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. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Claim Objections Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 23, line 2 – amend “30°C to 120°C” to “30 °C to 120 °C” to ensure consistency with claim 22 Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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. Claim s 13 -15, 22, 24-25, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 FILLIN "Insert either \“(a)(1)\” or \“(a)(2)\” or both. If paragraph (a)(2) of 35 U.S.C. 102 is applicable, use form paragraph 7.15.01.aia, 7.15.02.aia or 7.15.03.aia where applicable." \d "[ 2 ]" (a)(1) as being FILLIN "Insert either—clearly anticipated—or—anticipated—with an explanation at the end of the paragraph." \d "[ 3 ]" anticipated by Chen et al. (CN 109536713 A) (Chen) . The Applicant has provided a machine translation of the Abstract of Chen with the IDS filed 09/23/2022. The Examiner has provided a machine translation of the Description and Claims of Chen. The citation of the prior art in this Office Action refers to the provided machine translations and documents. Regarding claim 13, Chen discloses a method for separating (i.e., a method for recycling) a cathode (i.e., electrode) active material and an aluminum foil (i.e., a current collector) of a waste lithium ion battery by using ionic liquid comprising placing lithium ion battery positive electrode sheets ( i.e., at least one electrode) in an ionic liquid and ultrasonically oscillating (i.e., in the presence of ultrasounds) at a normal temperature to obtain the aluminum foil and a black solid powder (i.e., the active material; the active material is separated from the current collector) (Chen, p. 2, lines 47-48; p. 3, lines 1-6). Regarding claim 14, Chen discloses the limitations of claim 13, as discussed above. Chen further disclosing the ionic liquid provides the high-efficiency separation of the positive active material and the aluminum foil by using the ultrasonic enhanced ionic liquid to dissolve the polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) binder of the positive electrode of the used battery (i.e., wherein at least one electrode further comprises a battery; the binder is separated from the current collector during ultrasound treatment in ionic liquid) (Chen, p. 4, lines 15-18). Regarding claim 15, Chen discloses the limitations of claim 13, as discussed above. Chen further disclosing the ionic liquid is 1-butyl-3-methylimidazolium acetate ([ Bmim ][Ac]) or 1-ethyl-3-methylimidizolium acetate ([ Emim ][Ac]) (i.e., the solvent ionic lquid comprises a cation of the family: imidazolium) (Chen, p. 3, lines 15-17). Regrading claims 22 and 24- 25, Chen discloses the limitations of claim 13, as discussed above. Chen further disclosing the ultrasonic vibration occurs at room temperature (i.e., 25 °C) for 5 to 20 minutes (Chen, p. 4, lines 27-29). Regarding claim 30, Chen discloses the limitations of claim 13, as discussed above. Chen further disclosing treating lithium ion battery positive electrode sheets (i.e., a plurality of electrodes is provided, said electrodes being identical) (Chen, p. 3, lines 1-3). 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. 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. Claim s 16-19 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Larsson et al. (Selective extraction of metals using ionic liquids for nickel metal hydride battery recycling) (Larsson). The Examiner has provided the non-patent literature, Larsson, and the citation of the prior art in this Office Action refers to the provided documents. Regarding claims 16-19 and 29, Chen teaches the limitations of claims 13 and15, as discussed above. Chen does not teach the ionic liquid comprises a cation of ammonium or phosphonium and a chloride anion (i.e., a halide); the solvent ionic liquid is [P66614][Cl] ; and the ionic liquid solution comprises one or more additional ionic liquids. With respect to the difference, Larsson teaches a separation scheme for the recycling of metal values from nickel metal hydride batteries using ionic liquids (Larsson, Abstract). Larson further teaching ionic liquids trihexyl (tetradecyl)phosphonium chloride ( Cyphos IL 101) (i.e., anion is chloride and the cation is phosphonium; [P66614][Cl]) and tricaprylmethylammonium chloride ( Aliquat 336) (i.e., anion is chloride and the cation is ammonium) were used for the extraction of cobalt, manganese, iron, and zinc from a rare earth and nickel metal-loaded liquor (e.g., an electrolyte solution from a spent battery) (Larson, Abstract) . Larson further teaching Cyphos IL 101 and Aliquat 336 extract transition metals, except nickel, in an initial step as compared to previous work where rare earths were extracted together with transition metals in a single step. This allows for fewer processes steps that previously would have been needed to separate the rare earths from the transition metals (Larsson, p. 4596, left Col., lines 24-31). Larsson expressly teaching the direct application of an ionic liquid to recover manganese, cobalt, iron, and zinc (i.e., transition metals) is more efficient than using previous solvents as it allows for simplified purification of rare earths due to the inherent benefits of using ionic liquids as the extracting phase such as negligible vapor pressure. Larsson is analogous art as it is drawn to recycling the electrolyte of spent batteries to recover metal values for future purposes and applications . In light of the disclosure of extraction of transition metals from rare earth containing solutions taught by Larsson, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use trihexyl (tetradecyl)phosphonium chloride (i.e., [P66614][Cl]) or tricaprylmethylammonium chloride ionic liquids of Larson as an additional ionic liquid to the ionic liquid of Chen (i.e., the ionic liquid solution comprises one or more additional ionic liquids), in order to allow for the extract ion of transition metals and transition metal ions that would be released from the electrode as the binder is dissolved by the ionic liquid of Chen, allowing for efficient recovery, separation, and recycling of released transition metals and rare earths previously attached to non-treated spent electrodes, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention. Claim s 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Wang et al. (A low-toxicity and high-efficiency deep eutectic solvent for the separation of aluminum foil and cathode materials from spent lithium-ion batteries) (Wang) . The Applicant provided the non-patent literature with the IDS filed 09/23/2022. The citation of the prior art refers to the provided document. Regarding claims 20 and 21, Chen teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Chen does not teach the ionic liquid solvent forms a deep eutectic solvent wherein the deep eutectic solvent is a mixture of choline chloride and ethylene glycol. With respect to the difference, Wang teaches a low-toxicity, high-efficiency, and low cost deep eutectic solvent (DES), choline chloride-glycerol, was synthesized and applied to the separation of Al foil and cathode materials in spent lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) (Wang, Abstract). Wang further teaching the DES was synthesized by stirring a mixture of choline chloride and glycerol until dissolved and then the cathode electrodes from spend LIBs was placed into the DES and allowed to react. After the reaction, the Al foil and cathode materials were separated manually after dissolution of the PVDF (i.e., the binder) (Wang, 2.2). Wang expressly teaching the peeling percentage of cathode materials can reach 99.86 wt% caused by the deactivation of the organic binder PVDF, which can be attributed to an alkali degradation process caused by the attack of the hydroxide of choline chloride on the acidic hydrogen atom of PVDF (Wang, Abstract). Wang is analogous art as it is drawn to a method for the separation of active materials from a current collector (i.e., Al foil) that make up a spent electrode from a lithium-ion battery. In light of the motivation of Wang, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include choline chloride and glycerol of Wang in the ionic solvent of Chen, in order to form a deep eutectic solvent within the ionic liquid and to enhance the separation of the active materials from the Al foils by aiding the dissolution of organic binders in Chen and thereby arrive at the claimed invention. Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Guo et al. ( CN 102368560 A ) (Guo). The Examiner has provided a machine translation of the Description and Claims of Guo. The citation of the prior art in this Office Action refers to the provided machine translations and documents Regarding claim 23, Chen teaching the limitations of claim 22, as discussed above. Chen does not teach the ultrasonic vibration to be carried out at a temperature ranging from 30 °C to 120 °C. With respect to the difference, Guo teaches a method for recycling electrode materials of batteries (Guo, p. 1, line 16) including dissolving an electrode material of a battery to be recovered by an ionic liquid (Guo, p. 2, lines 1-5). Guo further teaching the dissolution temperature may be 50 °C to 200 °C, specifically 120 °C (Guo, p. 2, lines 39-40). Guo is analogous art as it is drawn to a similar method as the claimed invention and the method of Chen for the separation and recycling of electrode materials. In light of the disclosure of Guo, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a heat between 50 °C and 120 °C as taught by Guo to the ultrasonic vibration of Chen, in order to aid in the dissolution of the polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) binder in Chen allow ing for faster separation of active materials from the current collector in Chen, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention. Claim s 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Zheng et al. ( A Mini-Review on Metal Recycling from Spent Lithium Ion Batteries ) (Zheng). The Applicant provided the non-patent literature, Zheng, with the IDS filed 09/23/2022. The citation of the prior art in this Office Action refers to the provided documents. Regarding claims 26-28, Chen teaches the limitations of claim 13, as discussed above. Chen does not teach the power of the ultrasounds ranges from 0.5 to 16 kW; and the frequency of the ultrasounds is between 16 KHz and 50 KHz. With respect to the difference, Zheng teaches a review of the state-of-the-art processes for metal recycling from spent lithium ion batteries (LIBs) (Zheng, Abstract). Zheng further teaching it is difficult to remove cathode materials from aluminum foil during the recycling of spent LIBs because of the strong adhesive force of the PVDF binder. Zheng further teaching it is known in the art that ultrasonic treatment is considered to be an effective method for stripping cathode material from aluminum foil because of it cavitation effect. The cavitation effect of ultrasonic cleaning can generate pressure to destroy insoluble material and disperse them in water (i.e., solvent). The rinsing effect of mechanical agitation further promotes the separation of cathode (i.e., active material) materials from the collector (i.e., current collector) (Zheng, 3.1.3.). Zheng is analogous art as it is reviewing the progress of the art into the recycling of spent LIBs including the recycling of spent cathode (i.e., electrode) materials. In light of the disclosure of the cavitation effect of ultrasonic cleaning, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use variable ultrasound power, including 0.5 to 16 kW, and variable frequency of the ultrasounds, including 16 KHz to 50 KHz , in Chen, in order to generate variable pressure to aid in dissolution of electrode binding material and promote the separation of active material from the Al foil in Chen, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . Claim s 13 and 15-25 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 15 and 18-25 of copending Application No. 18/000059 ( Billy et al. ). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because : The instant application requires “ A method for recycling at least one electrode comprising the following successive steps: a) providing at least one electrode comprising a current collector and an active material, b) immersing the at least one electrode in an ionic liquid solution, comprising a solvent ionic liquid, in the presence of ultrasounds, whereby the active material is separated from the current collector ” (Claim 13). While Billy et al. requires “A method for selectively separating a carbon-containing material from a mixture comprising a positive electrode and a negative electrode originating from electrochemical cells or accumulators, the method comprising the following successive steps: a) providing a mixture comprising a positive electrode and a negative electrode, each electrode comprising a current collector, an active material and a binder, the active material of the negative electrode being a carbon- containing material, b) contacting the mixture comprising the positive electrode and the negative electrode with a separation solution, in the presence of ultrasound, the separation solution comprising a solvent, until selectively separating the carbon-containing material from the current collector of the negative electrode, the active material of the positive electrode remaining secured to the current collector of the positive electrode.” (Billy et al., Claim 15) and “The method according to claim 15, wherein the solution is an ionic liquid solution comprising a solvent ionic liquid” (Billy et al., Claim 18), which corresponds to the limitations of the present claim 13. Billy et al. additionally requires “The method according to claim 18, wherein the solvent ionic liquid comprises a cation and an anion, the cation being selected from one of the following families: imidazolium, pyrrolidinium, ammonium, piperidinium and phosphonium and the anion being selected from halides, bis( trifluoromethanesulfonyl )imide (CF 3 SO 2 ) 2 N - , bis( fluorosulfonyl )imide (FSO 2 ) 2 N - , trifluoromethanesulfonate , tris(pentafluoroethyl) trifluorophosphate and bis( oxalato )borate anions.” (Billy et al, Claim 19), which corresponds to the limitations of the present claims 15 and 17. Billy et al. additionally requires “ The method according to claim 19, wherein the anion is a chloride, in combination with an ammonium or phosphonium cation. ” (Billy et al., Claim 20), which corresponds to the limitations of the present claims 16 and 18. Billy et al. additionally requires “ The method according to claim 20, wherein the solvent ionic liquid is trihexyltetradecylphosphonium chloride ([P66614][Cl]). ” (Billy et al., Claim 21), which corresponds to the limitations of the present claim 19. Billy et al. additionally requires “ The method according to claim 18, wherein the ionic liquid solution forms a deep eutectic solvent. ” (Billy et al., Claim 22), which corresponds to the limitations of the present claim 20. Billy et al. additionally requires “The method according to claim 22, wherein the deep eutectic solvent is a mixture of choline chloride and ethylene glycol.” (Billy et al., Claim 23), which corresponds to the limitations of the present claim 21. Billy et al. additionally requires “The method according to claim 15, wherein step b) is carried out at a temperature ranging from 20° C. to 80° C.” (Billy et al., Claim 24), which corresponds to the limitations of the present claims 22 and 23. Billy et al. additionally requires “The method according to claim 15, wherein step b) is carried out for a period ranging from 1 min to 30 min.” (Billy et al., Claim 25), which corresponds to the limitations of the present claims 24 and 25. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Dr. Tienna M Deroy whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1097 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday through Friday from 8 am to 4 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Coris Fung can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5713 . 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. /T.M.D./ Examiner, Art Unit 1732 /CORIS FUNG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1732