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
Claim 27 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 27, line 2 “MgSC or MGCC” should be spelled out.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 27 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 27, line 1 uses the word “preferably”, which is indefinite because it is unclear if the claimed features are limited to the steps following this word.
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.
Claim(s) 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arakawa (WO 2020203585) and in view of Li (CN 106505225).
As to Claims 16 and 19, Arkawa describes a method for processing lithium ion battery scraps (title). The process describes first leaching the battery scraps with an acid to obtain a post leaching liquid that contains fluoride (abstract). The process then adds a neutralizing solution so that the liquid reaches 5.3-5.5 (abstract). The neutralizing step precipitates fluorine (see page 3, “Neutralization process”, para. 2). The neutralizing agent can be NaOH (page 3, last para).
Arkawa further states that prior to this neutralizing step, there is an oxidizing agent added to the mixture that adjusts the pH from 3-5 in order to remove iron ions (see last para). The oxidizing agent can be magnesium hydroxide (page 4, last para).
Arakawa does not specifically state that fluorine is also precipitated in this step.
Li describes a method for recycling lithium battery waste (title) by using a series of treatment steps, which include acidifying and precipitating metals from the waste stream (abstract). In one of the steps, Li teaches that after the acidification step (see example 4, step B), the slurry is treated with a magnesium salt, such as magnesium hydroxide, which then produces a fluoride precipitate (see step E of example 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that magnesium hydroxide used in the oxidizing step of Arakawa precipitates additional fluorine in solution because Li explains that a lithium battery waste stream that employs magnesium hydroxide produces a fluoride precipitate.
As to Claim 17, Arkawa teaches that prior to this neutralizing step, there is an oxidizing agent added to the mixture that adjusts the pH from 3-5 in order to remove iron ions (see last para). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges overlap or are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 I.”
As to Claim 18, Arkawa teaches that the neutralizing step adds a neutralizing solution so that the liquid reaches 5.3-5.5 (abstract).
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges overlap or are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 I.”
As to Claim 20, Arakawa teaches that the oxidizing step uses manganese dioxide (page 4, last para).
As to Claim 21, Arakawa teaches that phosphoric acid can be edded to the solution to improve the separation efficiency of aluminum, copper and other ions (see “extraction process, para. 3-4). Although Arakawa does not specifically teach adding this during either the neutralization step or the oxidizing step, since aluminum is intended to be removed from the solution in the neutralization step, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a precipitating aid to this step during extraction.
Claim(s) 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 23, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. “Study on the process of harmless treatment of residual electrolyte in battery disassembly”.
As to Claims 16, 17, 18, 19, 21 and 22, Zhu teaches a process for the treatment of residual electrolyte in a battery dis-assembly (title). The process describes residual electrolyte as decommissioned batteries and spent batteries (Introduction, para. 1). Zhu describes a method of recovering these residual electrolytes (introduction, para. 2). The battery is immersed in HCl solution (see page 1296, “precipitation and purification”, which form HF (see equation 1). The solution is then treated with NaOH (see equation 1). A second additive of H2PO4 is added (see reaction 2) and then Ca(NO3)2 is added to the solution to produce CaF2 (see equation 3). In step 1, Zhu explains that after treatment with NaOH, F ions are not precipitated completed (see page 1298, left col, last para). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that some of the fluoride ions in step 1 are precipitated.
Then after treatment in the third step, Zhu teaches that the CaF2 is a precipitate (see page 1298, left col, “Analysis of precipitates”, para. 1).
As to the pH in each step, Zhu teaches that that pH value can vary based on the amount of time the compound is soaked in that solution (see Fig. 2). Therefore, a pH of about 5 can be reached if the compound is soaked for 10 hrs (see Fig. 2). Moreover, a soaking time of 5.5 can be used if soaked for 5 hrs (see Fig. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the pH of the two treatment steps to within the pH range of 5 to 7 by adjusting the soaking times used in each treatment step.
As to Claim 23, Zhu teaches that the pH value can be adjusted based on the soaking time (see Fig. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the time used can be adjustable.
As to Claim 24, Zhu shows that some of the used water from the last precipitation step is recycled (See Fig. 8, (2)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that some of the residual CaF2 is also recycled since some of the water in that solution will contain some CaF2 precipitates.
Claim(s) 25, 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of JP (5464374).
Zhu teaches two fluoride precipitation steps, where the second precipitation steps makes CaF2, but the reference does not disclose a third precipitation stage of adding an alkaline earth metal salt to the second fluoride-reduced leachate to obtain a third leachate.
JP ‘374 describes a method of treating a solution that contains a CaF2 precipitateion (see page 3, “third step”-Calcium Addition step), where a calcium hydroxide solution is added to this slurry, which is used to precipitate fluorine and silicon in the solution (see page 3, “third step”-Calcium addition step).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a third alkaline addition step after the formation of CaF2, as taught by JP ‘374 for use with the process of Zhu because JP ‘374 explains that this method can be used to precipitate out more fluorine in solution as well as other impurities.
As to Claim 28, although JP ‘374 does not specifically teach that the pH is maintained, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that any pH range used in JP ‘374 can be considered a pH the third precipitation stage is maintained at.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu and JP ‘374 as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of Fredrickson (US Pat.: 2985508).
JP ‘374 describes adding an alkali to the CaF2 precipitate, but does not describe that the alkaline earth metal is one of those listed in Claim 27.
Fredrickson describes a method of recovering metal fluorides from CaF2 (col. 1, lines 41-43). The reference explains that reacting calcium fluoride with magnesium chloride to make a magnesium fluoride (col. 1, lines 41-45). Magnesium fluoride is more readily separable from the solution (col. 2, lines 42-47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further react the CaF2 with magnesium chloride, as taught by Fredrickson for use with the process of Zhu and JP ‘374 because Fredrickson explains that the product made, magnesium fluoride, is more easily separatable from solution.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 26, 29, 30 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Arakawa (WO 2020203585) teaches the features described above, but does not describe use of either the first or second precipitation steps being one of the agents described in Claim 20.
As to Claims 22 and 29, Arakawa does not teach elevating both precipitation stages at a temperature of 30-60 degrees C.
As to Claim 26, Arakawa does not disclose that the alkaline earth metal salt added in Claim 25 (the third precipitant) added at a concentration of 100-240 g/L.
As to Claim 30, JP ‘374 does not disclose that the third precipitation stage has a residence time of 2-12 hrs.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHENG HAN DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5823. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Fung Coris can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/SHENG H DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 August 15, 2026
Prosecution Insights