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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1/2/11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim(s) 1/2/11 is/are directed towards a computer system (i.e. machine), an apparatus (i.e. machine) and a method (i.e. a process), respectively. Thus, each of the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories. Nevertheless, the claims fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “calculating, in response to receiving the first signals and the second signal, a first ratio regarding a material generated in the recycling process using the first data included in the first signal and the second data included in the second signal as parameters; transmitting a third signal including the calculated first ratio”.
The limitations above, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method of “calculating a ratio regarding a material generated in the recycling process” which is a method of organizing a human activity, mental process and mathematical concepts. That is, the method allows for fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); concepts performed in the human mind and mathematical relationships/formula/equations/calculations.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “a plurality of first terminals, a second terminal and a server”. The “wherein each of the plurality of first terminals is configured to transmit a first signal including a first data which includes a weight of battery packs to be recycled and a content rate of a target metal to the server; and the second terminal is configured to transmit a second signal including a second data which includes a number of battery packs to be recycled to the server” is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of receiving data), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “each of the plurality of first terminals, the second terminal and server” that performs the steps above are also recited at a high level of generality, and merely automates the steps. Each of the additional limitations is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional element(s), alone or in combination, do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it/they do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) is/are nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception on a general computer. In addition, the specification of the application as published (US 20260087462) (paragraphs 46-47) does not provide any indication that the additional elements described above are anything other than generic, off the shelf computer components, and MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collection or receipt and transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the transmitting steps are well-understood, routine, and conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
Claim(s) 2/11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “determining an ownership ratio of a plurality of companies for a predetermined substance obtained by recycling battery packs of the plurality of companies; and outputting the ownership ratio thus determined; determine the ownership ratio according to the number of the battery packs recycled within the ownership of each of the plurality of companies, a weight per unit of the battery packs, and a content rate of a target metal contained per unit of the battery packs.”.
The limitations above, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method of “calculating a ratio regarding a material generated in the recycling process” which is a method of organizing a human activity, mental process and mathematical concepts. That is, the method allows for fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); concepts performed in the human mind and mathematical relationships/formula/equations/calculations.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “a controller” claim 2 and “a computer” claim 11. The controller and computer are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps. Each of the additional limitations is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional element(s), alone or in combination, do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it/they do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s), alone or in combination, is/are nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception on a general computer.
Dependent claim(s) 9/18 is/are also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it/they further narrow(s) the abstract idea described in relation to claim 2/11 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application (terminals of the plurality of companies are recited at a high level of recitation which amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception in a computer environment) or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claim(s) 3-8, 10, 12-17 and 19 is/are also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it/they further narrow(s) the abstract idea described in relation to claim 2/11 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application or providing significantly more limitations.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Searl (US 2023/0395872) in view of Cecilia Kraft, “Modelling the flow and allocation of materials from battery recycling through production”, published by KTH in 2021, hereinafter “Kraft”, Sunday Kanshio, “a review of hydrocarbon allocation methods in the upstream oil and gas industry”, published by Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering in 2020, hereinafter “Kanshio” in view of Bashore (US 2018/0060454).
As per claim 1, Searl discloses a communication system comprising:
a plurality of first terminals ([0046] In the illustrated example, a first terminal 168 may be located at the point of sale 144 or retail location. The first terminal 168 may be communicatively connected to a battery tester 196, which may be used to determine that a battery 100 is spent or used and is ready to be recycled. The example battery tester 196 may include one or more leads to connect to the terminals, a user interface, and/or a user input device. Information from the battery tester 196 (e.g., a spent or used status of the battery, a type of battery) may be communicated to the first terminal 168. Additionally, consumer information (e.g., a name, rewards program information, incentive program information, location, etc.) may be collected and entered into the terminal 168. The data related to the battery and/or the consumer information may be communicated to the server 164 via, for example, a wireless or wired internet or intranet connection, and stored in the database 184. [0047] An old battery collection center 146 may include a second terminal 172. As described above, the collection center 146 may be used to collect and sort batteries 100 from the point of sale location(s) 144);
a second terminal ([0047] An old battery collection center 146 may include a second terminal 172. As described above, the collection center 146 may be used to collect and sort batteries 100 from the point of sale location(s) 144); and
a server ([0047] An old battery collection center 146 may include a second terminal 172. As described above, the collection center 146 may be used to collect and sort batteries 100 from the point of sale location(s) 144. In some examples, the batteries 100 may be tested using a second battery tester 200 upon arrival at the collection center 146. The battery data from the battery tester 200 may be communicated with the second terminal 172 at the collection center 146. At the collection center 146, the old batteries may be weighed using a first scale 204, either individually or as a group, and the weight data collected is also communicated with the second terminal 172. The example scale 204 is operatively connected to the second terminal 172 to communicate data measured by the scale 204 to the second terminal 172. The example scale 204 may include a display to indicate the weight, and/or may automatically communicate the weight to the server, via the terminal, for storage in the database. The second terminal 172 communicates the battery and weight data with the server 164 to store the data in the database 184. );
wherein each of the plurality of first terminals is configured to transmit a first signal including a first data including battery type and spent/used status 168 may be located at the point of sale 144 or retail location. The first terminal 168 may be communicatively connected to a battery tester 196, which may be used to determine that a battery 100 is spent or used and is ready to be recycled. The example battery tester 196 may include one or more leads to connect to the terminals, a user interface, and/or a user input device. Information from the battery tester 196 (e.g., a spent or used status of the battery, a type of battery) may be communicated to the first terminal 168. Additionally, consumer information (e.g., a name, rewards program information, incentive program information, location, etc.) may be collected and entered into the terminal 168. The data related to the battery and/or the consumer information may be communicated to the server 164 via, for example, a wireless or wired internet or intranet connection, and stored in the database 184).; and
the second terminal is configured to transmit a second signal including a second data which includes a number of battery packs to be recycled to the server ([0028] The retail outlet 144, workshop, or wholesaler may collect a plurality of spent or old batteries for delivery to a collection system or center 146. In this manner, the spent or old batteries 100 are entered into to the collection system 146, which may be a sub-process or sub-method within the closed-loop system 140 described herein. In the collection center 146, the lead acid battery may be weighed, logged into the collection system, and a recycling center or plant 148 is identified (e.g., a recycling plant 148 is selected based on factors including battery type, plant availability or capacity, proximity, etc.). Accordingly, raw data of batteries on a weight basis may be tracked. In other words, quantifiable (e.g., amount or number of batteries or weight of batteries (individually or as part of a group)) and qualitative data (e.g., vehicle batteries, industrial batteries, and their component parts) may be collected...[0047] An old battery collection center 146 may include a second terminal 172. As described above, the collection center 146 may be used to collect and sort batteries 100 from the point of sale location(s) 144. In some examples, the batteries 100 may be tested using a second battery tester 200 upon arrival at the collection center 146. The battery data from the battery tester 200 may be communicated with the second terminal 172 at the collection center 146. At the collection center 146, the old batteries may be weighed using a first scale 204, either individually or as a group, and the weight data collected is also communicated with the second terminal 172. The example scale 204 is operatively connected to the second terminal 172 to communicate data measured by the scale 204 to the second terminal 172. The example scale 204 may include a display to indicate the weight, and/or may automatically communicate the weight to the server, via the terminal, for storage in the database. The second terminal 172 communicates the battery and weight data with the server 164 to store the data in the database 184. If the batteries 100 are weighed as a group, the group may be assigned an identifying code or serial number so that data related to each specific group may be tracked. Similarly, if the battery 100 is weighed individually, the data related to the battery 100 may be aggregated into a dataset containing information for other batteries, and the dataset may be assigned a code or serial number for tracking. In some such examples, each individual battery is assigned a serial number or is tracked using a serial number assigned to the battery at the time of manufacture, and the serial numbers for the batteries in each group or associated with each dataset are tracked throughout the closed loop recycling process or system 140 described herein.);
wherein the server is configured to execute:
a recycling process ([0041] FIG. 6 shows an example system 160 that may be used to implement the example recycling process 140 described herein. The example system 160 includes at least a server 164 and one or more terminals 168-180 in communication with the server 164. The server 164 includes a database 184, and a controller 186. The controller 186 may include a processor 188 and a memory 190. The processor 188 can include a component or group of components that are configured to execute, implement, and/or perform any of the processes or functions described herein for the battery recycling process or system or a form of instructions to carry out such processes or cause such processes to be performed.)
However, Searl does not disclose but Kraft discloses
First data transmitted through a signal includes a weight of battery packs to be recycled and a content rate of a target metal and a second data transmitted through a signal which includes a number of battery packs to be recycled (table 11, “Number of received packs of battery type”, page 49, “The user could also choose to enter the number of packs, modules or cells, and the weight of each unit, instead of the total weight of the batteries”, “Received weight of black mass, and the composition of it, i.e. the weight percentage of each of the ACMs in it, could also be entered…. ACM Active cathode metal (e.g. cobalt, lithium, manganese, or nickel for NMC cells)”
A model that keeps recycled inventory allocated to customers as needed and able to calculate values such as recycled content in produced battery cells and take into account losses from production etc (abstract)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitation above as taught by Kraft in the teaching of Searl, in order to keep track of an inventory which could be allocated to customers as needed (please see Kraft abstract).
However, Searl in view of Kraft does not disclose but Kanshio discloses calculating, in response to receiving the first signals and the second signal, a first ratio regarding a material generated in the recycling process using the first data included in the first signal and the second data included in the second signal as parameters (page 7, “Proportional allocation is a conventional allocation calculation method whereby a contributing stream in a commingled production or transportation system (see Fig. 3) receives its share of the output quantity in proportion to its input contribution.” “Proportional allocation method is achieved by multiplying an allocation factor with the estimated quantity of the individual streams and allocates that stream its quantity.” Equation 8m, page 11: In the case of fiscal allocation, the contributing sources are oil and gas fields, and the contributing sources may be owned by different operators).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitation above as taught by Kanshio in the teaching of Searl in view of Kraft, in order a contributing stream in a commingled production or transportation system receives its share of the output quantity in proportion to its input contribution. The concept of proportional allocation is derived from Aristotle’s principle (please see Kanshio page 7).
However, Searl in view of Kraft and Kanshio does not explicitly disclose but Bashore discloses transmitting a third signal including the calculated first ratio to the plurality of first terminals ([0040] Users of the client devices 102, 104, 106, 108, 110 access the server device 112 to participate in the allocation model service. For example, the client devices 102, 104, 106, 108, 110 can execute web browser applications that can be used to access the allocation model service. In another example, the client devices 102, 104, 106, 108, 110 can execute software applications that are specific to the allocation model service (e.g., as “apps” running on smartphones). In other words, all of the allocation model service may be hosted and executed on the server system 112. Or in alternative aspects, a portion of the allocation model service may execute on the client devices 102, 104, 106, 108, and 110 (e.g., to receive and transmit information entered by a user of such client devices and/or to display output data from the allocation model service to the user)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitation above as taught by Bashore in the teaching of Searl in view of Kraft and Kanshio, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim(s) 2, 10-11, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cecilia Kraft, “Modelling the flow and allocation of materials from battery recycling through production”, published by KTH in 2021, hereinafter “Kraft”, Sunday Kanshio, “a review of hydrocarbon allocation methods in the upstream oil and gas industry”, published by Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering in 2020, hereinafter “Kanshio”.
As per claim 2/11, Kraft discloses an information processing apparatus including a controller configured to execute:
determining an ownership in recyclable batteries want to be guaranteed a corresponding amount of recycled content in the batteries they buy later. “, page 14, “The collection step includes the total logistics, transportation, and storage of EOL batteries from Europe (Candidate G, personal communication, 2021). Received batteries could be in the form of cells, modules or packs. Ambitious customers that hand in a lot of EOL batteries could be part of an incentive model, where they could benefit from their hand-ins when ordering new batteries with recycled content (Candidate A, personal communication, 2021).”, Page 34, “While the scrap & waste percentages cannot be disclosed for confidentiality reasons, the black mass to cell ratio was set to 60 % and the ACM to black mass ratio was set to 35 %. The weight relations were important because this analysis was only concerned with ACMs, but the model was built to take inputs in the form of cell weight. Therefore, a way to convert cell weight to actual ACM weight was required.”); and
outputting the ownership Table 15: Model outputs from the production part of the model: “Available allocated mass of recycled material from the recycling plant, of material acm, for the given customer program at the given time of delivery”);
However, Kraft does not expressly tech that the customer-specific allocation is a ratio representing one contributor’s share relative to the combined contributions of the plurality of companies. Kraft also does not expressly state that the particular value output by the model is that proportional ratio, rather than an allocated mass or another customer specific allocation value.
However, Kanshio discloses determining an ownership ratio of a plurality of companies for a predetermined substance obtained by recycling battery packs of the plurality of companies (abstract, “ Commingling of hydrocarbon from difference producing sources or streams into a shared production or transportation facilities offers a significant cost savings advantage. Usually, the operator of the shared facility would have to back allocate the total quantity of the hydrocarbon fluids received (or the imbalance) at the shared facility to all the contributing streams.”, page 7, “Proportional allocation is a conventional allocation calculation method whereby a contributing stream in a commingled production or transportation system (see Fig. 3) receives its share of the output quantity in proportion to its input contribution.” Equation 8.” Kanshio expressly teaches determining each contributor’s relative share of a common output based on that contributor’s input contribution rather than assigning an arbitrary amount).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitation above as taught by Kanshio in the teaching of Kraft, in order a contributing stream in a commingled production or transportation system receives its share of the output quantity in proportion to its input contribution. The concept of proportional allocation is derived from Aristotle’s principle (please see Kanshio page 7).
As per claim 10/19, Kraft discloses wherein the target metal comprises at least one of lithium, cobalt, nickel, and manganese (page iv, “Active cathode metal (e.g. cobalt, lithium, manganese, or nickel for NMC cells)”, page 5, ” The metals that the study commissioner will recycle are the active cathode metals (ACMs) within NMC batteries, namely cobalt, lithium, manganese, and nickel”. Page 14, “Black mass is a dry mass of grounded batteries consisting of cobalt, lithium, manganese, nickel, and graphite, among others.”).
Claim(s) 3-4 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Kraft”, “Kanshio”, as disclosed in the rejection of claim 2/11, in view of Katal (US 2023/0332272).
As per claim 3/12, the combination of Kraft and Kanshio discloses “the ownership ratio of the plurality of companies is an allocation ratio of a total weight of the target metal produced in the recycling process to the plurality of companies.” As shown in claim 1 and 2.
However, Kraft in view of Kanshio does not disclose but Katal discloses herein the recycling process comprises a process of refining a black mass produced from the battery packs to separate and produce the target metal; the predetermined substance is the target metal produced by the recycling process ([0064] In various aspects, the systems and processes disclosed herein enable the recycling of spent lithium-ion batteries to recover and separate lithium from other components/impurities contained in black mass, so that lithium-containing species are recovered. By way of example, the methods and systems of the present disclosure provide the ability to process a lithium-ion battery waste stream to separate and recover lithium (Li) from a variety of other elements, including fluorine (F), phosphorus (P), copper (Cu), aluminum (Al), iron (Fe), carbon (C) (e.g., in the form of graphite), titanium (Ti), nickel (Ni), manganese (Mn), cobalt (Co), and combinations thereof. In certain aspects, lithium is extracted from spent lithium-ion batteries (LIB) by leaching that may form lithium sulfate (Li.sub.2SO.sub.4), which can then be reacted so that lithium can be recovered as lithium carbonate (Li.sub.2CO.sub.3).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitation above as taught by Katal in the teaching of Kraft and Kanshio, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 4/13, Kraft in view of Kanshio and Katal disclose all the limitation of claim 3. Kraft discloses calculating an index value of the ownership of each of the plurality of companies by multiplying the number of the battery packs rec”, “Mass per pack of battery type rec”, “Material content expressed as percentage of the total weight of all ACMs together, for material acm, in battery type rec”, “Weight relations” it further teaches calculating battery/material mass using unit quantity and unit mass and then applying material composition/content to determine amount of recycled active cathode material. It teaches number of units x unit mass x material content rate).
However, Kraft does not disclose but Kanshio discloses setting a ratio of the index values among the plurality of companies as the allocation ratio to the plurality of companies (abstract, “Commingling of hydrocarbon from difference producing sources or streams into a shared production or transportation facilities offers a significant cost savings advantage. Usually, the operator of the shared facility would have to back allocate the total quantity of the hydrocarbon fluids received (or the imbalance) at the shared facility to all the contributing streams.”, page 7, “Proportional allocation is a conventional allocation calculation method whereby a contributing stream in a commingled production or transportation system (see Fig. 3) receives its share of the output quantity in proportion to its input contribution.” Equation 8.” Kanshio expressly teaches determining each contributor’s relative share of a common output based on that contributor’s input contribution rather than assigning an arbitrary amount)(please see claim 2 rejection for combination rationale).
Claim(s) 5 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Kraft”, “Kanshio”, as disclosed in the rejection of claim 2/11, in H.E. Bartlett, “The allocation of gold production from multiple shaft feeding a common treatment plant using run-of-mine sampling of ore deliveries”, published by The Journal of The southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy in 2014, hereinafter “Bartlett”
As per claim 5/14, Kraft discloses wherein the recycling process comprises a process of producing a black mass from the battery packs; the predetermined substance is the black mass produced by the recycling process and a total weight of the black mass produced in the recycling process (page 15, “In this step, the black mass from Hydrovolt and from the crushing & sorting in the recycling at the commissioner, are mixed with different solutions. The solutions have different pH, which cause the ACMs in the black mass to precipitate as metal sulphates of cobalt, nickel, and manganese (Candidate G, personal communication, 2021). The lithium is precipitated as lithium hydroxide (Candidate A, personal communication, 2021).”, page 34, “The proportion of scrap & waste, as well as the weight relations from black mass to cell and ACM to black mass, were estimated to values deemed reasonable by experts (Candidate H, personal communication, 2021). While the scrap & waste percentages cannot be disclosed for confidentiality reasons, the black mass to cell ratio was set to 60 % and the ACM to black mass ratio was set to 35 %. The weight relations were important because this analysis was only concerned with ACMs, but the model was built to take inputs in the form of cell weight. Therefore, a way to convert cell weight to actual ACM weight was required.”, table 11, page 49, “The user could input recycling efficiencies for the ACMs, for the different recycling steps. The user could also input desired numbers for weight relations from module to pack, cell to module, black mass to cell and ACM to black mass. With these user inputs decided, the user could input the number of batteries or weight of batteries in the form of pack, module, or cell, depending on what was received for recycling.”, “formula 10: 𝑚𝑏𝑚,𝑟𝑒𝑐 = 𝑚𝑡𝑜𝑡,𝑐𝑒𝑙𝑙,𝑟𝑒𝑐 × 𝑤𝑟𝑏𝑚/𝑐𝑒𝑙𝑙…The mass of black mass was calculated by multiplying the weight relations between cell and black mass, with the total mass of all cells, of battery types in the range of rec.).
However, Kraft does not expressly teach that the black mass itself is divided among multiple commercial entities according to allocation ratio of the total black mass output. But Kanshio discloses allocation ratio to the plurality of companies as established in claim 2 (please see claim 2 rejection for combination rationale).
However, Kraft in view of Kanshio does not disclose but Bartlett discloses “allocation ratio of a total [produced output]…to the plurality of [contributing sources]” (page 109, 113-117, “The ratios of these individual contents to the total feed to the plant are used to apportion gold delivered from these sources.” Bartlet first calculates each source contribution by multiplying the mean grade for that source by its tonnage. It then determines each individual contribution relative to the total of all source contributions. It further explains that all source specific gold quantities are added to determine the total, the ratio of each individual source to that total determines the split, and those ratios are used to divide the gold ultimately produced by the common plant among the contributing sources)
Kraft expressly recognizes an allocation problem resulting from different customers supplying recyclable battery material and already associated recycled material inventory with particular customer programs. Barlett addresses the same general accounting problem arising when material from multiple identifiable sources is combined in a common process and a common output thereafter must be attributed fairly to those sources.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have therefore had reason to apply Bartlett’s known source contribution ratio technique to Kraft’s customer associated battery recycling operation to determine each customer’s proportional share of the total black mass produced from the combined processing operation. The modification would predictably provide a transparent allocation of the total black mass according to the respective contributor’s calculated interests.
Claim(s) 6-8 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Kraft”, “Kanshio”, Bartlett, as disclosed in the rejection of claim 5/14, in view of Steffen Kiemel, “Assessing the Application-Specific Substitutability of Lithium-Ion Battery Cathode Chemistries Based on Material Criticality, Performance, and Price”, published by Resources in 2021, hereinafter “Kiemel”.
As per claim 6/15, Kraft discloses ownership of each of the plurality of companies (table 18, page 44, “The range consisting of each active cathode metal along with the total cathode and the total cell (but not other parts making up the totals) is denoted with the index “acmt”. The indexes of the different materials can be seen in Table 6. They will later be used in the description of user inputs and model outputs, as well as in equations and formulas. Note that when formulas are explained in words later, they may say e.g. “[...] of material acm”. That means that the same calculation was executed for all materials in the range acm.” Table 10, “Material content expressed as percentage of the total weight of all ACMs together, for material acm, in battery type rec”, page 49, “If the user wanted to add a received battery with other chemistries than the existing ones, the user could simply add the percentage of the ACMs in the cathode, and the weight of the packs, modules, or cells of that custom battery type. The user could also choose to enter the number of packs, modules or cells, and the weight of each unit, instead of the total weight of the batteries.” The model expressly stores and operates on separate percentage content rates for multiple individual target metals in a received battery type”, )
𝑚𝑝,𝑟𝑛,𝑟𝑒𝑐 = 𝑛𝑝,𝑟𝑒𝑐 × 𝑚𝑝𝑢𝑝,𝑟𝑒𝑐 Kraft explains “Mass of packs, modules and cells received in numbers, of battery type rec, were calculated by multiplying the number of units received with the weight per unit, respectively.”. Kraft further teaches multiplication by a metal content quantity formula 13 includes : 𝑚𝑟𝑏,𝑟𝑜,𝑎𝑐𝑚 = 𝑟𝑒𝑓,𝑎𝑐𝑚 × 𝛴𝑟𝑒𝑐(𝑚𝐴𝐶𝑀,𝑟𝑒𝑐 × 𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑐,𝑎𝑐𝑚) , it explains “The total mass of the outflow of recycled materials within acm, from the received batteries, was calculated by multiplying the full recycling efficiency for the relevant material acm with a sum. That sum was calculated by multiplying the total weight of all ACMs together in battery type rec, with the material content of the same battery rec of the relevant material acm, after which that product for each battery rec was added to the sum.”. Kraft makes the resulting recycling quantity customer specific. “For each tsb and for each acm for the current customer program, the allocated mass of recycled material from the recycling plant in the inventory was calculated by adding the total recycled outflow from the recycling plant to the current allocated mass of recycled material acm.” Accordingly, Kraft teaches a customer specific quantitative contribution calculation based on pack number x unit weight x metal content.)
However, Kraft does not disclose the weighted sum of the two or more kinds of target metals contained per unit of the battery packs nor does it disclose calculating an index value of the ownership.
But, Kanshio discloses setting a ratio of the index values among the plurality of companies as the allocation ratio to the plurality of companies (abstract, “Commingling of hydrocarbon from difference producing sources or streams into a shared production or transportation facilities offers a significant cost savings advantage. Usually, the operator of the shared facility would have to back allocate the total quantity of the hydrocarbon fluids received (or the imbalance) at the shared facility to all the contributing streams.”, page 7, “Proportional allocation is a conventional allocation calculation method whereby a contributing stream in a commingled production or transportation system (see Fig. 3) receives its share of the output quantity in proportion to its input contribution.” Equation 8.” Kanshio expressly teaches determining each contributor’s relative share of a common output based on that contributor’s input contribution rather than assigning an arbitrary amount)(please see claim 2 rejection for combination rationale)(Bartlett also discloses setting a ratio of the index values among the plurality of companies as the allocation ratio to the plurality of companies because it calculates a separate metal contribution for each source from the source’s tonnage and grade and then expressly states that “The ratios of these individual contents to the total feed to the plant are used to apportion gold delivered from these sources.”).
However, Kraft in view of Kanshio still does not disclose but Kiemel discloses calculating a weight sum of content rates of two or more kinds of target metals (Kiemel expressly states that the contained elements of LiB cathode chemistries are individually assessed and then aggregated according to their material shares. Kiemel’s table 2 provides different material shares for lithium, nickel, manganese, and cobalt containing cathode chemistries. It explains that the elemental values are aggregated by “weighing the obtained values by mass shares of the respective raw material (or precursor material) within the considered cathode chemistries.)” page 7. Kiemel also describes multiplying the element specific scores by the corresponding material shares to obtain the cathode level value. Page 2, “The stated numbers define the mass percentages of the respective materials. For example, the label NMC 532 indicates that the cathode comprises five parts nickel, three parts manganese, and two parts cobalt. The percentage after the code NCA (nickel cobalt aluminum oxide) describes the material share of cobalt within the cathode [9].” Page 4, “in the cathode composition remains constant for all versions of NMC and NCA LIBs [8]. For assessing the raw material criticality of the considered cathode chemistries, the contained elements are individually assessed and later on aggregated by their material shares”, page 7, “The results on the elemental level (supply risk, environmental impact, social implications) are aggregated to the cathode-specific technology level. This is done by weighing the obtained values by mass shares of the respective raw material (or precursor material) within the considered cathode chemistries. This approach to calculating the criticality of material compounds or products is accepted in the scientific community [30–32].”, page 15, “WGI-CC, and the FSI-R [48,51,54]. The results concerning the criticality of the individual elements were merged according to the approach described in Sections 2.1 and 2.2. By multiplying the scores in the three dimensions per element with the respective material shares in the cathode chemistries (compare Table 2), absolute values per dimension and cathode chemistry were obtained. Figure 5a illustrates the corresponding results. By combining the weighting obtained from the AHP process, the dimensions were summed to one weighted criticality value per cathode chemistry” Kiemel therefore discloses material share x element – specific value for the individual elements and aggregates the resulting weighted constituent values at the cathode level.)
The weighted sum of the two or more kinds of target metals contained per unit of the battery packs (Kraft supplies the number of the battery packs recycled within the ownership of each of the plurality of companies and the weight per unit of the battery packs (Npacks x Wpack). Kraft then multiplying battery derived materials quantity by a metal content term. Kiemel’s weighted multi metal value is used in place of Kraft’s individual metal content value).
Kraft expressly maintains separate content percentages for the individual active cathode metals and already calculates recycled quantities based upon battery mass and constituent metal content. Kiemel addresses the same LiB cathode material context and expressly teaches aggregating individual element values at the cathode level by multiplying them by their respective material shares.
It would have been obvious to employ Kiemel’s known multi element aggregation technique with Kraft’s already maintained Co/Li/Mn/Ni content percentages when a single composite measure reflecting multiple valuable/critical metals was desired. The modification predictably substitutes Kiemel’s aggregated weighted multi metal content value for Kraft’s individual metal content value in Kraft’s existing mass/content calculation.
As per claim 7/16, Kraft, Kanshio, Bartlett and Kiemel disclose all the limitations of claim 6/15. The claim requires “wherein a weighting value used in calculating the weighted sum is set to be larger as a market value of each of the two or more kinds of target metals is higher.” Kraft discloses that market/economic value differs among the relevant target metals and is important to their recycling (page 12, “The main targets of the recycling of LIBs are the metals within the cathode, which in the case of an NMC battery are cobalt, lithium, manganese, and nickel.”, “This is mainly because of their high economic value, especially that of cobalt. However, the recovery of cathode material is complicated and requires several steps before the hydrometallurgical refinery.” Therefore, Kraft does not disclose “a weighting value used in calculating the weighted sum is set to be larger as a market value…is higher”.
However, Kiemel disclose a weighting value used in calculating the weighted sum is set to be larger as a market value…is higher (expressly performs price calculations at the individual raw material level and aggregates those values according to the material content/share of the cathode (page 10, “Identifying costs of raw materials represents a difficult task, as the raw material market is highly volatile and depends on numerous impact factors. In order to integrate the dimension “cost of the substitute”, five indicators are introduced. These are expected to cover the current price of the substitute as well as the potential future development based on historical data… Data for the introduced indicators are obtained on a raw material level, not for specific cathode materials,” “Once more, the aggregation to the product level (cathode chemistry) is based on the material shares (compare Table 2). The current price of the commodities refers to the average price in 2019 [68].” Kiemel obtains a different commodity price value for the individual raw materials and aggregates those raw material values to the battery cathode level according to their respective material shares. “ page 17, “The decrease in cobalt shares in cathodes results in significant price drops (on a raw material level). The price increase resulting from the evolution from NMC 532 to NMC 811 represents an intriguing finding. This is due to the fact that nickel is more expensive than manganese. Although the share of cobalt is decreased from 20% to 10%, the accompanying monetary benefit cannot compensate for the additional costs originating from the increase in the nickel share from 50% to 80% at the cost of a decreasing manganese share. LCO is by far the most expensive cathode chemistry due to the significant amounts of cobalt the cathode is comprised of.” Kiemel shows that the actual effect of using a material’s market price together with its material share increases the amount of the more expensive metal nickel relative to manganese increases the resulting price; decreasing expensive cobalt decreases the price and high cobalt content results in high cathode price))(please see claim 6 rejection for combination rationale).
As per claim 8/17, Kraft discloses
While Kraft discloses that different battery metals possess differing scarcity or supply risk characteristics it does not teach assigning those rarity/supply risk values as the actual weighting coefficients in a weight sum.
However, Kiemel discloses a weighting value used in calculating the weighted sum is set to be larger as [that material specific risk] value…is higher(“page 11 “The color-coded scale, as depicted in Figure 3, reaches from green (least critical = transformed value of 0 per indicator) to red (most critical = transformed value of 100 per indicator). ”)… The results for the individual material criticality assessments are illustrated in Figure 4. Compared with the other considered elements, cobalt is assessed with the highest supply risk, directly followed by lithium.” Thus, more critical/greater supply risk = larger numerical score…page 14, “The high supply risk of lithium is only surpassed by that of cobalt. The concentration risk of lithium is extremely high, as, in 2019, 60% of the world’s lithium supply was produced in Australia (2019) [24]. However, it has to be stated that the political risk in the lithium-producing countries is rather low [40–42]. The future technology demand is scored with the highest possible value. This is mainly due to the expected increasing demand for LIBs [44]. Additionally, the recyclability of lithium is assessed as highly critical [46].” For manganese, page 14, “Furthermore, the static reach of the identified reserves is comparatively low (44 years) [24]. In summary, this ranks manganese in fourth place (out of seven) concerning the supply risk dimension.”, for nickel “Worth mentioning is the short static reach of reserves (41 years), but even more the static reach of resources. A static reach of resources of approximately 60 years is by far the shortest of the considered elements (the second-shortest static reach of resources is that of cobalt with around 220 years) [24].” Page 15, “The results concerning the criticality of the individual elements were merged according to the approach described in Sections 2.1 and 2.2. By multiplying the scores in the three dimensions per element with the respective material shares in the cathode chemistries (compare Table 2), absolute values per dimension and cathode chemistry were obtained. Figure 5a illustrates the corresponding results. By combining the weighting obtained from the AHP process, the dimensions were summed to one weighted criticality value per cathode chemistry (compare Figure 5b).” Kiemel does not merely calculate these scores, it uses the individual element scores as multiplicative values in the composition calculation)(please see claim 6 rejection for combination rationale).
Claim(s) 9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cecilia Kraft, “Modelling the flow and allocation of materials from battery recycling through production”, published by KTH in 2021, hereinafter “Kraft”, Sunday Kanshio, “a review of hydrocarbon allocation methods in the upstream oil and gas industry”, published by Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering in 2020, hereinafter “Kanshio”, as disclosed in the rejection of claim 2/11, and Bashore (US 2018/0060454).
As per claim 9/18, Kraft in view of Kanshio discloses outputting the ownership ratio as shown in claim 2. Kraft in view of Kanshio does not disclose but Bashore discloses transmitting a signal for outputting the ownership ratio to terminals of the plurality of companies ([0040] Users of the client devices 102, 104, 106, 108, 110 access the server device 112 to participate in the allocation model service. For example, the client devices 102, 104, 106, 108, 110 can execute web browser applications that can be used to access the allocation model service. In another example, the client devices 102, 104, 106, 108, 110 can execute software applications that are specific to the allocation model service (e.g., as “apps” running on smartphones). In other words, all of the allocation model service may be hosted and executed on the server system 112. Or in alternative aspects, a portion of the allocation model service may execute on the client devices 102, 104, 106, 108, and 110 (e.g., to receive and transmit information entered by a user of such client devices and/or to display output data from the allocation model service to the user)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitation above as taught by Bashore in the teaching of Kraft and Kanshio, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR ZEROUAL whose telephone number is (571)272-7255. The examiner can normally be reached Flex schedule.
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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached at (571) 272-6782. 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.
OMAR . ZEROUAL
Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/OMAR ZEROUAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights