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 .
Claims Status
The claims filed on 08/14/2024 is entered and acknowledged by the Examiner. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the instant application.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 08/14/2024 have been considered.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4, 7-10, 13, 15, 16, and 18-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 6, and 8-10 of U.S. Patent No. 9,834,827 B2 (hereinafter US’827). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because US’827 discloses a method of recycling batteries comprising (1) removing solid battery components resulting in a granular mass of spent charge material salts including Mn, Co, and Ni (a plurality of different cathode materials and battery chemistries); (2) leaching the granular mass of spent charge materials with sulfuric acid (acidic leaching agent) and hydroxide peroxide to obtain a solution having pH 3-5 (an aqueous acidic leaching solution); (3) adding NiSO4, MnSO4, and CoSO4 to the solution to adjust the amounts of Mn, Co, and Ni (metal salts); and (4) adding a strong base to the solution to pH=10.3-13.0 and at temperature below 80°C to coprecipitate hydroxides of Ni, Mn, and Co for a cathode material precursor (See claims 1, 4, 6 and 9). US’827 discloses that the method further comprises a step (5) of sintering the cathode material precursor with a lithium carbonate (Li salt) to obtain a charge material for the recycle battery (See claims 8 and 10). US’827 anticipates the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8, 10-16, and 18-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 4, and 7-9 of U.S. Patent No. 10,522,884 B2 (hereinafter US’884). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because US’844 discloses a method of recycling lithium-ion batteries comprising(1) forming a leaching solution containing leach agent and hydrogen peroxide with crushed battery material from a lithium battery recycling stream (a spent charge material salts of plurality of different cathode materials and battery chemistries); (2) filter an undissolved materials from the leach solution to leave dissolved salts of cathode materials remaining in the leach solution; (3) adding at least one of Ni, Mn, Co or Al salts to adjust the molar ratio of the dissolved cathode material; (4) raising the pH of the leach solution to at least 10 for precipitating the Ni, Mn, CO and Al salts to form the charge precursor material; and (5) follow by sintering with lithium carbonate (lithium salt). US’884 anticipates the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 10, 11, and 14-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,955,613 B2 (hereinafter US’613). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because US’613 discloses a method of recycling charge material from batteries comprising (1) adding a leaching acid solution to the granular mass obtained from dismantled batteries (a spent charge material salts of plurality of different cathode materials and battery chemistries); (2) performing a ratio adjustment of the charge materials include Ni, Mn and Co for achieving a predetermined molar ratio of compounds for the charge materials; (3) adding a base to the leach solution for raising the pH=3.0-6.5 to precipitating a granular form of the charge precursor material and (4) follow by sintering. US’613 anticipates the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8, 10, and 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5-8, 10 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,074,302 B2 (hereinafter US’302). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because US’613 discloses a method of recycling lithium-ion batteries comprising (1) combining crushed battery material with leaching agents to dissolve cathode material salts in the leaching solution; (2) separating (filtering) cathode material salts dissolved in the leach solution from undissolved materials; (3) add at least one of Ni, Co, Mn or Al salts to adjust molar ratio of the dissolved cathode material salts; (4) raising a pH to at least 10 of the leach solution to precipitate a charge precursor material. US’302 anticipates the claimed invention.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over unpatentable over US 5,858,061 (hereinafter Kleinsorgen).
Regarding claim 1, Kleinsorgen discloses a method for recovering metals useful in positive electrode (cathode material) (See Abstract and Col. 5 lines 33-38). Kleinsorgen discloses that the method comprises a step dissolving scrap battery materials (a granular mass of crushed spent batteries) with sulfuric acid (H2SO4) to obtain a leach solution containing rare earth metals, Fe, Ni and Co (metal salts) (See Col. 3, lines 8-11); filtering the leach solution with magnetic fraction to remove iron impurity and raise pH to 4-4.5 to precipitate and remove rare earth metal impurities (See Col. 3, lines 12-35); further raising the pH to approximately 10 by adding sodium hydroxide (base) to precipitate hydroxide or carbonate of Ni and Co (cathode material precursor) from the leaching solution (See Col. 4, lines 23-28); the salt of Ni and Co (cathode material precursor) is oven dried at 100-200°C and then roasted (sintered) at 400-1,000°C (See Col. 4, lines 28-30).
Kleinsorgen failed to anticipate the instant claim because Kleinsorgen does not explicitly disclose a step of adjusting amounts of metal salts (salts of Ni and Co) in the leaching solution.
However, Kleinsorgen discloses that the leaching solution (an aqueous phase of dissolved Ni and Co) should have the same atomic ratio of as present in the storage battery scrap (See Col. 2 line 64 to Col. 3 line 2). In other words, the amount of metal salts in the leaching solution should be the same as the initial scrap cathode material. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a skilled artisan at the time the invention was filed to adjust the amount of metal salts of Ni and Co in the leaching solution in order to maintain the same atomic ratio of as in the storage battery scrap.
Regarding claims 2-4, Kleinsorgen discloses that the battery scrap includes different cathode materials and different battery chemistries including rare earth metals and transition metals including Ni, Co and Mn (See Col. 3, lines 10-11 and line 57).
Regarding claims 5-7, Kleinsorgen discloses the step of filtering iron (Fe) by magnetic fraction and a step of extraction of aluminum (Al) precipitant in the leaching solution by raising the pH to 4.0-4.5 using sodium hydroxide (NaOH, base) (See Col. 3, lines 11-41).
Regarding claim 8, Kleinsorgen discloses the step of coprecipitating Ni and Co at pH of approximately 10 by adding sodium hydroxide and/or sodium carbonate (See Col. 4, lines 23-26).
Regarding claim 9, Kleinsorgen is silent with a temperature at which coprecipitating occurs. It would have been obvious for a skilled artisan to perform the coprecipitating at room temperature, i.e., 25C, in order to reduce manufacturing cost.
Regarding claim 10, Kleinsorgen discloses the leaching solution containing battery scrap (shredded cathode materials) (See Col. 1, lines 59-67 and Col. 3, lines 8-11). The battery scrap is an electrode material from a granular mass (shredded material).
Regarding claim 11, Kleinsorgen discloses the battery scrap is magnetically separated (See Abstract).
Regarding claim 12, Kleinsorgen discloses leaching with 2 to 2.5 M sulfuric acid (H2SO4) (See Col. 3, lines 8-9).
Regarding claim 13, Kleinsorgen discloses the leaching solution containing hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) as an oxidizing agent (See Col. 3, lines 35-36).
Regarding claim 14, Kleinsorgen is silent with the precipitant (cathode material precursor) is NixMnyCoz(OH)2 or NixMnyCozCO3. Kleinsorgen discloses that the leaching solution, which contains Ni, Mn and Co, is treated with sodium hydroxide or sodium carbonate in order to completely precipitate metals in form of hydroxides or carbonates (See Col. 4, lines 26-28). Therefore, a skilled artisan could have a reasonable expectation that the precipitant metals of hydroxides or carbonates is NixMnyCoz(OH)2 or NixMnyCozCO3.
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over unpatentable over Kleinsorgen (US 5,858,061) in view of CN 101555030 A (hereinafter Changdong).
Kleinsorgen is relied upon as set forth above.
Regarding claims 15-17, Kleinsorgen discloses a method for recovering metals useful in positive electrode (cathode material) (See Abstract and Col. 5 lines 33-38) comprises a step of roasting the precipitants (cathode material precursor) at 400-1,000°C (sintering) as recited in claim 17 (See Col, 4, line 28-29), but failed to disclose the sintering step includes lithium salt such as lithium carbonate as required in claims 15-16.
Changdong discloses a method for recovering and recycling waste lithium ion battery cathode material (See title) comprises a step of dissolving a crushed electrode material containing more than two of nickel, cobalt, and manganese into a solution of sulphuric acid or hydrochloride acid; adjusting a metal mixed liquid of nickel, cobalt, and manganese concentration to precipitate using sodium hydroxide or sodium carbonate; drying the precipitate; and heating the dried precipitant with a lithium source including lithium carbonate at 700-1,000C to form cathode material in a high temperature environment (See Abstract; 2nd full paragraph on unlabeled page 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a skilled artisan at the time the invention was filed to sinter (heat) the dried precipitant of Kleinsorgen with a lithium carbonate (lithium source) of Changdong in order to generate a cathode material in a high temperature environment.
Regarding claims 18-20, Kleinsorgen discloses that the battery scrap includes different cathode materials and different battery chemistries including rare earth metals and transition metals including Ni, Co and Mn (See Col. 3, lines 10-11 and line 57).
In view of the foregoing, the above claims have failed to patentably distinguish over the applied art.
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 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHANH TUAN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8082. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM to 5:00 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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at (571) 272-2817. 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.
/KHANH T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761