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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-10 remain for examination, wherein claim 1 is an independent claim.
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 4 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. In the instant case, Claim 4 depends on claim 2. 1) The limitation “synthesis of ternary materials” has insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since claim 2 does not include “ternary material”; 2) it is unclear what ternary materials are indicated . Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 6 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. In the instant case, Claim 6 depends on claim 1. The limitation “the solid-liquid ratio” has insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since claim 1 does not include “solid-liquid ratio”. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (CN 107017443 A, listed in IDS filed on 3/5/2024, with on-line translation, thereafter CN’443) in view of Park (KR 102132120 B1, with on-line translation, thereafter KR’120).
Regarding claim 1, CN’443 teaches a method for synthetically recycling valuable metal from waste lithium ion battery. (Abstract and claims of CN’443). PG’443 teaches processing and crushing the waste battery, water leaching, ammonia leaching, and filtering (Abstract, Fig.1, par.[0009]-[0011] of CN’443), which reads on the process step (1) as claimed in the instant claim. CN’443 indicates that applying the phosphate and fluorine ion in order to obtain insoluble solid, and lithium into solution of LiOH. (claim 1, Fig.1, and par.[00010] of CN’443), which reads on the limitation in step (2) of the instant claim. CN’443 teaches applying ammonia leaching and residue separating (par.[0014] of CN’443), which reads on the essential process step (3) as recited in the instant claim. CN’443 teaches roasting the carbonaceous reducing agent or CO, then introducing CO2 gas when the leaching, water leaching lithium, leachate evaporating and crystallizing production lithium carbonate product, the baking uses H2 or NH3, directly using water leaching (par.[0013]-[0014] of CN’443), which reads on the water leaching and carbonate forming, and Li collecting as claimed in the steps (4)-(5). CN’443 does not specify basic copper carbonate in the steps (3)-(4) of the instant claim. KR’120 teaches a optimization process for completely recycling spent lithium-ion secondary batteries and scraps (Abstract of KR’120). KR’120 teaches forming basic copper carbonate in copper recovering process (par.[0045] and [0104] of KR’120). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form basic copper carbonate in copper recovering process as demonstrated by KR’120 in the process of CN’443 in order to efficiently recover copper in the waste Li battery.
Regarding claims 2 and 4, CN’443 provide example to use sodium hydroxide to adjust the pH of the solution (par.[0039]-[0041] of CN’443), which reads on the claimed adjusting pH to obtain a filtrate and a filter containing Ni, Co, and Mn (cl.2), and reads on the claimed ternary materials (cl.4).
Regarding claim 3, CN’443 provides steps to adjust the pH of the solution is about 3.5 – about 5 and hydrolyzing and removing iron, aluminum, and adsorbing and removing solution remaining in the trace copper, nickel and cobalt. (par.[0031] of CN’443), which reads on the claimed acidic pH to obtain aluminum hydroxide precipitate as claimed in the instant claim.
Regarding claims 5-7, CN’443 provides ammonia leaching at 20-90oC for 2-12 hours with the solid-to-liquid ratio is 1: 4 to 1: 20 (par.[0018] of CN’443), which overlaps the claimed parameters as claimed in the instant claims. Overlapping in process parameters creates a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144 05 I. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize parameters of ammonia leaching: temperature and time (cl.5), solid-to-liquid ratio (cl.6), and concentration of the ammonia solution (cl.7) as claimed from the disclosures of CN’443 since CN’443 teaches the same method for synthetically recycling valuable metal from waste lithium ion battery as claimed throughout whole disclosing range.
Regarding claim 8, CN’443 indicates the alkaline earth metal oxide: CaO or MgO is included in the leaching process including phosphate and fluorine ion (par.[0010] and ;0018] of CN’443).
Claims 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN’443 in view of KR’120, and further in view of Xu et al (CN 104593606 A, with on-line translation, thereafter CN’606).
Regarding claim 9, CN’443 in view of KR’120 does not specify reducing and calcining with carbon powder as claimed in the instant claim. CN’606 teaches an optimization process for completely recycling spent lithium-ion secondary batteries and scraps (Abstract, examples and claims of CN’606). CN’696 specify that the waste lithium battery to break directly calcining at high temperature, the waste cathode graphite material, using a commercial extraction agent increases the process cost investment (par.[0005] of CN’606) and provides example having roasting temperature 850 to 900oC, with the reaction:
4LiCoO2 + 3C = 2Li2CO3 + 4Co + CO2
Which reads on the reducing and calcining with carbon powder at 500-1000oC as claimed in the instant claim. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply proper amount of carbon powder at proper temperature for reducing and calcining reducing as demonstrated by CN’606 in the process of CN’443 in view of KR’120 in order to obtain an optimization process for completely recycling spent lithium-ion secondary batteries and scraps (Abstract, examples and claims of CN’606).
Claims 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN’443 in view of KR’120, and further in view of Wang et al (CN 111206148 A, with on-line translation, thereafter CN’148).
Regarding claim 10, CN’443 in view of KR’120 does not specify the claimed pH value range of 9-13 as claimed in the instant claim. CN’148 teaches a method for preparing ternary positive electrode material by recycling waste ternary lithium battery including ammonia leaching (Abstract, examples, and claims of CN’148). CN’148 teaches applying liquid alkali adjusting the pH value to 10-13 (Examples and claims 8-9 of CN’148), which reads on the claimed pH value in the instant claim. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply alkali to adjusting pH value in the recycling process as demonstrated by CN’148 in the process of CN’443 in view of KR’120 in order to improves the recovery rate of the nickel cobalt manganese; it also can improve the recovery rate of lithium (Abstract, examples and claims of CN’148).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-10 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of co-pending application No. 18/215821 (US-PG-pub 2023/0340637 A1) in view of CN’443.
Regarding claims 1-10, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentable distinct from each other with claims 1-14 of co-pending application No. 18/215821 (US-PG-pub 2023/0340637 A1). All of the process steps disclosed in claims 1-14 of co-pending application No. 18/215821 (US-PG-pub 2023/0340637 A1) reads on the claimed steps. CN’443 is cited for further steps and process parameters, which overlap the claimed parameters. MPEP 2144.05 I. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the process parameters as demonstrated by CN’443 in the process of claims 1-14 of co-pending application No. 18/215821 (US-PG-pub 2023/0340637 A1) in order to obtain desired recycling result (Abstract, Fig.1, par.[0009]-[0011] of CN’443).
Thus, no patentable distinction was found in the instant claims compared with the manufacturing process of claims 1-14 of co-pending application No. 18/215821 (US-PG-pub 2023/0340637 A1)) in view of CN’443.
This is a provisional obvious-type double patenting rejection since the conflict claims in the co-pending application have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIE YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1884. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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, Jonathan J Johnson can be reached on 571-272-1177. 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.
/JIE YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights