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 Objections
Claims 1-3, 5 and 6 objected to because of the following informalities:
Instant claims 1 and 5 recite the limitation “alloy containing nickel and/or cobalt and copper.” The wording of this limitation makes it unclear which of nickel, cobalt and copper are necessarily contained in the alloy. Examiner suggests changing the limitation to read “alloy containing copper and at least one selected from nickel and cobalt” for the sake of clarity.
Instant claims 1-3 and 6 recite the limitation “copper-removed residue.” This limitation is unclear in that it appears to imply that copper has been removed from the residue, when in fact the residue contains copper sulfide. Examiner suggests changing the limitation to read “cementation residue” for the sake of clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CA 3167957 C to Takenouchi et al in view of “Extractive Metallurgy” by Mishra.
Regarding claim 1, Takenouchi discloses an alloy processing method for obtaining a solution containing nickel and/or cobalt from an alloy containing nickel and/or cobalt and copper, the method comprising: a leaching step of performing a leaching treatment by adding an acid solution to the alloy in a presence of a sulfurizing agent to obtain a leachate and a leaching residue; and a reduction (i.e. cementation) step of performing a copper-removal treatment by adding a reducing agent and a sulfurizing agent to the leachate obtained in the leaching step to sulfurize copper contained at least in the leachate to obtain a post-copper-removal solution and a copper-removed residue (Takenouchi, abstract, Figures 1 and 2, para [0054, 0102]).
Takenouchi does not explicitly disclose the limitation “wherein the copper-removed residue obtained through the copper-removal treatment in the cementation step is fed back to the leaching step to subject the copper-removed residue to the leaching treatment together with the alloy.”
Mishra discloses that in a process of recovering nickel and cobalt powder, the residue from a cementation step may be fed back to the leaching step prior to the cementation step (Mishra, Figure 11).
Regarding claim 1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to feed the residue from the reduction (i.e. cementation) step of Takenouchi back into the leaching step prior to the cementation step as suggested by Mishra. The motivation for doing so would be to minimize any potential loss of cobalt and/or nickel in the residue of Takenouchi.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that in order to feed the residue back to leaching step in a continuous manner, the residue would need to be immediately (i.e. within 1.5 hours) formed into a slurry. In re Dilnot, 319 F.2d 188, 138 USPQ 248 (CCPA 1963) held that a continuous process is obvious over a batch process in the prior art when the only difference between the prior art and the instant claims is the requirement of the addition of the reagents to be continuous (see MPEP 2144.04 V E). In the instant case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to immediately reintroduce the residue back to the leaching step in the form of a slurry in order to operate in a continuous manner. The motivation for doing so would be to achieve the numerous benefits associated with a continuous process, such as increased economical viability on an industrial scale.
Regarding claims 3, 4, 7, 8, 10 and 11, 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 pH, concentration of sulfurizing agent and concentration of reducing agent necessary to achieve optimal production from the process reactions.
Regarding claim 5, Takenouchi discloses that in the reduction (i.e. cementation) step, the alloy containing nickel and/or cobalt and copper is used as the reducing agent (Takenouchi, para [0101])
Regarding claim 6, any undissolved alloy would of Takenouchi in view of Mishra would remain together with the residue of the reduction (i.e. cementation) step and would be feed back to the leaching step with the residue.
Regarding claim 9, Takenouchi discloses the alloy includes an alloy obtained by melting a discarded battery of a lithium ion battery (Takenouchi, abstract, para [0001-0006]).
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
Prosecution Insights