art to provide an oxygen detector known to one of ordinary skill in the art, in order to monitor the oxygen content, as disclosed by Suzuki in view of Zhang, applied above. In view of de Souza (pages 203-205) one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, would recognize a UEGO (wide-band Lambda) sensor as a suitable detector for monitoring the concentration of oxygen in an industrial reduction process.
Suzuki discloses analyzing the products by x-ray diffraction ([0071-72], Fig. 6), and Suzuki is open to different processes for analyzing the black mass [0033], but Suzuki does not disclose analyzing the black mass by x-ray diffraction.
Gao teaches a method of extracting lithium from black mass produced by battery recycling (abstract, [0002], [0006]). Gao teaches analyzing the black mass by x-ray diffraction to determine composition (uppermost plots of Figs. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, [0020-25], [0055], [0058], [0060], [0067], [0071]). Gao teaches adding a reducing reagent [0009], [0012-13], [0039], and subjecting the black mass to thermal reduction [0008], [0012], [0039]. Gao teaches extracting lithium from the black mass with a solvent [0041]. Gao relies on the x-ray diffraction measurements of the black mass to demonstrate effectiveness of the disclosed process (Figs. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, [0020-25], [0055], [0058], [0060], [0067], [0071]).
Both Suzuki and Gao teach substantially similar processes of recovering lithium from a black mass in a battery recycling process comprising a thermal reduction step.
Considering Suzuki discloses analyzing products by x-ray diffraction ([0071-72], Fig. 6) in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the process disclosed by Suzuki in view of Zhang and de Souza, applied above, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to analyze the black mass by x-ray diffraction as taught by Gao (Figs. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, [0020-25], [0055], [0058], [0060], [0067], [0071]).
Regarding claim 17, Suzuki discloses providing feed material relative to that stoichiometrically necessary to perform the reduction [0038-39]. Suzuki further discloses determining the amount stoichiometrically necessary by determining an amount of oxygen [0031], [0034]. In order to both apply the measurements of the oxygen sensor to control feed material as taught by Zhang [n0051-52] and to provide the components with reference to the amount relative to that stoichiometrically necessary with reference to an amount of measured oxygen, as disclosed by Suzuki [0031], [0034], [0038-39], it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to provide a difference between the measured content and that stoichiometrically necessary with the measurements of the oxygen sensor. A difference between the measured content and that stoichiometrically necessary is a delta lambda value.
Regarding claim 18, Suzuki discloses that the lithium is present within the transition metal oxide [0034], not as lithium-intercalated graphite. “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met” (MPEP 2111.04(II)). Claim 18 only requires the recited conditions be met if lithium-intercalated graphite is present; therefore, the process discloses by Suzuki in view of Zhang, de Souza, and Gao meets claim 18, as worded. If applicant intends to limit claim 18 to process wherein lithium-intercalated graphite is present at the exclusion of processes wherein black mass lacks lithium-intercalated graphite, applicant should claim lithium-intercalated graphite is present instead of presenting lithium-intercalating graphite as an option which triggers condition-contingent limitations.
Regarding claim 20, Suzuki discloses that the reducing reagent is not particularly limited as long as the reagent can reduce materials in the heating step [0032]. Suzuki does not disclose that the reducing reagent is at least one of carbon monoxide and hydrogen gas. Gao teaches that the reducing reagent may be hydrogen gas, or carbon monoxide gas as an alternative to or combination with (mixtures thereof) a carbon material reducing reagent [0009], [0013], [0039]. In view of Gao [0009], [0012], [0039], one of ordinary skill in the art of recovering materials in a battery recycling, would know that both hydrogen gas and carbon monoxide are effective reducing reagents in a process of subjecting black mass to a reduction process either as an alternative to or combination with carbon material. One of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing would have regarded the process disclosed by Suzuki wherein the reducing reagent is hydrogen gas or carbon monoxide gas as an obvious substitution of a reducing agent with a reducing agent which Gao teaches as effective for performing that same reduction process as a carbon material reducing reagent [0009], [0013], [0039]. As Suzuki is open to any reducing agent capable of reducing black mass materials [0032], Suzuki is open to reducing reagents beyond that disclosed by Suzuki, and in view of Gao [0009], [0012-13], [0039] either of hydrogen or carbon monoxide would predictably function as an effective reducing reagent. See MPEP2143(B).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 are 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.
Claims 9-15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claim 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Independent claims 1, 9, and 16 each claims a method of extracting lithium from black mass produced by battery recycling. Claims 1, 9, and 16 claim analyzing the black mass to determine a type of lithium entrapment and quantifying a carbon content of the black mass in an excess oxygen environment. Claim 1 claims adding oxidizing or reducing reagents based on the type of lithium entrapment and monitoring completion of oxidation or reduction with at least one oxygen sensor. Claims 9 and 16 claim oxidation steps contingent on the presence of lithium-intercalated graphite, and claims 9 and 16 claim reduction steps contingent on the presence of transition metal oxides. Claims 1, 9, and 16 claim extracting lithium from the black mass with a solvent. Claims 2 and 4 depend on claim 1. Claim 3 depends on claim 2. Claim 19 depends on claim 16. Claim 4 claims the oxidation or reduction are completed when a delta lambda value approaches 0. Claims 9 and 19 claim that if transition metal oxide is present, the reduction is completed when a delta lambda value approaches 0. Claim 2 claims utilizing the carbon content to reduce transition metal oxides until a target exhaust lambda value is reached, and claim 3 claims the target exhaust lambda value is an exhaust lambda value equal to 1. As a delta lambda approaches zero at an exhaust lambda value of 1, claim 3 effectively claims reducing the transition metal oxides until delta lambda approaches 0. See the statement of claim interpretation for what a delta lambda approaching zero encompasses.
The present office action rejects claims 1 and 2 over Suzuki (US20250046899) in view of Zhang (CN117487572A) and rejects claim 16 over Suzuki in view of Zhang, de Souza (de Souza Sobrinho, Antonio S., Francisco S. Cavalcante Junior, and Lutero C. de Lima. "Monitoring Industrial Combustion Through Automotive Oxygen Sensor." International Transaction Journal of Engineering, Management, & Applied Sciences & Technologies 3.2 (2012): 203-211) and Gao (US20240055685). Suzuki discloses that transition metal oxides are present [0034], thereby meeting the condition which triggers the reduction steps of claims 9 and 16. Suzuki discloses providing reducing reagent relative to the stoichiometric requirements to reduce oxygen of the battery material to be treated [0038-39], thereby disclosing setting parameters by at least some delta lambda value. Suzuki is silent on factors considered in setting the duration of the reduction reaction [0041-42], and Suzuki does not appear to require the reaction proceed until all feed material is reduced, which is the condition which would result in a delta lambda approaching 0, in view of the present specification. Claims 3 and 4 define over Suzuki in view of Zhang and over Suzuki in view of Zhang, de Souza, and Gao at least in claiming oxidation or reduction is completed when a delta lambda approaches zero. Claims 9 and 19 define over Suzuki in view of Zhang, de Souza, and Gao at least in claiming reduction is complete/reduction until a delta lambda approaches zero if transition metal oxides are present.
Claims 10-15 depend on claim 9. Dependent claims define over the art, at least for the reasons given above with respect to claim 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN P O'KEEFE whose telephone number is (571)272-7647. The examiner can normally be reached MR 8:00-6:30.
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, Sally Merkling can be reached at (571) 272-6297. 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.
/SEAN P. O'KEEFE/ Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/SALLY A MERKLING/ SPE, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights