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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
710A, 720A, 730 A, 750 A, 760A;
710B, 720B, 730B, 740B;
710C, 720C, 730C, 740C
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 2-5, 12-13, and 15 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.
Claims 2 and 12 recite the limitation that a mixture of one or more acids are added to the leached active cathode material solution to precipitate out recyclable materials from the solution. It is unclear how the addition of acids enables the precipitation process. Particularly, the applicant appears to be utilizing bases to conduct the precipitation reaction, as per the specification. Therefore, it is unclear as to whether an acid or a base should be added to enable precipitation. For the purpose of examination, it is determined that if the prior art teaches the overall method outlined in the applicant’s specification (i.e. leaching via an acid, then precipitation via a base), it also teaches the limitations claimed in claims 2 and 12.
Claims 3-5, 13, and 15 are also rejected on virtue of their dependencies on claims 2 and 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 11, 12, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang (US 2018/0261894 A1).
Regarding claims 11, 12, and 16-19, Wang teaches a method for recycling Li-ion batteries, wherein active cathode material (i.e. Co, Ni, Al, Mn, Fe) is extracted from a battery (Abstract, [0004]). The method of extracting cathode material comprises the following steps:
Leaching a cathode active material to produce a leached cathode active material solution. Particularly, sieved cathode material powder is leached with 4M sulfuric acid to produce a solution of dissolved cathode material [0038].
Extracting one or more recyclable materials from the leached cathode active material solution. Particularly, the pH of the above solution is adjusted with a base to precipitate out cathode material in the form of hydroxides (i.e. Fe(OH)3, Cu(OH)2, Al(OH)3) [0039].
Regarding claim 20, Wang teaches additional leaching and extraction steps on their taught charge material for the purpose of extracting FePO4 (Abstract, Fig. 10). Wang teaches that the leached solution is continuously stirred and heated to a constant temperature during these additional steps [0088].
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.
Claims 1, 2, and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2018/0261894 A1) in view of Zhang (“Recent advances in pretreating technology for recycling valuable metals from spent lithium-ion batteries”).
Regarding claims 1, 2, and 6-9, Wang teaches a method for recycling Li-ion batteries, wherein active cathode material (i.e. Co, Ni, Al, Mn, Fe) is extracted from a battery (Abstract, [0004]). The method of extracting cathode material comprises the following steps:
Separating a battery into one or more battery components, wherein the one or more battery components comprise a cathode active material including the one or more recyclable materials [0004].
Leaching a cathode active material to produce a leached cathode active material solution. Particularly, sieved cathode material powder is leached with 4M sulfuric acid to produce a solution of dissolved cathode material [0038].
Extracting one or more recyclable materials from the leached cathode active material solution. Particularly, the pH of the above solution is adjusted with a base to precipitate out cathode material in the form of hydroxides (i.e. Fe(OH)3, Cu(OH)2, Al(OH)3) [0039].
However, Wang fails to teach drying and heating of the cathode material.
Zhang teaches that the drying of electrodes after separation is a common technique in the art for the purpose of removing electrolyte (Figs. 3 and 7). Additionally, Zhang teaches that roasting and pyrolysis techniques are commonly used in the art for the purpose of removing organics from the spent material (pg. 8-9 §5.1 “Removal of organic binders”, Fig. 11).
Therefore, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the washing and drying steps of Zhang into the battery recycling method of Wang because doing so would enable the advantageous results of removing electrolytes and organics from Wang’s taught cathode material.
Regarding claim 10, Wang teaches additional leaching and extraction steps on their taught charge material for the purpose of extracting FePO4 (Abstract, Fig. 10). Wang teaches that the leached solution is continuously stirred and heated to a constant temperature during these additional steps [0088].
Claims 13, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2018/0261894 A1) in view of Klepper (“Leach Residue and Pregnant Liquor Separation – Process and Capital Comparison of Counter-Current Decantation and Counter-Current Washing with Vacuum Filtration”).
Regarding claims 13-15, Wang is silent on a vacuum filtration, precipitate washing, or vacuum drying steps.
Klepper teaches that vacuum drum filters are typically used for solid-liquid separation and washing of leach slurries because the method uses less water than thickener-based methods (pg. 490-491 §” Vacuum Filter History”, Figs. 5 & 7). Particularly, separation of a solid from a slurry comprises the following steps:
Formation of a filter cake via filtration of solids through a filter, which reads on the claimed vacuum filtration step.
Washing of the cake to displace residual slurry from the pores of the filter cake, which reads on the claimed water application step.
A dewatering/drying step where air is drawn through the pores of the filter cake, which reads on the claimed vacuum drying step.
While Klepper is silent on using deionized water during their washing step, the use of deionized water to wash precipitates is considered a standard lab procedure with a well-known and predictable advantage (e.g. washing away residue and contaminants without altering the underlying chemistry of the filter precipitates).
Therefore, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate Klepper’s taught vacuum drum filter process into Wang’s Li-ion recycling method because Klepper’s vacuum drum filter process enables the extraction, washing, and drying of Wang’s precipitates while advantageously utilizing less water compared to historical thickener-based extraction methods.
Claims 3, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2018/0261894 A1) in view of Zhang (“Recent advances in pretreating technology for recycling valuable metals from spent lithium-ion batteries”) as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and in further view of Klepper (“Leach Residue and Pregnant Liquor Separation – Process and Capital Comparison of Counter-Current Decantation and Counter-Current Washing with Vacuum Filtration”).
Regarding claims 3-5, Wang and Zhang are silent on vacuum filtration, precipitate washing, or vacuum drying steps.
Klepper teaches that vacuum drum filters are typically used for solid-liquid separation and washing of leach slurries because the method uses less water than thickener-based methods (pg. 490-491 §” Vacuum Filter History”, Figs. 5 & 7). Particularly, separation of a solid from a slurry comprises the following steps:
Formation of a filter cake via filtration of solids through a filter, which reads on the claimed vacuum filtration step.
Washing of the cake to displace residual slurry from the pores of the filter cake, which reads on the claimed water application step.
A dewatering/drying step where air is drawn through the pores of the filter cake, which reads on the claimed vacuum drying step.
While Klepper is silent on using deionized water during their washing step, the use of deionized water to wash precipitates is considered a standard lab procedure with a well-known and predictable advantage (e.g. washing away residue and contaminants without altering the underlying chemistry of the filter precipitates).
Therefore, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate Klepper’s taught vacuum drum filter process into the combined teachings of Wang and Zhang because Klepper’s vacuum drum filter process enables the extraction, washing, and drying of Wang’s precipitates while advantageously utilizing less water compared to historical thickener-based extraction methods.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAVIER FLORES whose telephone number is (571)272-9130. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30AM-5:00PM.
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 WALKER can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/J.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights