DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-10 are pending, and claims 1-9 are currently under review.
Claim 10 is withdrawn.
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 election of the species of claim 9 in the reply filed on 7/13/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim 10 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/13/2026.
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.
Claim 7 is 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 7 recites that the additive is added in a Cl equivalent range of 0.5 to 3 equivalents based on Li, which is indefinite because it is unclear as to what is required by the term “equivalent” based on Li. It is unclear whether this means that the additive is added in amounts of respective Cl amounts in said additive, or whether “equivalent” requires an amount of additive that correspondingly reacts with Li or is the same mass/atomic ratio as Li, or something else entirely. The examiner interprets the aforementioned limitation to be met by any of the aforementioned interpretations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (KR20210131258, machine translation referred to herein).
Regarding claim 1, Kim et al. discloses a method for recovering Li from waste Li batteries [0001]; wherein said method includes steps of melting (ie. heat treating) a mixture of spend Li battery materials and a metal chloride (ie. additive), followed by obtaining Li material as LiCl (ie. trapping a Li salt) [0008].
Regarding claim 2, Kim et al. discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Kim et al. further teaches a melting temperature of 1150 to 1450 degrees C, which falls within the claimed range [0038].
Regarding claims 5-7, Kim et al. discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Kim et al. teaches inclusion of a metal chloride FeCl2 among others in an amount of 0.5 to 3 equivalents based on Li [0032-0033].
Regarding claim 8, Kim et al. discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Kim et al. further teaches a step of preparing or crushing the waste battery cell prior to melting, which meets the claimed limitation of “pretreating” according to broadest reasonable interpretation [0025, 0027]. Kim et al. further teaches that the waste battery cells include negative electrode material [0028].
Regarding claim 9, Kim et al. discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Kim et al. further teaches that LiCl is collected by water scrubbing, which meets the limitation of being in a liquid phase and also being washed [0052].
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang et al. (2021, Thermochemically driven crystal phase transfer via chlorination roasting toward the selective extraction of lithium from spent LiNi1/3Co1/3Mn1/3O2).
Regarding claim 1, Huang et al. discloses a method of extracting Li from spent Li-ion batteries [abstract]; wherein said method includes mixing spent battery material with chloride salts (ie. additives) and heating said mixture, which naturally serves to form LiCl dissolved in water (ie. trapped lithium salt) [p.2, 7].
Regarding claims 2-4, Huang et al. discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Huang et al. further teaches heating at 800 degrees C for 30 minutes, which falls within the claimed ranges [p.2].
Regarding claims 5-7, Huang et al. discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Huang et al. further teaches inclusion of MgCl2 in a ratio of Li battery powder to chloride salt of 1:2 [p.2]. The examiner notes that this corresponds to a ratio of one part Li component to two parts chloride component, or a Cl equivalent of 2 as interpreted by the examiner, which falls within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 8, Huang et al. discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Huang et al. further teaches that the batteries, which naturally include a negative electrode, are dismantled prior to heating, which meets the limitation of pretreating [p.2]. Huang et al. also expressly teaches that the cathode materials (ie. negative electrode) undergo separation and chemical composition analysis, which is also a form of pretreatment [p.2].
Regarding claim 9, Huang et al. discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Huang et al. further leaching the processed materials with water, which one of ordinary skill would understand to result in LiCl dissolved in water (ie. liquid phase) and washing according to the plain definition of “washing” as being carried by water.
Claim(s) 1 and 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moon et al. (US 2024/0209474).
Regarding claim 1, Moon et al. discloses a method of recovering Li from waste Li batteries [abstract]; wherein said method includes steps of melting (ie. heat treating) a mixture of waste Li battery materials and a Li recovery agent (ie. additive), followed by capturing LiCl in the form of a dust or water (ie. trapping Li salt) [abstract, 0075].
Regarding claims 5-7, Moon et al. discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Moon et al. teaches that the Li recovery agent is FeCl3 among others and included in an amount of 1.3 to 2.5 ratio based on Li, which falls within the claimed range [0058, 0062].
Regarding claim 8, Moon et al. discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Moon et al. further teaches that the waste battery (including the negative electrode) is disassembled and crushed, which is a form of pretreatment [0047-0048].
Regarding claim 9, Moon et al. discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). As stated above, Moon et al. teaches capturing LiCl in the form of a dust (ie. solid) or water (ie. liquid), followed by hydrolysis which meets the limitation of washing with water [0075-0076]. Moon et al. further teaches obtaining Li phosphate, which one of ordinary skill would understand to be Li trapped in a solid state, wherein said Li phosphate is washed with water [0076-0078, 0088-0089].
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) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR20210131258, machine translation referred to herein).
Regarding claim 3, Kim et al. discloses the method of claim 2 (see previous). The examiner notes that the melting temperature of 1150 to 1450 degrees C of Kim et al. is substantially close to the claimed range of up to 1100 degrees C such that similar effects would be expected. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Specifically, Kim et al. discloses an identical result of recovering Li as shown above.
Regarding claim 4, Kim et al. discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Kim et al. further teaches that melting is performed for 2 to 7 hours, which overlaps with the claimed range [0038]. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon et al. (US 2024/0209474).
Regarding claim 2-4, Moon et al. discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Moon et al. further teaches that melting is performed below 1600 degrees C for 3 to 10 hours, which overlaps with the claimed ranges [0063-0067]. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS A WANG whose telephone number is (408)918-7576. The examiner can normally be reached usually M-Th: 7-5.
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 Johnson can be reached at 5712721177. 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.
/NICHOLAS A WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights