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 .
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 1-20 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.
The term “valuable metal” in instant claims 1-20 (and “valuable metals” in instant claim 1) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “valuable” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. This renders the metals encompassed by the term “valuable metal” indefinite which renders the scope of the claims indefinite.
Additionally, instant claim 1 recites the limitation “an oxygen partial pressure in a melt obtained by melting the raw material is controlled to 10-14 or more and 10-11 or less.” This limitation is indefinite because partial pressure is measured in units of pressure whereas the instant claims recite partial pressure in units of a dimensionless quantity.
Instant claims 2-20 depend on instant claim 1 and are indefinite for at least the same reasons.
Additionally, instant claim 2 recites the limitation “an oxygen partial pressure in a melt obtained by melting the raw material is controlled to 10-14 or more and 10-13 or less.” This limitation is indefinite because partial pressure is measured in units of pressure whereas the instant claims recite partial pressure in units of a dimensionless quantity.
Instant claims 8, 9, 11, 14 and 18 depend on instant claim 2 and are indefinite for at least the same reasons.
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, 4-9, 11, 13, 14, 16-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0403483 A1 to Yagi et al in view of the evidentiary reference “Reduction of Oxides and Reduction Smelting” by Shamsuddin (cited by applicant in IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Yagi discloses a method for producing a valuable metal, comprising: a preparation step of preparing a raw material containing at least lithium (Li), manganese (Mn), aluminum (Al), and valuable metals; a reductive melting step of subjecting the raw material to a reductive melting treatment to obtain a reduced product containing an alloy containing valuable metals and a slag; and a slag separation step of separating the slag from the reduced product to recover the alloy, wherein in the reductive melting step, a flux containing calcium (Ca) is added to the melt, a molar ratio (Li/Al ratio) of lithium (Li) to aluminum (Al) in the slag obtained by the reductive melting treatment is 0.53 (within the instantly claimed range of 0.25 or more), a molar ratio (Ca/Al ratio) of calcium (Ca) to aluminum (Al) in the slag is 0.96 (within the claimed range of 0.30 or more), and an amount of manganese (Mn) in the slag is 35.3 mass% (within the claimed range of 5.0 mass% or more) (Yagi, abstract, Example 1, para [0072-0075], Table 1, Slag 1-2).
Regarding the limitation “in the reductive melting treatment, an oxygen partial pressure in a melt obtained by melting the raw material is controlled to 10-14 or more and 10-11 or less,” this limitation is indefinite as set forth in the above 35 USC 112 rejection. Regardless, Yagi discloses that that the pO2 level of the process of Yagi is readily adjusted to reach favorable yields and make the process most economic (Yagi, para [0052]) and the evidentiary reference Shamsuddin discloses that the exact effects of adjusting pO2 on the reduction of metal oxides is well known in the art (Shamsuddin, “5.2.1 Metallothermic Reduction,” pages 148-149, Figure 5.1). Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05 [R-5]. In the instant case, pO2 is recognized as a result effective variable for controlling the yield of reduction of metal oxides. It would require little more than routine experimentation by one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the optimal or workable ranges of pO2 for the process of Yagi that would result in a workable or optimal yield of metal oxides.
Regarding claim 2, regarding the limitation “in the reductive melting treatment, an oxygen partial pressure in a melt obtained by melting the raw material is controlled to 10-14 or more and 10-13 or less,” this limitation is indefinite as set forth in the above 35 USC 112 rejection. Regardless, Yagi discloses that that the pO2 level of the process of Yagi is readily adjusted to reach favorable yields and make the process most economic (Yagi, para [0052]) and the evidentiary reference Shamsuddin discloses that the exact effects of adjusting pO2 on the reduction of metal oxides is well known in the art (Shamsuddin, “5.2.1 Metallothermic Reduction,” pages 148-149, Figure 5.1). Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05 [R-5]. In the instant case, pO2 is recognized as a result effective variable for controlling the yield of reduction of metal oxides. It would require little more than routine experimentation by one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the optimal or workable ranges of pO2 for the process of Yagi that would result in a workable or optimal yield of metal oxides.
Regarding claims 4 and 9, Yagi discloses a reducing agent is introduced in the reductive melting treatment (Yagi, abstract, Example 1, para [0072-0075], Table 1, Slag 1-2).
Regarding claims 5, 6, 11, 13, 14, 16 and 17, Yagi discloses a heating temperature in the reductive melting treatment is 1450 °C (Yagi, abstract, Example 1, para [0072-0075], Table 1, Slag 1-2), within the instantly claimed temperature ranges.
Regarding claims 7, 18 and 20, Yagi discloses that the raw material includes a waste lithium ion battery (Yagi, abstract, Example 1, para [0072-0075], Table 1, Slag 1-2).
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-9, 11, 13, 14, 16-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2021104620 to Scheunis et al in view of the evidentiary reference “Reduction of Oxides and Reduction Smelting” by Shamsuddin (cited by applicant in IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Scheunis discloses a method for producing a valuable metal, comprising: a preparation step of preparing a raw material containing at least lithium (Li), manganese (Mn), aluminum (Al), and valuable metals; a reductive melting step of subjecting the raw material to a reductive melting treatment to obtain a reduced product containing an alloy containing valuable metals and a slag; and a slag separation step of separating the slag from the reduced product to recover the alloy, wherein in the reductive melting step, a flux containing calcium (Ca) is added to the melt, a molar ratio (Li/Al ratio) of lithium (Li) to aluminum (Al) in the slag obtained by the reductive melting treatment is 0.25 (within the instantly claimed range of 0.25 or more), a molar ratio (Ca/Al ratio) of calcium (Ca) to aluminum (Al) in the slag is 1.29 (within the claimed range of 0.30 or more), and an amount of manganese (Mn) in the slag is 5.6 mass% (within the claimed range of 5.0 mass% or more) (Scheunis, abstract, Example, page 7 line 19- page 10 line 20, Tables 1-3).
Regarding the limitation “in the reductive melting treatment, an oxygen partial pressure in a melt obtained by melting the raw material is controlled to 10-14 or more and 10-11 or less,” this limitation is indefinite as set forth in the above 35 USC 112 rejection. Regardless, Scheunis discloses that that the pO2 level of the process of Scheunis is easily controlled to achieve a preferred degree of reduction (Scheunis, page 4, lines 18-27) and the evidentiary reference Shamsuddin discloses that the exact effects of adjusting pO2 on the reduction of metal oxides is well known in the art (Shamsuddin, “5.2.1 Metallothermic Reduction,” pages 148-149, Figure 5.1). Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05 [R-5]. In the instant case, pO2 is recognized as a result effective variable for controlling the yield of reduction of metal oxides. It would require little more than routine experimentation by one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the optimal or workable ranges of pO2 for the process of Scheunis that would result in a workable or optimal yield of metal oxides.
Regarding claim 2, regarding the limitation “in the reductive melting treatment, an oxygen partial pressure in a melt obtained by melting the raw material is controlled to 10-14 or more and 10-13 or less,” this limitation is indefinite as set forth in the above 35 USC 112 rejection. Regardless, Scheunis discloses that that the pO2 level of the process of Scheunis is easily controlled to achieve a preferred degree of reduction (Scheunis, page 4, lines 18-27) and the evidentiary reference Shamsuddin discloses that the exact effects of adjusting pO2 on the reduction of metal oxides is well known in the art (Shamsuddin, “5.2.1 Metallothermic Reduction,” pages 148-149, Figure 5.1). Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05 [R-5]. In the instant case, pO2 is recognized as a result effective variable for controlling the yield of reduction of metal oxides. It would require little more than routine experimentation by one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the optimal or workable ranges of pO2 for the process of Scheunis that would result in a workable or optimal yield of metal oxides.
Regarding claims 4 and 9, Scheunis discloses a reducing agent is introduced in the reductive melting treatment (Scheunis, abstract, Example, page 7 line 19- page 10 line 20, Tables 1-3).
Regarding claims 5, 11, 13, Scheunis discloses a heating temperature in the reductive melting treatment is 1500 °C (Scheunis, abstract, Example, page 7 line 19- page 10 line 20, Tables 1-3), within the instantly claimed temperature ranges.
Regarding claims 6, 14, 16 and 17, generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05 [R-5]. In the instant case, it would require little more than routine experimentation by one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the optimal or workable ranges of temperature of the reduction process of Scheunis to achieve a workable or optimal yield of metal oxides.
Regarding claims 7, 18 and 20, Scheunis discloses that the raw material includes a waste lithium ion battery (Scheunis, abstract, Example, page 7 line 19- page 10 line 20, Tables 1-3).
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2021031762 A to Yamashita et al (an English language machine translation has been relied upon for examination purposes) in view of the evidentiary reference “Reduction of Oxides and Reduction Smelting” by Shamsuddin (cited by applicant in IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Yamashita discloses a method for producing a valuable metal, comprising: a preparation step of preparing a raw material containing at least lithium (Li), manganese (Mn), aluminum (Al), and valuable metals; a reductive melting step of subjecting the raw material to a reductive melting treatment to obtain a reduced product containing an alloy containing valuable metals and a slag; and a slag separation step of separating the slag from the reduced product to recover the alloy, wherein in the reductive melting step, a flux containing calcium (Ca) is added to the melt, a molar ratio (Li/Al ratio) of lithium (Li) to aluminum (Al) in the slag obtained by the reductive melting treatment is 0.25 (within the instantly claimed range of 0.25 or more), a molar ratio (Ca/Al ratio) of calcium (Ca) to aluminum (Al) in the slag is 0.33 (within the claimed range of 0.30 or more), and an amount of manganese (Mn) in the slag is 5.0 mass% (within the claimed range of 5.0 mass% or more) (Yamashita, abstract, Example 1, para [0057-0064], Table 1).
Regarding the limitation “in the reductive melting treatment, an oxygen partial pressure in a melt obtained by melting the raw material is controlled to 10-14 or more and 10-11 or less,” this limitation is indefinite as set forth in the above 35 USC 112 rejection. Regardless, the evidentiary reference Shamsuddin discloses that the exact effects of adjusting pO2 on the reduction of metal oxides is well known in the art (Shamsuddin, “5.2.1 Metallothermic Reduction,” pages 148-149, Figure 5.1). Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05 [R-5]. In the instant case, pO2 is recognized as a result effective variable for controlling the yield of reduction of metal oxides. It would require little more than routine experimentation by one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the optimal or workable ranges of pO2 for the process of Yamashita that would result in a workable or optimal yield of metal oxides.
Regarding claim 2, regarding the limitation “in the reductive melting treatment, an oxygen partial pressure in a melt obtained by melting the raw material is controlled to 10-14 or more and 10-13 or less,” this limitation is indefinite as set forth in the above 35 USC 112 rejection. Regardless, the evidentiary reference Shamsuddin discloses that the exact effects of adjusting pO2 on the reduction of metal oxides is well known in the art (Shamsuddin, “5.2.1 Metallothermic Reduction,” pages 148-149, Figure 5.1). Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05 [R-5]. In the instant case, pO2 is recognized as a result effective variable for controlling the yield of reduction of metal oxides. It would require little more than routine experimentation by one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the optimal or workable ranges of pO2 for the process of Yamashita that would result in a workable or optimal yield of metal oxides.
Regarding claims 3 and 8, Yamashita discloses an oxidative roasting step of oxidatively roasting the raw material to obtain an oxidatively roasted product, wherein the oxidatively roasted product is subjected to the reductive melting treatment (Yamashita, abstract, Example 1, para [0057-0064], Table 1).
Regarding claims 4, 9 and 10, Yamashita discloses a reducing agent is introduced in the reductive melting treatment (Yamashita, abstract, Example 1, para [0057-0064], Table 1).
Regarding claims 5, 6 and 11-17, Yamashita discloses a heating temperature in the reductive melting treatment is 1450 °C (Yamashita, abstract, Example 1, para [0057-0064], Table 1), within the instantly claimed temperature ranges.
Regarding claims 7 and 18-20, Yamashita discloses that the raw material includes a waste lithium ion battery (Yamashita, abstract, Example 1, para [0057-0064], Table 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN D WALCK whose telephone number is (571)270-5905. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 AM - 6:30 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, 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.
/BRIAN D WALCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
