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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 1/14/2026 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. Specifically, there is no copy of the foreign document WO 2017/121663. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
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 1 and 3-21 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 1 recites two limitations, “recovering a valuable metal from sources” and “preparing the source” in lines 1 and 3 respectively. As the second limitation uses the singular version of source it is unclear whether the plural sources of the preamble are required. Moreover, the rest of claim 1 and several of the dependent claims use the plural “sources.” For the sake of compact prosecution the Examiner is assuming the step of preparing the source is actually to also be the plural. Clarification is required.
Regarding dependent claims 3-21, these claims do not remedy the deficiencies of parent claim 1 noted above, and are rejected for the same rationale.
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, 3, 5-7, 9, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita et al. (CN112424383A, hereinafter “Yamashita”) in view of Brouwer et al. (US 2017/0005374 A1, hereinafter “Brouwer”).
US 2021/0328283 A1 is an English language equivalent of CN112424383A and all citations refer to the US publication.
Regarding claim 1, Yamashita teaches a method for recovering valuable metals from a waste lithium ion battery including a waste battery pre-treatment step of removing the electrolytic solution and the exterior can of the waste lithium ion battery, a crushing step of crushing the contents of the battery, a pre-heating step, a melting step of melting the crushed material after pre-heating to form an alloy and slag, and a slag separation step so as to recover the alloy including the valuable metals (Yamashita, [0023]). Yamashita further teaches the melting step may be performed under the presence of a reducing agent in order to appropriately adjust the degree of oxidation-reduction when the waste lithium ion battery is melted (Yamashita, [0043]).
While Yamashita teaches the reducing agent can include a carbon atom (Yamashita, [0045]), Yamashita does not explicitly disclose the melting step comprising adjusting a redox degree by feeding, as a reducing agent, a scrap of a wound body, the wound body being an electrode assembly wound in a state where its positive and negative electrodes are insulated from each other by a separator and having a negative electrode formed of carbon, into a molten product produced after melting the sources by heating.
With respect to the difference, Brouwer teaches a process for the recovery of metals from spent lithium ion batteries including adding heat and reducing agents to the molten material in a smelter (Brouwer, [0001] and [0013-0015]). Brouwer teaches the reducing agent is at least partially replaced with lithium ion batteries, in which the batteries include a carbon anode active material, a cathode active material and a separator (Brouwer, [0015-0016] and [0006]).
As Brouwer expressly teaches when replacing at least part of the reducing agent with the lithium ion batteries, the amount of copper recovery can be increased and lowers the need for fuel to heat the smelter (Brouwer, [0017]).
Yamashita and Brouwer are analogous art as they are both drawn to recovering valuable metals from waste lithium ion batteries by melting (Yamashita, Abstract; Brouwer, Abstract).
In light of the motivation to add lithium ion batteries as a reducing agent into the molten alloy as taught in Brouwer above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace at least part of the carbon reducing agent in Yamashita in order to increase the copper recovery and lower the need for fuel (Brouwer, [0017]), and thereby arrive at the present invention.
The method of Yamashita in view of Brouwer corresponds to a method for recovering a valuable metal from sources containing the valuable metal of claim 1. The waste battery pre-treatment and crushing steps of Yamashita corresponds to a step of preparing the source of claim 1. The melting step to form an alloy and slag of Yamashita corresponds to a step of melting the sources by charging the sources into a melting furnace and heating the sources to obtain an alloy and a slag of claim 1. The slag separation step of Yamashita corresponds to a step of separating the slag to recover the alloy containing the valuable metal of claim 1.
The use of a reducing agent to adjust the redox degree using lithium ion batteries of Yamashita in view of Brouwer corresponds to the melting step comprising adjusting a redox degree by feeding, as a reducing agent, a scrap of a wound body, the wound body being an electrode assembly wound in a state where its positive and negative electrodes are insulated from each other by a separator and having a negative electrode formed of carbon, into a molten product produced after melting the sources by heating of claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Yamashita further teaches the crushed material and a flux are melted together to form the slag and alloy during the melting step (Yamashita, [0034]). The flux of Yamashita corresponds to wherein the melting step comprises adding a flux to the sources when the sources are molten by heating of claim 3.
Regarding claims 5 and 9, Yamashita further teaches the pre-heating step includes heating the crushed material to a temperature of 700-900°C in the presence of an oxidant including a gas such as air, pure oxygen, or an oxygen-enriched gas (Yamashita, [0030-0033]). Yamashita teaches the point of this step is to remove the impurities by volatilization through heating or by being thermally decomposed (Yamashita, [0030]). The pre-heating step of Yamashita corresponds to further comprising a step of oxidatively-roasting the sources, and subjecting an oxidatively-roasted material obtained through the oxidative roasting step to the melting step of claims 5 and 9.
Regarding claims 6, 12, 14, and 16, Yamashita teaches the valuable metals are one or more types selected from at least cobalt, nickel, and copper (Yamashita, [0013]), which corresponds to wherein the valuable metal comprises at least one metal or alloy selected from a group consisting of copper (Cu), nickel (Ni), cobalt (Co), and combinations thereof of claims 6, 12, 14, and 16.
Regarding claims 7, 18, 20, and 21, Yamashita teaches the starting material is waste lithium ion batteries (Yamashita, [0001]), which corresponds to wherein the sources comprise discarded lithium ion batteries of claims 7, 18, 20, and 21.
Claims 4, 8, 10-11, 13, 15, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita in view of Brouwer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Heulens et al. (WO 2016/023778 A1, hereinafter “Heulens”).
Applicant provided the copy with the IDS filed 2/21/2024.
Regarding claims 4 and 8, Yamashita and Brouwer do not explicitly disclose wherein the melting step comprises controlling an oxygen partial pressure in the molten product to within a range of 10-14 atm or higher and 10-11 atm or lower.
With respect to the difference, Heulens teaches a process for the separation of cobalt from lithium present in a charge comprising lithium ion batteries comprising smelting the charge to form a molten alloy and separating the alloy from the slag (Heulens, Abstract). Heulens further teaches it is preferable to run at a target oxygen pressure between 10-18 and 10-14 atm (Heulens, pg. 3, lines 25-30).
As Heulens expressly teaches the upper bound precludes the formation of cobalt oxides and its loss into the slag (Heulens, pg. 3, lines 25-30).
Yamashita, Brouwer, and Heulens are analogous as they are all drawn to recovering valuable metals from waste lithium ion batteries by melting (Yamashita, Abstract; Brouwer, Abstract; Heulens, Abstract).
In light of the motivation to maintain the oxygen pressure at 10-14 atm as taught in Heulens above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to maintain the oxygen pressure at 10-14 atm during the melting step of Yamashita in view of Brouwer in order to preclude the formation of cobalt oxides and its loss into the slag (Heulens, pg. 3, lines 25-30), and thereby arrive at the present invention.
The oxygen pressure of Heulens overlaps with the oxygen pressure as used in the present invention. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Yamashita further teaches the pre-heating step includes heating the crushed material to a temperature of 700-900°C in the presence of an oxidant including a gas such as air, pure oxygen, or an oxygen-enriched gas (Yamashita, [0030-0033]). Yamashita teaches the point of this step is to remove the impurities by volatilization through heating or by being thermally decomposed (Yamashita, [0030]). The pre-heating step of Yamashita corresponds to further comprising a step of oxidatively-roasting the sources, and subjecting an oxidatively-roasted material obtained through the oxidative roasting step to the melting step of claims 10 and 11.
Regarding claims 13, 15, and 17, Yamashita teaches the valuable metals are one or more types selected from at least cobalt, nickel, and copper (Yamashita, [0013]), which corresponds to wherein the valuable metal comprises at least one metal or alloy selected from a group consisting of copper (Cu), nickel (Ni), cobalt (Co), and combinations thereof of claims 13, 15, and 17.
Regarding claim 19, Yamashita teaches the starting material is waste lithium ion batteries (Yamashita, [0001]), which corresponds to wherein the sources comprise discarded lithium ion batteries of claim 19.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIELLE CARDA whose telephone number is (571)270-1240. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-4:00 EST.
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.
/DANIELLE M. CARDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights