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 .
This action is responsive to the amendment filed on October 15, 2015.
Claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-20 are pending.
The rejection of claims 1, 3-6 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tsang et al is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
The rejection of claims 2 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsang et al in view of Yabuki et al is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
The rejection of claims 8-8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsang et al in view of Guo et al is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
The rejection of claims 10-14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsang et al in view of Yabuki et al is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
The rejection of claims 15-16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsang et al in view of Yabuki et al in view of Guo et al is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
The rejection of claims 17-18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsang et al in view of Guo et al is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
The rejection of claims 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsang et al in view of Guo et al in view of Yan et al is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sloop (US Patent Application 2017/0200989 (already of record)).
Regarding claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-18, Sloop teaches a method of recycling a positive electrode material of a battery comprising harvesting a used electrode material, thrash in basic medium, collect solids, rinse solids, dry solids, grind solids, remove carbon, relithiate with lithium ions with oxidizing agent, collect solids, rinse solids (Fig. 1). Sloop further teaches an aluminum support (Paragraph 26). Sloop further teaches the basic medium may be a liquid medium in which the positive electrode material is suspended, i.e. aqueous solution; in one embodiment, the positive electrode material is suspended in water basified with lithium hydroxide….In some examples, an oxidizing agent such as LiClO, hydrogen peroxide, lithium peroxide may be included in this solution (Paragraph 26). Sloop further teaches the relithiation step comprises heating the positive electrode material in the in an autoclave comprising relithiation solution under pressure (Paragraph 35). Sloop further teaches harvesting a used electrode material comprising disassembly of one or more batteries and removal of the electrode material therein (Paragraph 23).
Sloop teaches the limitations of the instant claims; hence, Sloop anticipates the claims.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Guo et al (CN105098281 (already of record)).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 5, 7, Guo et al teaches a method for recovering cathode material from spent batteries comprising physically disassembling the discharged waste battery, removing the electrode sheet, cut into 10cm long sections and rinse with water (Paragraph 10). Guo et al further teaches add the positive electrode sheet to a mixed solution of lithium nitrate and lithium hydroxide solution, heat and stir for 0.5-2 hours, pass the material through a 2.5-10 mesh sieve, the material on the sieve is the current collector and the material under the sieve is a mixture of the positive electrode material and conductive agent (Paragraph 11). Guo et al further teaches aluminum support (Example 1). Guo et al further teaches collecting the solids, washing with water and drying, passing through sieve again and calcining (Example 1).
Guo et al teaches the limitation of the instant claims; hence, Guo et al anticipates the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al (CN105098281 (already of record)) as applied to claims 1, 3, 5, 7 above, and further in view of He et al (CN101692510).
Regarding claim 2, Guo et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Guo et al teaches the features above. However, Guo et al fails to specifically disclose thrashing the material in the solution.
In the same field of endeavor, He et al teaches a separation process for a waste lithium battery electrode (Paragraph 2). He et al further teaches separation by impact sieving (which satisfies claimed thrashing) (Example 2).
With regard to thrashing the material in the solution, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided thrashing the material in the solution in Guo et al in view of He et al in order to ensure separation of the electrode material from the support.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al (CN105098281 (already of record)) as applied to claims 1, 3, 5, 7 above, and in further view of Yabuki et al (JP10-255862 (already of record)).
Regarding claim 6, Guo et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Guo et al teaches the features above. However, Guo et al fails to specifically disclose grinding the electrode material.
In the same field of endeavor, Yabuki et al teaches separating an electrode material from the current collecting body (Abstract). Yabuki et al further teaches pulverizing the electrode material (Paragraph 44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided pulverizing the electrode material in order to produce a finer/smaller sized electrode material.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al (CN105098281 (already of record)) as applied to claims 1, 3, 5, 7 above.
Regarding claims 8-9, Guo et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Guo et al teaches the features above. However, Guo et al fails to specifically disclose a further step relithiating the electrode material.
With regard to further step relithiating the electrode material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a further step of relithiating the electrode material in Guo et al as Guo et al teaches the lithiation step as the same as the basic solution, the transposition of process steps or the splitting of one step into two, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held to not patentably distinguish the processes, see Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 159 (PO BdPatApp 1959).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sloop (US Patent Application 2017/0200989 (already of record)) as applied to claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-18 above, and in further view of Yan et al (CN102368560 (already of record)).
Regarding claims 19-20, Sloop discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Sloop teaches the features above. However, Sloop fails to specifically disclose an ionic liquid in the solution.
In the same field of endeavor, Yan et al teaches a method for recovering an electrode material of a battery (Abstract). Yan et al further teaches using an ionic liquid as a solvent in order to separate the active material from the current collector and conductive additive (Paragraph 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provide an ionic liquid in the solution in Sloop in view of Yan et al in order to ensure separation of the electrode material with the current collector and to separate the electrode material from the conductive additive.
Claims 10-11, 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al (CN105098281 (already of record)) in view of He et al (CN101692510).
Regarding claims 10-11, 13-18, Guo et al teaches a method for recovering cathode material from spent batteries comprising physically disassembling the discharged waste battery, removing the electrode sheet, cut into 10cm long sections and rinse with water (Paragraph 10). Guo et al further teaches add the positive electrode sheet to a mixed solution of lithium nitrate and lithium hydroxide solution, heat and stir for 0.5-2 hours, pass the material through a 2.5-10 mesh sieve, the material on the sieve is the current collector and the material under the sieve is a mixture of the positive electrode material and conductive agent (Paragraph 11). Guo et al further teaches aluminum support (Example 1). Guo et al further teaches collecting the solids, washing with water and drying, passing through sieve again and calcining (Example 1). However, Guo et al fails to specifically disclose thrashing the material in the solution and a further step relithiating the electrode material.
In the same field of endeavor, He et al teaches a separation process for a waste lithium battery electrode (Paragraph 2). He et al further teaches separation by impact sieving (which satisfies claimed thrashing) (Example 2).
With regard to thrashing the material in the solution, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided thrashing the material in the solution in Guo et al in view of He et al in order to ensure separation of the electrode material from the support.
With regard to further step relithiating the electrode material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a further step of relithiating the electrode material in Guo et al as Guo et al teaches the lithiation step as the same as the basic solution, the transposition of process steps or the splitting of one step into two, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held to not patentably distinguish the processes, see Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 159 (PO BdPatApp 1959).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al (CN105098281 (already of record)) in view of He et al (CN101692510) as applied to claims 10-11, 13-18 above, and in further view of Yan et al (CN102368560 (already of record)).
Regarding claims 19-20, Guo et al and He et al disclose the invention substantially as claimed. Guo et and He et al teach the features above. However, Guo et al and He et al fail to specifically disclose an ionic liquid in the solution.
In the same field of endeavor, Yan et al teaches a method for recovering an electrode material of a battery (Abstract). Yan et al further teaches using an ionic liquid as a solvent in order to separate the active material from the current collector and conductive additive (Paragraph 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provide an ionic liquid in the solution in Guo et and He et al in view of Yan et al in order to ensure separation of the electrode material with the current collector and to separate the electrode material from the conductive additive.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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 TANISHA DIGGS whose telephone number is (571)270-7730. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Tuesday and Friday, 9:00AM-5:30PM.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at (571) 272-2817. 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.
/TANISHA DIGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761 January 30, 2026