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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 6-9, filed November 26, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 3-11, and 13-15 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Fujita et al. (JP 2011094227 A), Jaunsen ("The Behavior and Capabilities of Lithium Hydroxide Carbon Dioxide Scrubbers in a Deep Sea Environment". US Naval Academy Technical Report. USNA-TSPR-157, 1989), Weimer ("Fluidized Bed Reactor Processes", Carbide, Nitride and Boride Materials Synthesis and Processing, pp. 169-180, 1997), He et al. (US 2014/0077818 A1), and Su et al. (US 2018/0102543 A1).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 3-7, 9-11, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita et al. (JP 2011094227 A; all citations refer to attached English translation) in view of Jaunsen ("The Behavior and Capabilities of Lithium Hydroxide Carbon Dioxide Scrubbers in a Deep Sea Environment". US Naval Academy Technical Report. USNA-TSPR-157, 1989).
Regarding claim 1, Fujita teaches a method of recovering a lithium precursor comprising preparing a cathode active material including a lithium composite oxide (lithium manganate spinel); reacting the material with a carbon-based solid material (carbon black) in an inert atmosphere (nitrogen) that does not include an oxidizing or reducing gas at 850-1000 °C, which falls within the range of the instant claim, to form a mixture containing lithium oxide; and washing the mixture to separate the lithium precursor (lithium leaching operation) (Fujita [0027]-[0033] and [0007]).
Fujita does not teach that the washing treatment is performed in a carbon-dioxide free atmosphere. Jaunsen teaches that lithium hydroxide reacts with carbon dioxide to form lithium carbonate (Jaunsen Discussion of Theory). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to perform the washing treatment in a CO2-free environment in order to avoid converting the lithium hydroxide back to lithium carbonate.
Regarding claim 3, modified Fujita gives examples at 850 and 1000 °C (Fujita Table 2), which falls within the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 4, modified Fujita does not teach that the lithium carbonate in the mixture is 1/10 or less relative to the weight of lithium oxide. Fujita teaches that the reaction is at 850 and 1000 °C (Fujita Table 2), and applicant has indicated that reaction temperatures above 840 °C result in less than 10% lithium carbonate (Table 1 of the instant specification). The reaction products of modified Fujita are therefore assumed to contain less than 10% lithium carbonate relative to lithium oxide.
Regarding claim 5, the carbon-based material is carbon black (Fujita [0029]).
Regarding claim 6, the inert gas comprises nitrogen (Fujita [0029]).
Regarding claim 7, the cathode material and carbon-based material are mixed without the addition of a solvent (i.e. dry-mixed) (Fujita [0029] and [0014]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Fujita teaches a cathode material:carbon ratio of 100:10 to 100:40 (10:1 to 2.5:1) (Fujita [0022]), which overlaps the range of the instant claim. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select an appropriate amount in the range disclosed by Fujita, including values within the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 10, modified Fujita teaches that the leaching (i.e. washing) step converts some of the lithium oxide to lithium hydroxide) (Fujita [0007]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Fujita teaches that the manganese component is not dissolved in the leaching process (Fujita [0031]-[0033]), so it must necessarily be precipitated in the residue.
Regarding claim 14, the cathode material is obtained from a waste lithium secondary battery (Fujita [0027]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita in view of Jaunsen as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Weimer ("Fluidized Bed Reactor Processes", Carbide, Nitride and Boride Materials Synthesis and Processing, pp. 169-180, 1997).
Fujita does not teach the use of a fluidized bed reactor. Weimer teaches that fluidized beds proved superior heat transfer and mixing conditions for carbothermal reduction (i.e. reacting with carbon-based reactants at elevated temperatures) (Weimer APPLICATION TO CARBOTHERMAL REDUCTION PROCESSES). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to perform the carbothermal reduction of Fujita in a fluidized bed in order to improve heat transfer and mixing conditions.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita in view of Jaunsen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of He et al. (US 2014/0077818 A1).
Regarding claim 13, modified Fujita does not teach a cathode active material of the claimed formula. Modified Fujita teaches the use of lithium manganate of the form LiMn2O4 (Fujita [0003]), and that the material may include Mn, Ni, Co, and Li (Fujita [0012]). He teaches that common lithium manganate active materials include LiMn2O4 and LiNiMnO4 (He [0020]). LiMn2O4 and LiNiMnO4 are therefore art-recognized equivalents for the same purpose, and substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.06 II). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to replace LiMnO4 with LiNiMnO4 (Chemical Formula 1 of the instant claim with x=0.5, a=0.5, b=0, M=Mn, and y=2, each of which falls within the range of the instant claim) in the method of modified Fujita, since both are manganate active materials.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita in view of Jaunsen as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Su et al. (US 2018/0102543 A1).
Regarding claim 15, preparing the mixture comprises separating the cathode from lithium battery waste and pulverizing the material (Fujita [0027] and [0016]). Modified Fujita does not teach that the cathode includes active material, a binder, and conductive material, or that the pulverization separates the material from a current collector. Su teaches that cathodes typically include an active material, a binder, and a conductive additive coated on a current collector. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to apply the methods of Fujita to any conventional cathode, including a typical cathode described by Su, and pulverizing such a cathode would necessarily separate active material from the current collector.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES A CORNO JR whose telephone number is (571)270-0745. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571) 272-3433. 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.A.C/ Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722