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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 9 and 11 have been cancelled; Claim 1 has amended; Claims 3-4, 16, 18, and 20 are withdrawn as non-elected claims, Claims 1-2, 5-8, 10, 12-15, 17, 19, and 21-26 remain for Examination, wherein claim 1 is an independent claim.
Previous Rejections/Objections
Previous rejection of 1-2, 6-7, 9-10, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al (US-PG-Pub 2019/0352740 A1, thereafter PG’740) in view of Yong et al (CN 112646974 A, listed in IDS dated 4/29/2025, thereafter CN’974) is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s “Arguments/Remarks with amendment” filed on 12/29/2025.
Previous rejection of 5, 8, 13-15, 17, 19, and 21-26 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PG’740 in view of CN’974, and further in view of Arakawa et al (US-PG-pub 2020/0044295 A1, thereafter PG’295) is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s “Arguments/Remarks with amendment” filed on 12/29/2025.
However, in view of the Applicant’s “Arguments/Remarks with amendment” filed on 12/28/2025, and reconsideration, a new ground rejection has listed as following:
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-7, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al (US-PG-Pub 2019/0352740 A1, thereafter PG’740) in view of Yong et al (CN 112646974 A, listed in IDS dated 4/29/2025, thereafter CN’974) and Elvish et al (WO 0056942 A1, thereafter WO’942).
Regarding claim 1, PG’740 teaches a method and system for comprehensive recovery and utilization of copper-nickel sulfide ore for Ni recovery with matte smelting (Title, abstract, Fig.1, and par.[0044] of PG’740) and PG’740 teaches oxidizing roasting (Fig.1, par.[0011], [0080], and claim 8 of PG’740), which reads on the nickel recovering method with first raw material containing Ni and Li treated by reducing heat treatment (step (A-I and step (A-ii)) as recited in the instant claim; PG’740 teaches first leaching after matte smelting (Fig.1 and par.[0018], [0065], and claim 1 of PG’740), which reads on the step (B) in the instant claim; PG’740 teaches the second leaching slag is subjected to acid leaching (Fig.1, par.[0011], [0080], and claim 8 of PG’740), which reads on the step (C) of the instant claim; and PG’740 teaches pH adjusting and Ni extracting process (Fig.1, claim 7, and examples of PG’740), which reads on the step (D) and (E) of the instant claim. PG’740 does not specify first leaching process for leaching the heat-treated product as claimed in the instant claim. CN’974 teaches a method for recycling valuable metal from waste ternary lithium battery positive electrode material(Abstract, Fig.1, and claims of CN’974). CN’974 teaches heat treating and acid leaching after heat treatment (Fig.1 and claims of CN’974). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to perform first leaching after heat treatment as demonstrated by CN’974 in the process of PG’740 in order to improve the recovery rate of the lithium, reduces the recovery cost (Fig.1, Abstract, and claims of CN’974). It is noted that PG’740 in view of CN’974 does not specify high temperature, high pressure leaching as claimed in the instant claim. WO’942 teaches a manufacturing process for recovering metal value by hydro-metallurgically treatment and matte leaching to dissolve metal values into solution (Abstract and claims of WO’942). WO’942 teaches leaching Cu-Co-Ni matte t a temperature of around 250°C and a pressure of around 4000 kPa. (Page 9, ln.27 to Page 10, ln.2 of WO’942), which is within the claimed ranges of leaching conditions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the leaching conditions as demonstrated by WO’942 in the process of PG’740 in view of CN’974 since all of PG’740, WO’942, and CN’974 teach the same metal value including Ni recovering process same as claimed throughout whole disclosing range.
Regarding claim 2, CN’974 teaches roasting the waste ternary positive electrode powder after pre-processing (part.[0006], [0016], and examples of CN’974), which reads on the claimed first raw material including black powder as claimed in the instant claim. PG’740 teaches including copper-nickel sulfide ore for Ni recovery with matte smelting (Title, abstract, Fig.1, and par.[0044] of PG’740), which reads on the second raw material as claimed in the instant claim.
Regarding claims 6-7, PG’740 in view of CN’974 teaches first leaching process by acid solution (par.[0018] and claims of PG’740), which reads on the claimed leaching agent (cl.6) and PG’740 teaches including Ni and Li in the first leachate (par.[0006], [0016], and [0044] of PG’740).
Regarding claim 10, PG’740 teaches applying 60%-95% sulfuric acid in the leaching process (par.[0031] of PG’740), which reads on the inorganic acid as claimed in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 12, PG’740 indicates the rich leachate contains about 120 g/L of nickel, 160 g/L of hydrochloric acid (par.[0006] of PG’740), which is within the claimed leaching condition range.
Claims 5, 8, 13-15, 17, 19, and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PG’740 in view of CN’974 and WO’942, and further in view of Arakawa et al (US-PG-pub 2020/0044295 A1, thereafter PG’295).
Regarding claim 5 and 8, PG’740 in view of CN’974 and WO’942 teaches a method and system for comprehensive recovery and utilization of copper-nickel sulfide ore for Ni recovery with matte smelting (Title, abstract, Fig.1, and par.[0044] of PG’740). PG’704 in view of CN’974 and WO’942 does not specify the smelting detail as claimed in the instant claims. PG’295 teaches a method for treating lithium ion battery scrap containing Li, Ni, Co, Mn, Al, Cu and Fe, the method comprising carrying out a calcination step (abstract, examples, and claims of PG’295). PG’295 teaches that the lithium ion battery scrap can be heated in a temperature range of from 450°C to 650°C for calcination in an air atmosphere (Fig.1 and par.[0037]-[0038] of PG’295), which reads on the N2 (cl.5) and O2 (cl.8) and overlaps the claimed temperature range as claimed in the instant claims. Overlapping in the temperature range create a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144 05 I. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the temperature range in the calcination process as demonstrated by PG’295 in the process of PG’740 in view of CN’974 and WO’942 in order to de-compositing the valuable metal in the scrap (Fig.1, par.[0037], and claims of PG’295).
Regarding claim 13, PG’740 teaches pH adjusting and Ni extracting process (Fig.1, claim 7, and examples of PG’740). PG’740 in view of CN’974 and WO’942 does not specify applying the neutralizing agent as recited in the instant claim. PG’295 teaches a method for treating lithium ion battery scrap containing Li, Ni, Co, Mn, Al, Cu and Fe, the method comprising carrying out a calcination step (abstract, examples, and claims of PG’295). PG’295 specify applying neutralization of adding an alkali such as sodium hydroxide, sodium carbonate, and ammonia to increase the pH within the range as to pH 4-6 (par.[0060]-[0062] of PG’295), which reads on the claimed neutralizing agent as recited in the instant claim. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply the claimed neutralizing agent as demonstrated by PG’295 in the process of PG’740 in view of CN’974 and WO’942 in order to recover the valuable metal from the leached residual (par.[0060]-[0062] of PG’295).
Regarding claim 14, PG’295 specify applying neutralization in the temperature of 50oC to 90oC range, at pH in the pH 4 to pH 6 range (par.[0060]-[0064] of PG’295), which overlap the claimed neutralization temperature and pH range as claimed in the instant claim. Overlapping in the experimental parameters create a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144 05 I. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the experimental parameters in neutralizing process as demonstrated by PG’295 in the process of PG’740 in view of CN’974 and WO’942 in order to recover the valuable metal from the leached residual (par.[0060]-[0062] of PG’295).
Regarding claim 15, PG’295 teaches multiple purification process seps (Fig.1 of PG’295), which reads on the step (E-i)-(E-iii) as claimed in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 17, PG’295 teaches Cu recovering and Ni recovering (Fig.1 and par.[0052] and [0087]-[0089] of PG’295). PG’295 indicates that the alkali at this time include sodium hydroxide, calcium hydroxide, and the like. A pH of the Li concentrated solution obtained in the above Li concentration step is, for example, from 0.5 to 1.5 (par.[0089] of PG’295), which overlaps the claimed pH range in neutralized solution as recited in the instant claim. MPEP 2144 05 I. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the pH in neutralizing process as demonstrated by PG’295 in the process of PG’740 in view of CN’974 and WO’942 in order to recover the Li and Ni from the leached residual (par.[0089] of PG’295).
Regarding claim 19, PG’295 teaches Mn removing (Fig.1 and par.[0069] of PG’295) and both PG’740 (par.0006] of PG’740) and PG’295 (Fig.1 of PG’295) specify solvent extraction for recovering process.
Regarding claim 21, PG’295 teaches Co and organic material removing (Fig.1 and par.[0073]-[0076] of PG’295).
Regarding claim 22, PG’295 indicates a solvent extraction process for Ni recovery (par.[0077]-[0080] of PG’295), which reads on the manufacturing an aqueous Ni solution including precipitation and leaching process after neutralization as recited in the instant claim.
Regarding claims 23, PG’295 teaches Ni recovering (Fig.1 and par.[0052] and [0087]-[0089] of PG’295). PG’295 indicates that the alkali at this time include sodium hydroxide, calcium hydroxide, and the like, which reads the limitation of the instant claim.
Regarding claims 24, PG’295 indicates that in the solvent extraction in the Ni recovery step, the pH is preferably from 6.0 to 8.0, and more preferably from 6.8 to 7.2 (par.[0080] of PG’295), which reads on the pH in precipitation process as claimed in the instant claim. PG’295 specify applying neutralization in the temperature of 50oC to 90oC range (par.[0060]-[0064] of PG’295), which overlap the claimed temperature as claimed in the instant claim. Overlapping in the experimental parameters create a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144 05 I. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the experimental parameters in precipitation process as demonstrated by PG’295 in the process of PG’740 in view of CN’974 and WO’942 in order to recover the valuable metal from the leached residual (par.[0060]-[0062] of PG’295).
Regarding claim 25, PG’295 teaches including carboxylic acid-based extracting agent in the Ni extraction process (par.[0078] of PG’295), which reads on the claimed limitation in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 26, PG’295 teaches a pH of the Li concentrated solution obtained in the above Li concentration step is, for example, from 0.5 to 1.5 (par.[0089] of PG’295), which overlaps the claimed pH range in neutralized solution as recited in the instant claim 26. MPEP 2144 05 I. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the pH in neutralizing process as demonstrated by PG’295 in the process of PG’740 in view of CN’974 and WO’942 in order to recover the Li and Ni from the leached residual (par.[0089] of PG’295).
Notes: Akira et al (CA 2189631 C) is recorded as a reference only.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments to the art rejection to Claims 1-2, 5-8, 10, 12-15, 17, 19, and 21-26 have been considered but they are moot in view of the new ground rejection as stated as above. Regarding the arguments related the amended features, The Examiner’s position has stated as above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIE YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1884. The examiner can normally be reached on IFP.
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, Jonathan J Johnson can be reached on 571-272-1177. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JIE YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734