DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-8 are pending.
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
It is noted that the applicant has listed a large number of documents for consideration in the information disclosure statements submitted in this application. As noted in MPEP 2001.05, if information is not material, there is no duty to disclose the information to the Office. Information is not material unless it comes within the definition of 37 CFR 1.56(b)(1) or (2). As noted in MPEP 2004 (Section 13), it is desirable to avoid the submission of long lists of documents if it can be avoided. It is suggested that applicants eliminate clearly irrelevant and marginally pertinent cumulative information. If a long list is submitted, highlight those documents which have been specifically brought to applicant' s attention and/or are known to be of most significance. Consideration by the examiner of the information submitted in an IDS means that the examiner has considered the documents in the same manner as other documents in Office search files are considered by the examiner while conducting a search of the prior art in a proper field of search,609.05(b). Foreign language documents have been considered for relevance in light of information provided by applicant under guidelines in MPEP 609.04(a)(III).
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.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takenouchi (US 2023/0071697 A1, earliest foreign priority date claimed: Feb. 21 2020).
The applied reference has a common applicant, assignee, and inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Takenouchi teaches an alloy processing method for obtaining a solution comprising nickel and/or cobalt from an alloy comprising nickel and/or cobalt and copper (Abstract, Clm. 1). The method comprises:
Subjecting the alloy to a leaching treatment with an acid in the presence of a sulfurizing agent to produce a leachate (Clm. 1); and
Performing the leaching treatment at an oxidation-reduction potential (ORP) being controlled within a range of 240 mV or more and 300 mV or less with respect to a silver-silver chloride electrode as a reference electrode (Clm. 6).
Takenouchi’s taught ORP range reads on the claimed ORP range of 100-250 mV. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case for obviousness exists. See MPEP 3144.05(1).
Furthermore, Takenouchi exemplifies a method where the ORP is temporarily reduced to -100 mV or less during the leaching treatment (Fig. 7, data series corresponding to 80OC). Particularly, the ORP is first dropped from +100 mV to under -300 mV. The ORP is then brought back up to just under -100 mV before being dropped back down to under -300 mV. The ORP is finally brought back up to an ORP exceeding +100mV. Takenouchi’s ORP traversal reads on the claimed limitation of preforming the ORP drop several times.
Regarding claim 3, Takenouchi teaches that their method also comprises a reduction step in which a reduced solution is obtained by subjecting the leachate to a reduction treatment using a reducing agent (Abstract, Clm.1).
Regarding claim 4, Takenouchi teaches that their method also comprises an oxidation and neutralization step that comprises adding an oxidizing agent and a neutralizing agent to the reduced solution (Abstract, Clm. 1).
Regarding claims 5-8, Takenouchi teaches that the alloy used in their process is obtained through melting a discarded Li-ion battery [0033].
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAVIER FLORES whose telephone number is (571)272-9130. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30AM-5:00PM.
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, KEITH WALKER can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/J.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights