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 § 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) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 110767954 A to Zang et al (an English language machine translation has been relied upon for examination purposes) in view of JP 09010507 A to Nishiguchi (an English language machine translation has been relied upon for examination purposes).
Regarding claim 1, Zang discloses a method for bringing battery powder resulting from lithium ion battery waste into contact with an acidic leaching solution inside a leaching vessel to leach metals contained in the battery powder into the acidic leach solution, wherein the leaching vessel comprises a movable member, and the method comprises destroying froth generated in the acidic leaching solution by operation of the movable member (Zang, claims 1-8, figure 1).
Zang does not disclose that the leaching vessel comprises a movable member operably disposed at a position above a liquid surface of the acidic leaching solution stored therein.
Nishiguchi discloses a reaction vessel comprising a movable member operably disposed at a position above a liquid surface of the chemical solution stored therein, wherein said movable member prevents foam from reaching the space at the top of the reaction vessel, and thus increases the amount of product that can be charged in the vessel (Nishiguchi, para [0001], figures 5 and 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the reaction vessel of Nishiguchi comprising a movable member operably disposed at a position above a liquid surface of the chemical solution stored therein as the leaching vessel of Zang. The motivation for doing so would be to prevent foam from reaching the space at the top of the leaching vessel, and thus increase the amount of product that can be charged in the vessel (Nishiguchi, para [0001], figures 5 and 6).
Regarding claim 2, Nishiguchi discloses the leaching vessel has at least one baffle plate protruding inward from a vessel inner side surface, the movable member is provided so as not to interfere with the baffle plate, the movable member is a rotating member rotatable above the liquid surface of the acidic leaching solution, the froth are destroyed by rotation of the rotating member, and the rotating member has a radial length that does not reach a position where the baffle plate is provided (Nishiguchi, figures 5 and 6).
Regarding claim 3, Nishiguchi discloses the leaching vessel has a rotating shaft extending in a depth direction of the acidic leaching solution to rotate the rotating member (Nishiguchi, figures 5 and 6).
Regarding claim 4, Nishiguchi discloses the leaching vessel has an agitating blade disposed so that it is immersed in the acidic leaching solution, the agitating blade being rotatable around the rotating shaft (Nishiguchi, figures 5 and 6).
Regarding claim 5, Zang discloses the acidic leaching solution comprises sulfuric acid (Zang, claim 1).
Regarding claim 6, Zang discloses the acidic leaching solution has a sulfuric acid concentration of 40-70 wt% (Zang, claim 1), i.e. within the range of 50 g/L or more.
Regarding claim 7, Zang discloses the battery powder is added to an aqueous sulfuric acid solution and the battery powder is brought into contact with the acidic leaching solution (Zang, claim 1)
Regarding claim 8, 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, Zang recognizes that the ratio of powder to sulfuric acid can be adjusted based on the concentration of the acid and can be increased when the concentration of sulfuric acid solution is high and decreased when the concentration is low (Zang, para [0098]). It would require little more than routine experimentation by one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the optimal or workable ranges of the ratio of sulfuric acid brought into contact with the battery to achieve optimal or workable leaching of the battery powder.
Regarding claim 9, Zang discloses the battery includes negative electrode carbon materials (Zang, para [0072]). As Zang does not place any restriction on the amount of negative electrode carbon materials present in the battery powder, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the method of Zang would be applicable to battery powder including any amount of carbon, including the instantly claimed 17% or more of carbon
Regarding claim 10, “[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, Zang discloses tearing, grinding and crushing the powder to turn the battery into powder with a small particle size and further sieving the powder to separate the powder into smaller active powder particles (Zang, para [0067]). It would require little more than routine experimentation by one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the optimal or workable ranges of the battery powder particle size distribution to achieve optimal or workable leaching of the battery powder.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 110767954 A to Zang et al (an English language machine translation has been relied upon for examination purposes) in view of JP 09010507 A to Nishiguchi (an English language machine translation has been relied upon for examination purposes) as applied to claims 1-10 above and further in view of JP 2021141060 A to Watanabe et al.
Zang in view of Nishiguchi discloses a method as set forth above. Neither Zang nor Nishiguchi disclose that the battery powder is subjected to a heat treatment in an inert atmosphere followed by a heat treatment in an air atmosphere.
Watanabe discloses that battery powder may be subjected to a heat treatment in an inert atmosphere followed by a heat treatment in an air atmosphere in order to make it easier to form granules containing valuable metal (Watanabe, para [0017-0021]).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to subject the battery powder of Zang in view of Nishiguchi to a heat treatment in an inert atmosphere followed by a heat treatment in an air atmosphere as suggested by Watanabe. The motivation for doing so would be to make it easier to form granules containing valuable metal (Watanabe, para [0017-0021]).
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