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
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 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 1-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yu (CN 114381605 A, 2022) (the translation provided with the attached original document is referenced below).
Regarding claim 1, Yu teaches a method for manufacturing a battery material (Yu, [0056]-[0064]), comprising:
a preparation step for preparing a recovery object containing at least Li (Yu, [0057], waste lithium-ion battery positive and negative mixed black powder); and
a chlorination heating step of heating the recovery object together with a non-metal chlorine compound to produce LiCl (Yu, [0057], hydrogen chloride gas; LiCl is a solid product).
Regarding claim 2, Yu teaches the method according to claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the non-metal chlorine compound contains hydrogen chloride (Yu, [0057]).
Regarding claims 3 and 9, Yu teaches the method according to claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the chlorination heating step comprises heating the recovery object at 1000°C (Yu, [0057]).
Regarding claim 4, Yu teaches the method according to claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the chlorination heating step comprises heating the recovery object under an inert atmosphere (Yu, [0057], under an argon protective atmosphere).
Regarding claim 5, Yu teaches the method of claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the recovery object contains a lithium-nickel-manganese-cobalt composite oxide (Yu, [0032], [0054], [0057]).
Regarding claim 6, Yu teaches the method according to claim 1, as discussed above, further comprising a water dissolution step of immersing the recovery object after the chlorination heating step in water to dissolve LiCl in water to obtain an Li solution (Yu, [0058], water leaching giving elemental filtrate and CuCl residue; as LiCl is produced in accordance with Paragraph [0057], LiCl is in the elemental filtrate).
Regarding claim 7, Yu teaches the method according to claim 6, as discussed above, further comprising an Li crystallization step of precipitating an Li compound crystal from the Li solution (Yu, [0063], Li2CO3 is precipitated).
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (CN 114381605 A, 2022) (the translation provided with the attached original document is referenced below), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Brown (U.S. Patent No. 3,141,765 A, 1959).
Regarding claim 8, Yu teaches the method according to claim 6, as discussed above, wherein the recovery object contains Ni and Co (Yu, [0054], [0060]), but does not teach an NH3 leaching step of immersing a solid after the water dissolution step in an ammonia aqueous solution to obtain a metal solution containing at least one of Ni and Co. However, Yu’s method produces a solid Ni-Co alloy (Yu, [0060]), and Brown teaches that an Ni-Co alloy can be immersed in an ammonia aqueous solution to obtain a metal solution containing Ni and Co (Brown, Fig. 1, Col. 2, line 22 – Col. 3, line 9).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Yu’s method by incorporating an NH3 leaching step of immersing the Ni-Co alloy after the water dissolution step in an ammonia aqueous solution, as Brown teaches that a high nickel low-cobalt alloy from a smelting process can be efficiently extracted with ammonia and thereafter reduced to nickel and cobalt metals (Brown, Col. 2, lines 41-51) Further, Yu’s method is directed to achieving “effective separation of each valuable metal” (Yu, [0033]) but does not separate Ni from Co in its Ni-Co alloy (Yu, [0060]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have therefore been motivated to further process the Ni-Co alloy to achieve separation of Ni and Co and thereby acquire valuable metal products.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY J. BAUM whose telephone number is (571)270-0895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00.
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3590. 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.
/ZACHARY JOHN BAUM/Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights