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 § 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.
Claims 1-12 are 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 1 recites “disposed to cover” in Line 4. It is unclear whether this phrase conveys an active method step, the physical location of the porous member, an intended use, some other meaning entirely. By reciting “disposed to cover,” the claim is rendered unclear as to whether a liquid surface of the acid leaching solution is actually covered by the porous member. Appropriate correction is required to clearly establish method steps with positive active claim language.
Claim 1 recites “destroying froth” in Line 6. As used, the term “destroying” renders the claim indefinite and does not convey the metes and bounds of destruction to persons of ordinary skill in the art. Appropriate correction is required to establish the tangible and repeatable method step with positive active claim language.
Claim 1 recites “bringing them into contact” in Line 7. It is unclear to which element or element the term “them” refers. The term “them” lacks antecedent basis, rendering the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 recites “an aqueous sulfuric acid solution” in Line 2. Claim 5 on which Claim 7 depends recites “the acidic leaching solution comprises sulfuric acid” in Line 2. It is therefore unclear whether the solution of Claim 7 is the same “acidic leaching solution” of Claim 5, the same solution of Claim 1 on which Claim 5 depends, or some separate solution entirely.
Regarding Claim 1, Claim 7, and Claim 8, these claims each attempt to describe method steps wherein battery powder is contacted with an acidic leaching solution. It is unclear whether the contact step in Claim 7 and Claim 8 are separate from the contact described in Claim 1. It is noted Claim 1 establishes a lengthy preamble: “A method for brining 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.” Because the preamble imparts limitations into the claim language of independent Claim 1 to persons of ordinary skill in the art, appropriate correction is required to establish actionable and repeatable method steps in Claims 1, 7, and 8 with positive active claim language. It is unclear whether the method steps of Claim 7 and 8 are the same as, or conducted in addition to, any battery powder and leaching solution contact occurring in Claim 1. Appropriate correction is required to establish a proper nexus between the solution referenced in Claim 7 and Claim 8 and any contact of such solution with battery powder.
Claim 11 and Claim 12 recite in Lines 2 and 1 respectively, “the battery powder used.” It is unclear whether the limitations following this phrase impart actual features of the battery powder, are an attempt to convey a separate battery powder, or some other meaning entirely. It is further unclear how the battery powder is “used” in these claims as there is no step of usage in Claim 1 on which Claims 11 and 12 ultimately depend. Appropriate correction is required to establish actionable and repeatable method steps with positive active claim language, and to clearly establish any tangible features of the battery powder.
Claim 10 recites “a peak located on the smallest diameter side in a particle size distribution graph of the battery powder has an area ratio of 15% or more” in Lines 2-3, rendering the claim indefinite. The recitation “smallest diameter side” represents a broad range of values on a particle size distribution graph. The nature of a particle size distribution graph yields numbers unique reading and the recitation “a peak located on the smallest diameter side” is without sufficient specificity to convey to persons of ordinary skill in the art a specific numerical value, or enable one to calculate an area ratio. Further, “the smallest diameter side” is vague and could take on a subjective meaning. Appropriate correction is required to establish a tangible and repeatable method step with specificity, as well as establish a clear nexus between the battery powder, and its particle size.
Claims 2-4, 6, and 9 are rejected for their dependency on a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zang et al. CN 110767954 A in view of Otsuka et al. JP 2017164657 A.
Regarding Claim 1, Claim 2, and Claim 3, Zang et al. ‘954 teaches a method for brining battery powder resulting from lithium ion battery waste into contact within an acidic leaching solution inside a leaching vessel to leach metals contained in the battery powder into the acidic leach solution (Abstract). Zang et al. ‘954 teaches destroying froth generated in the acidic leaching solution with rotating blades, and does not expressly teach the use of a porous member.
However, Otsuka et al. ‘657 teaches a foamable liquid storage tank having a porous mesh member disposed to cover a liquid surface within the chamber and remove foam generated from the foamable liquid (meeting the limitation of the instant claim for destroying generated froth).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to utilize the porous mesh member of Otsuka et al. ‘657 to destroy froth generated in the acidic leaching solution of Zang et al. ‘954 in order to reduce costs based on the teachings of Zang et al. ‘954 at [0005].
Regarding the size of the porous member, Otsuka et al. ‘657 teaches a mesh of about several millimeters to several tens of millimeters, and is not limited thereto [0021], meeting the limitations of the instant Claim 1 for an opening of 12 mm or less, Claim 2 for an opening of 10 mm or less, and of Claim 3 for a mesh member.
See MPEP 2144.05. In cases where claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Zang et al. ‘954 teaches the limitations set forth above. Otsuka et al. ‘657 further teaches piping (42) (Fig.2), meeting the limitations of the instant Claim for a support member having hole portions with larger openings than those of the mesh member, supporting the mesh member.
Regarding Claim 5, modified Zang et al. ‘954 teaches the limitations set forth above. Zang et al. ‘954 further teaches the acidic leaching solution comprises sulfuric acid (Abstract), meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 6, modified Zang et al. ‘954 teaches the limitations set forth above. Zang et al. ‘954 further teaches the acidic leaching solution comprises sulfuric acid in a concentration of 40-70 wt% (approximately 521.1 -1,127.7 g/L), meeting the limitation of the instant claim for a concentration of 50 g/L or more.
See MPEP 2144.05. In cases where claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claims 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zang et al. CN 110767954 A in view of Otsuka et al. JP 2017164657 A as applied to Claims 1-6 above, further in view of NPL Chen et al.
Regarding Claims 7 and 8, modified Zang et al. ‘954 teaches the limitations set forth above. Zang et al. ‘954 and Otsuka et al. ‘657 do not expressly teach acid leaching with concentrated sulfuric acid.
However, notwithstanding the 112(b) rejections above, NPL Chen et al. teaches at (Section 2.3) a lithium ion battery recycling method comprising brining battery powder into contact with sulfuric acid having a concentration of 98% in order to reduce environmental impact.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to add and contact battery powder with an aqueous solution having 98% concentrated sulfuric acid in order to reduce environmental impact based on the teachings of NPL Chen et al. at (Section 2.3), meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 9, modified Zang et al. ‘954 teaches the limitations set forth above. Zang et al. ‘954 does not expressly teach the elemental composition of the battery powder used in experimentation.
However, NPL Chen et al. teaches at (Section 2.2) a lithium ion battery recycling method comprising battery powder having a carbon concentration of 32.2 weight%, meeting the limitation of the instant claim for a carbon content of 17% by mass or more.
See MPEP 2144.05. In cases where claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Zang et al. ‘954 teaches the limitations set forth above. Zang et al. ‘954 does not expressly teach the particle size distribution, but teaches forming battery powder particles sized less than 0.18 mm (Abstract).
Notwithstanding the 112(b) rejections above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to form small particles in order to increase acid leaching efficiency. Although Zang et al. ‘954 does not describe a specific limit or range of particle sizes, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to form a size distribution falling within or overlapping the limitation of the instant Claim for a peak located on the smallest diameter side of a particle size distribution graph having an area ratio of 15% or more. "[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). A mere change in scale, size, or proportion of battery particle size would result from optimizing the particle size in order to improve the efficiency of leaching and would not establish a patentable distinction in this instance. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. A.
Regarding Claim 11 and Claim 12, modified Zang et al. ‘954 teaches the limitations set forth above.
NPL Chen et al. further teaches sulfation of battery powder in a muffle furnace followed by air cooling (Section 2.1), meeting the limitations of the instant Claims for a battery powder subjected to a heat treatment in an inert atmosphere, followed by a heat treatment in an air atmosphere.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to apply the heat and gas treatment of NPL Chen et al. to the powder of Zang et al. ‘954 in order to improve the yield of lithium in the leaching process of modified Zang et al. ‘954, based on the teachings of NPL Shi et al. at (Section 4.1), meeting the limitations of the instant Claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20250043382 A1 teaches a froth destroying apparatus for extracting metals from lithium ion battery powder.
JP 2025096184 A teaches recovering metal from spent batteries through a multi-stage sieving process.
Ma, Hongtao, et al. "Optimization of static defoaming structure in gas-liquid separator." Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects 47.1 (2025): 9062-9075. teaches improvements in the efficiency of a static defoaming structure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MORIAH S. SMOOT whose telephone number is (571)272-2634. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am - 5pm EDT.
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
/M.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights