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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 02/05/2026 has been entered. Claims 16-19 and 21-29 are pending in this application and examined herein. Claim 29 is amended. Claims 1-15 and 20 are cancelled.
The rejection under 35 USC 112(b) to claim 29 is withdrawn in view of the amendments to claim 29.
The provisional double patenting rejections to claims 16-17, 21-23, 26, and 28-29 are withdrawn in view of the terminal disclaimer filed 02/05/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 16-19 and 21-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 1887037 A, cited in Office Action dated 07/21/2025) in view of Setchfield (GB 2011476 A, supplied with IDS filed 05/21/2025 and 03/20/2025) and Heguri et al. (US 20200376564 A1, cited in Office Action dated 07/21/2025).
Claims 16-19 and 21-28 remain rejected as set forth in the Office Action dated 11/13/2025. Claims 16-19 and 21-28 have not been amended since that time, therefore, the previously presented grounds of rejection set forth how the prior art teaches or suggests all of the limitations of the claims.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Setchfield and Heguri as applied to claim 28, further in view of Shen et al. (CN 111996377 A, machine translation and original document provided with Office Action dated 11/13/2025).
Lee teaches using nickel matte as a solid starting material for the process (pg. 1 line 4, pg. 2 lines 3-21) does not teach wherein the solid starting material or the metallic reagent comprise batteries, waste batteries, battery scrap and/or waste from the production of batteries.
Shen teaches a method for recovering nickel-cobalt-manganese metal from waste battery lithium extraction material (Title), where Shen teaches material from waste batteries is dried [0009], granulated [0010], calcined and pre-reduced [0011] and smelted to obtain a nickel matte [0012, 0014, 0024], therefore, Shen and Lee are analogous as both are directed to processes relating to recovering nickel where nickel is in the form of nickel mattes. Shen teaches wherein the solid starting material comprises batteries, waste batteries, and battery scrap (Title, [0002, 0007, 0010]). Shen teaches waste batteries contain large amounts of strategic metals such as nickel and that is necessary recycle and reuse batteries [0004].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a nickel matte produced from recycled batteries as taught by Shen as at least part of the nickel matte worked upon in Lee as doing so would recycle and reuse batteries, which comprise large amounts of strategically important nickel as taught by Shen. As the solid starting material and metallic powder of Lee are derived from the nickel matte, and Shen suggests producing the nickel matte from recycled batteries, the solid starting material and metallic powder of Lee in view of Shen comprises batteries, waste batteries, and/or battery scrap as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that a person of ordinary skill would not be motivated Lee to incorporate Setchfield’s base-assisted, oxygenated co-precipitation of copper and iron (see pg. 5-7 of remarks), the Examiner responds as follows:
As Applicant notes, Setchfield uses alkaline reagents to maintain a pH of 3.5-5 during a co-precipitation of iron and copper, it is not the Examiner’s position that e.g., the exact precipitation conditions and reagents of Setchfield are used to replace the precipitation conditions and reagents of Lee, or that alkaline reagents be introduced into the process of Lee. Lee and Setchfield both perform precipitation using the same reagent (metallic nickel) to precipitate copper and iron from nickel-containing solution, both Lee and Setchfield produce oxidizing conditions by introducing oxidizing gases (air in the case of Lee, and oxygen-containing gas, which may be air in Setchfield (Setchfield: pg. 2 lines 66-74)), and perform the precipitation under similar mildly acidic pH conditions (a pH > 5.6 and 4.5-5.6 for precipitation of copper and iron respectively in Lee, a pH of 3.5-5 in Setchfield).
Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that in view of the similar conditions and reagents used in each reference and Setchfield’s teaching that iron removal by oxidation and precipitation proceeds more readily in the presence of dissolved copper (i.e., that simultaneous precipitation of copper and iron is advantageous), that one of ordinary skill of the art would be motivated to combine the separate steps of copper precipitation and iron precipitation in Lee into a single step, as Setchfield teaches performing both operations in a single step make iron precipitation proceed more readily. As the existing steps of Lee are modified to be performed as a single step, rather than importing or replacing an existing step with one taken from Setchfield, Lee in view of Setchfield as applied in the rejection of the instant claims does not require the use of reagents not already in the process of Lee; and does not suggest introducing a base-assisted co-precipitation step as alleged by Applicant.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nikolas T Pullen whose telephone number is (571)272-1995. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday: 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM EST.
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 Hendricks can be reached at (571)-272-1401. 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.
/Keith D. Hendricks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/NIKOLAS TAKUYA PULLEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1733