DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s response, filed 07/21/2026, has been entered. Claim 1 is amended. Claims 1-4, 6, and 9 are now pending in this application.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1, 2, 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazaki (US2023313337A1) in view of Xu (WO2021134517A1) (refer to enclosed translations for citations) and Oda (US2013042756A1).
Regarding claim 1,
Miyazaki teaches a method [0001] for separating [0001] cobalt and nickel [0001], in which cobalt [0006-0007] and nickel [0006-0007] are separated [0007] from a lithium ion secondary battery [0006-0007], the method comprising:
a leaching step (Fig. 1, S3; [0007]) of obtaining a leachate [0007] containing cobalt [0007] and nickel [0007] from an electrode material [0007] of a lithium ion secondary battery [0006-0007],
a step of sulfurizing (Fig. 1, S4; [0065], “sulfurizing…S4”) the nickel and the cobalt in the leachate to obtain cobalt sulfide (CoS, [0064]) and nickel sulfide (NiS, [0064]), and
a re-dissolution step (Fig. 1, S6, “re-dissolving step”, [0018]) that consists of a first step of obtaining a suspension ([0073], "precipitates…immersed" wherein the precipitate/liquid mixture is a initially a suspension until complete dissolution) by suspending [0073] the cobalt sulfide [0064] and the nickel sulfide [0064] in dilute sulfuric acid [0072], and a subsequent second step of dissolving (see [0075], wherein precipitates dissolve which is subsequent to initial precipitate immersion) the cobalt sulfide [0075] and the nickel sulfide [0075] in the suspension ([0075], wherein “solid phases” remain such that it is a suspension) to obtain a cobalt and nickel solution (see [0075], wherein dissolving cobalt and nickel forms a solution) containing the cobalt and the nickel (see [0075], “cobalt-nickel solution”),
wherein the suspension ([0073], precipitates in liquid form suspension until complete dissolution) is a solution ([0073], “solution”) in which the cobalt sulfide and the nickel sulfide are suspended ([0073], wherein cobalt and nickel precipitates form a suspension until complete dissolution) in the dilute (see [0072], diluted with 20 ml hydrogen peroxide) sulfuric acid [0072],
in the second step of the re-dissolution step is a step of performing bubbling [0051] of the suspension with an oxidizing gas (see [0051], “air” wherein air contains oxygen) containing oxygen (see [0051], “air” wherein air contains oxygen) using a bubble generation apparatus (air-bubbling per [0018]).
Miyazaki fails to teach a pH of the suspension during the bubbling is adjusted to be in a range of 3.0 or more and 7.0 or less so as to dissolve the cobalt sulfide and the nickel sulfide, and wherein the bubble generation apparatus is a fine-bubble generation apparatus. Xu teaches a pH ([0041], “pH”) of a suspension ([0041], “leachate rates… 99.64%” wherein a leachate is a suspension until 100% dissolution) during the bubbling ([0010], “air, oxygen”; [0041], “air is blown”) is 5.5 ([0041], “5.5”, which is entirely within the claimed range of 3.0 or more and 7.0 or less). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to control the pH of the suspension during the bubbling step of Miyazaki, as suggested by Xu, because Xu teaches that pH is a suitable operating parameter during bubbling of sulfide-containing aqueous systems. Applying Xu’s known operation condition to Miyazaki’s analogous bubbling process merely employs a known process parameter for its predictable use. Miyazaki in view of Hu fails to teach wherein the bubble generation apparatus is a fine-bubble generation apparatus.
Kohei teaches a fine-bubble generation apparatus. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use a fine-bubble generation apparatus as Kohei teaches doing so provides more surface area of microbubbles [0080], thus improving the amount of reactive surface during the oxidation step.
Regarding claim 2,
Miyazaki teaches the method for separating cobalt and nickel according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein a pH [0061-0063] of the suspension before the bubbling (see [0061] and Fig. 1, wherein S5 is before S6) is set to be in a range of 3.0 or more and 4.0 or less ([0063], which is entirely within the claimed pH range of 2.0 or more and 7.0 or less).
Regarding claim 6,
Miyazaki teaches the method for separating cobalt and nickel according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein, in the re-dissolution step (Fig. 1, S6), hydrogen peroxide [0072] is added to the suspension [0072].
Regarding claim 9,
Miyazaki teaches the method for separating cobalt and nickel according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), further comprising: a solvent extracting step (Fig. 1, S7; [0081]) of adding an extractant solution [0080-0081] to the cobalt and nickel solution [0080] to obtain a cobalt extract and a nickel extract [0080].
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazaki (JP7121885B2) (refer to enclosed translations for citations).
Regarding claim 4,
Miyazaki teaches method for separating cobalt and nickel according to the method for separating cobalt and nickel according to wherein air bubbling is used in the re-dissolution step (see rejection of claim 1 above).
It is well understood that air has an oxygen concentration of 21%, which is within the claimed range of an oxygen concentration of the oxidizing gas used in the re-dissolution step is 20% by volume or more.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use an oxygen concentration of the oxidizing gas used in the re-dissolution step is 20% by volume or more, as 21% is the normal concentration of oxygen in air and because Miyazaki teaches air bubbling in the re-dissolution step.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazaki (JP7121885B2) in view of Sato (JP2017150027A) (refer to enclosed translations for citations).
Regarding claim 3,
Miyazaki teaches the method for separating cobalt and nickel according to Claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the bubbling in the re-dissolution step is performed for 4 hours or longer and 15 hours or shorter ([0073-0074]; which overlaps with and thus obviates the claimed range of 50 minutes or longer and 12000 minutes or shorter; see MPEP § 2144.05.I.). Miyazaki fails to teach a flow rate of the oxidizing gas of 0.1 L/min or more and 5 L/min or less with respect to 1000 mL of the suspension.
Sato, analogous in the art of bubbling in a re-dissolution step in a separation method for a battery, provides a flow rate of the oxidizing gas (air bubbles, Sato [0023]) of 0.5 L/min per 1 L of the suspension ([0023-0026], which is within the claimed range of 0.1 L/min or more and 5 L/min or less with respect to 1000 mL of the suspension).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Miyazaki to incorporate a flow rate of the oxidizing gas of 0.5 L/min per 1 L of the suspension in order to achieve an ideal leaching rate [0023-0026], avoid stirring [0026] and need for oxidizing chemicals other than air bubbles [0026], and thus reduce processing cost as taught by Sato.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment, involving changing the identity of the claimed “cobalt” and “nickel” to “cobalt sulfide” and “nickel sulfide” has successfully overcome the previous 11(b) rejection. The examiner notes this amendment also changes the scope of the disclosure.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the fine-bubble generating apparatus are moot in light of the updated rejection in view of Kohei.
Applicant argues that, in Xu, impurities is already removed. Xu teaches that pH control during aeration influences the chemistry of the sulfide-containing solutions. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this process parameter may likewise be beneficial during analogous bubbling operations of Miyazaki to obtain controlled dissolution behavior, regardless of whether Fe and Al are present (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Applicant argues that the pH range is critical. However, this is not persuasive, as applicant has not supported this assertion of criticality with evidence proving that the intended effect seen with pH values just outside the claimed range diminishes in an unexpected way for a skilled artisan.
Applicant argues that all other claims should be allowable based off an allowable claim 1. However, the rejections on all claims have been sustained.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL WYROUGH whose telephone number is (571)272-4806. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10am-5pm.
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, TIFFANY LEGETTE can be reached on (571) 270-7078. 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.
/PAUL CHRISTIAN ST WYROUGH/Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights