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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-4, 12-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP’950 (JP 2020-132950, IDS dated 05/24/2024).
Regarding claims 1-4, 13 and 14, JP’950 teaches a method (Page 3 to Page 7) for recovering metals from lithium ion battery waste, comprising leaching metals from lithium ion battery waste with an acid (Page 3, 3rd and 4th paragraphs), and extracting the metals from a metal-containing solution in which the metals are dissolved (Page 4, 5th paragraphs), wherein the lithium hydroxide extracted in the wet processing is used as a pH adjuster used in the metal recovery process (Page 7, 2nd paragraph), which meets the limitations recited in claims 1-4, 13 and 14.
Regarding claims 12 and 16, JP’950 discloses that the method comprises dry processing to obtain battery powder by roasting of lithium ion battery waste, and the battery powder is subjected to acid leaching in the wet processing to obtain the metal-containing solution (Page 3, 3rd to 5th paragraphs), which meets the limitations recited in claims 12 and 16.
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.
Claims 5-6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP’950 (JP 2020-132950), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ito (US 2019/0106768).
Regarding claims 5-6 and 15, JP’950 discloses that the wet processing comprises an acid leaching step of leaching metals such as Li, Mn, Co and Ni from the lithium-ion battery waste with an acid to obtain the metal-containing solution (Page 3 and Page 4), and using lithium hydroxide extracted as a pH adjuster in the metal separating process (Page 6 and Page 7). JP’950 does not disclose separating the metal by solvent extraction. Ito teaches a method of recovering metal from lithium-ion battery that is analogous to the method of JP’950 ([0026] to [0068]). Ito discloses that solvent extraction method can be used to sequentially extract Mn, Co and Ni from the leaching solution ([0061] to [0066]). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use solvent extraction method to sequentially extract Mn, Co and Ni from the leaching solution as taught by Ito in the process of JP’950 in order to successfully recover Mn, Co and Ni from lithium-ion battery as disclosed by Ito.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP’950 (JP 2020-132950) in view of Ito (US 2019/0106768), as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Ariyoshi (WO 2021/215486, US2023/0132311 is used as translation; IDS dated 05/24/2024).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, JP’950 discloses that lithium sulfate is converted to lithium carbonate followed by electrodialysis to make lithium hydroxide (Page 5). JP’950 in view of Ito does not disclose that the extraction residue is a lithium sulfate aqueous solution, and the nickel extraction step is followed by a hydroxylation step to obtain a lithium hydroxide aqueous solution from the lithium sulfate aqueous solution. Ariyoshi teaches a method of recovering metal from lithium-ion battery and discloses that producing lithium hydroxide from lithium sulfate by hydroxylation is beneficial in lowering production cost ([0017]; [0018]; [0030] to [0065]). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce lithium hydroxide from lithium sulfate by hydroxylation as taught by Ariyoshi in the process of JP’950 in view of Ito in order to lower production cost as disclosed by Ariyoshi.
JP’950 discloses that part of the lithium sulfate solution is used in forming lithium hydroxide and a reminder is used in the acid leaching step (Page 7, 1st to 6th paragraphs), which meets the limitation recited in claim 8.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP’950 (JP 2020-132950) in view of Ito (US 2019/0106768), as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Zhang (CN 111519031; IDS dated 05/24/2024).
Regarding claim 11, JP’950 in view of Ito discloses using solvent extraction method to extract Co and Ni. JP’950 in view of Ito does not disclose that the cobalt extraction step and the nickel extraction step each comprise extracting metal ions in the metal-containing solution into a solvent and back-extracting the metal ions in the solvent with a sulfuric acid solution, and the cobalt extraction step and the nickel extraction step are each followed by a crystallization step to crystallize the metal ions in the back-extracted solution to obtain a sulfate. Zhang teaches a method of recovering metal from lithium-ion battery that is analogous to the method of JP’950 (Claim 1). Zhang discloses that that the cobalt extraction step and the nickel extraction step each comprise extracting metal ions in the metal-containing solution into a solvent and back-extracting the metal ions in the solvent with a sulfuric acid solution, and the cobalt extraction step and the nickel extraction step are each followed by a crystallization step to crystallize the metal ions in the back-extracted solution to obtain a sulfate and the method has improved production rate of nickel sulfate and cobalt sulfate (Abstract; Claim 1). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to extract Co and Ni in solvent with back-extracting the metal ions in the solvent with a sulfuric acid solution, and to crystallize the metal ions in the back-extracted solution as taught by Zhang in the process of JP’950 in view of Ito in order to improve the production rate of nickel sulfate and cobalt sulfate as disclosed by Zhang.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 10 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Xiaowei Su whose telephone number is (571)272-3239. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00.
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 5712721401. 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.
/XIAOWEI SU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights