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 8/6/2026 election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-10 & 12 is acknowledged. Claims 11 & 13-17 are withdrawn from further consideration per 37 CFR 1.142(b) as drawn to nonelected Groups, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 requires “LMOx” and explicitly defines L, M, and x. Although “O” is not explicitly defined it is understood that O refers to oxygen. Claim 12 similarly requires “LMOx” and defines L, M, and x. “O” is given the same treatment as above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 5 depend upon Claim 3 which reads “the gas including chlorine is chlorine gas (Cl2).”. Claim 5 requires “the chlorine gas is included at 5 to 90 wt% based on the total weight of the gas including chlorine.”. Since the gas including chlorine is chlorine gas (Claim 3), Claim 5 effectively requires “the chlorine gas is included at 5 to 90 wt% based on the total weight of the chlorine gas.”. This does not further limit Claim 3. It is understood that chlorine gas is inherently always 100 wt. % chlorine gas based on the total weight of chlorine gas and therefore the scope of Claim 3 requires 100 wt. % chlorine gas based on the total weight of chlorine gas and Claim 5 has a different scope regarding the wt. % of chlorine that is not simply more narrow but rather directed to a separate and non-overlapping range.
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 1-4, 6-7, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 103060567 A Hu et al. Claim 1 requires “A method for recycling a positive electrode material for secondary batteries”. The phrase “for recycling a positive electrode material for secondary batteries” is considered intended use. MPEP 2111.02.II states “If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction.”. In this case the limitations of the claimed invention are fully set forth in the body of the claim and the intended use of recycling a positive electrode material for secondary batteries does not suggest structural limitations.
Claim 1 further requires “comprising:(1) forming a first mixture by chlorinating a positive electrode material including LMOx separated from a battery with a gas including chlorine (S100)” Hu et al. discloses “A failed lithium-ion battery positive electrode sheet is subjected to chlorination treatment by introducing chlorine gas at a temperature of 450~650 °C in the presence of reducing agent carbon to obtain a mixed product of smoke dust and condensed chloride containing valuable metals” [0025].
Claim 1 further requires “(2) contacting the first mixture with a solvent to separate MOx and forming a second mixture including the solvent (S200)”. Hu et al. discloses “the mixed product is then subjected to water leaching to separate and remove insoluble matter, and a valuable metal chloride solution is obtained” [0025]. The insoluble matter is understood to comprise MOx based on “Clearly, the aluminum membrane undergoes a chlorination process, resulting in the volatilization of aluminum chloride and the formation of water-insoluble aluminum oxide and aluminum fluoride.” [0047] noting that Claim 1 also requires “M is one or more selected from cobalt (Co), nickel (Ni), aluminum (AI) and manganese (Mn)”.
Claim 1 further requires “(3) separating MCO3 by reacting the second mixture with carbonate (S300)”. Hu et al. discloses “A typical processing method can combine precipitation and solvent extraction: first, lithium carbonate is used to precipitate cobalt, nickel, and manganese to obtain a mixed cobalt, nickel, and manganese carbonate” [0057].
Claim 1 further requires “and (4) separating lithium carbonate (Li2CO3) from the second mixture from which MCO3 is separated (S400)”. Hu et al. discloses “then, sodium carbonate is used to precipitate lithium to obtain lithium carbonate” [0057].
Claim 1 further requires “wherein L is lithium (Li), M is one or more selected from cobalt (Co), nickel (Ni), aluminum (AI) and manganese (Mn), and X is a constant of 0.5 to 2.5.”. Hu et al. discloses “The positive electrode of the cell is made by coating a positive electrode material (a composite oxide material mainly composed of non-ferrous metal elements such as Li, Co, Ni, and Mn) onto an aluminum film” [0005]. Although Hu et al. does not explicitly disclose the amount of oxygen in the composite oxide it is understood that these cathode materials (other than aluminum) are in their common oxidation state for oxides (ranging from +1 to +4) which would necessitate an x value of between 1.5 and 2.5.
Claim 2 requires “the temperature for chlorinating is 450 to 700 °C.”. Hu et al. discloses “A failed lithium-ion battery positive electrode sheet is subjected to chlorination treatment by introducing chlorine gas at a temperature of 450-650 °C” [0025].
Claim 3 requires “the gas including chlorine is chlorine gas (Cl2).”. Hu et al. discloses chlorine gas (see Claim 1).
Claim 4 requires “the first mixture in step (1) comprises LiCI, MCIy and MOx, and wherein y is a constant of 1 to 3.”. Hu et al. discloses “Li(Co,Ni,Mn)O2 + C + 3/2Cl2 -> LiCl + (Co,Ni,Mn)Cl2 + CO2(g)” [0036], which is understood to teach MCly wherein y =2. It is further understood that the mixture will comprise some unreacted MOx.
Claim 6 requires “the solvent in step (2) is any one or more of water or alcohol.”. Hu et al. discloses water “the mixed product is then subjected to water leaching to separate and remove insoluble matter, and a valuable metal chloride solution is obtained” [0025].
Claim 7 requires “the carbonate in step (3) is any one of sodium carbonate or potassium carbonate.”. Hu et al. discloses sodium carbonate “then, sodium carbonate is used to precipitate lithium to obtain lithium carbonate” [0057].
Claim 12 requires “A method for recycling a positive electrode material for secondary batteries”. The phrase “for recycling a positive electrode material for secondary batteries” is considered intended use and is treated the same as in Claim 1 (see Claim 1).
Claim 12 further requires “comprising: separating MOx by chlorinating a positive electrode material including LMOx separated from a battery with a gas including chlorine”. This corresponds to step (1) and (2) of Claim 1 and support for these limitations can be found within the rejection of Claim 1.
Claim 12 further requires “wherein L is lithium (Li), M is one or more selected from cobalt (Co), nickel (Ni), aluminum (AI) and manganese (Mn), and X is a constant of 0.5 to 2.5.”. These limitations appear within Claim 1; prior art coverage for these limitations is in the rejection of Claim 1.
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 5 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 103060567 A Hu et al. Claim 5 requires “the chlorine gas is included at 5 to 90 wt% based on the total weight of the gas including chlorine.”. 112(d) issues notwithstanding it is understood that Claim 5 requires that the chlorine gas is included at 5 to 90 wt% based on the total weight of the gas including chlorine. Hu et al. does not disclose reacting the cathode material with a mixed gas, however they do disclose that gasses comprising chlorine are generated during the reaction and therefore inherently present during step (1) “the hydrogen fluoride gas produced can also react with gaseous aluminum chloride to form solid aluminum fluoride” [0040] and “Meanwhile, unreacted chlorine gas or hydrogen chloride, a byproduct, exists in the gas phase, which is then recovered and regenerated.” [0051]. Therefore, it understood that the method of Hu et al. reads on Claim 5 whenever the amount of AlCl3, Al2Cl6, and HCl is equivalent to 10-95 wt. % of the total weight of the chlorine containing gasses.
Because 10-95 wt. % is a very broad range it is likely, but not certain, that the prior art achieved this range. Additionally and/or alternatively it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art to have used a concentration of chlorine other than 100% and to have achieved this by mixing with inert gasses such as Ar, N2, or air. Generally changes in concentration cannot support patentability without a showing that said concentration is critical, see MPEP 2144.05.II.A. The Specification provides only one example where chlorination is performed with a gas mixture of 95% Ar and 5% Cl2 [137] and no other examples to compare to therefore it cannot be concluded that the Cl2 concentration is critical to the functioning of the invention.
Claim 8 requires “step (4) is drying the second mixture from which MCO3 is separated to remove a part of the solvent to separate lithium carbonate by a difference in solubility with respect to the solvent.”. Hu et al. does not disclose a drying step, however this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art is well aware that reducing the volume of solution increases the yield in a crystallization reaction and would be motivated to remove a part of the solvent to increase the yield.
Claim 9 requires “step (4) further comprises: (4-1) drying the second mixture from which MCO3 is separated to remove all or part of the solvent (S410); and (4-2) additionally introducing a second solvent to separate lithium carbonate and sodium chloride included in the second mixture by using a difference in solubility with respect to the solvent (S420).”. Regarding step (4-1) see Claim 8 (above). Regarding step (4-2) one of ordinary skill in the art is aware that washing a material with a solvent to increase its purity is common and would be motivated to wash the lithium carbonate with a solvent, such as water, that is better at dissolving impurities such as NaCl compared to the intended product. Doing so would have predictably generated a purer lithium carbonate, which is more valuable than impure lithium carbonate. Additionally see MPEP 2144.04.VII regarding the obviousness of purifying an old product.
Claim 10 requires “(4-3) reproducing LMOx by using the separated MOx, MCO3 and lithium carbonate (S430).”. Hu et al. does not explicitly include any steps that actually reform the original LMOx material. However, this is the stated motivation for the process of Hu et al. “This invention belongs to the field of resource recycling. Specifically, this relates to a method for extracting valuable metals from the positive electrode of a lithium-ion battery.” [0002]. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have reform the original LMOx in order to generate a recycled battery material out of the metal carbonates generated by Hu et al. in order to have realized the intended goal of the invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA MAXWELL SPEER whose telephone number is (703)756-5471. The examiner can normally be reached M-T and Th-F 8am-6pm PST. 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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3591. 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 MAXWELL SPEER/
Examiner
Art Unit 1736
/DANIEL BERNS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights