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 .
Final Rejection
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-17, 19-21 are pending. Claim 1 is independent.
No claim is amended in the response filed 1/19/2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
The instant application claims priority to (CN2020096672W filed on 17-06-2020), (CN2020110065W filed on 19-08-2020) and (CN2020117789W filed on 25-09-2020). However, none of these priority documents disclose a method for delaminating a composite. In fact, (CN2020110065W) and (CN2020117789W) prevent delamination. Accordingly, the instant application has an effective filing date of March 15, 2021.
Response to Amendment
The rejection of claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-10,13-16, 19-21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ho et al. (WO2018006687A1) is maintained.
The rejection of claims 11-12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho et al. (WO2018006687A1) in view of Nowack et al. DE10151180B4 is maintained.
The rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho et al. (WO2018006687A1) in view of Goto et al. (US 11,046,797 B2) is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/19/2026 have been fully considered. On pages 2-5 of the remarks dated 1/19/2026 Applicants urge that Ho et al. exemplify high delamination efficiency through mechanical force without the use of any delamination agent and urge that the strong bases taught by Ho et al. does not guide one of ordinary skill to the clamed delamination solution. In response, the claim 1 presented for examination with respect to the delamination agent is copied herein:
PNG
media_image1.png
132
632
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regard to the delamination agent of claim 1, see Ho et al. pg.10 [0057] copied herein:
PNG
media_image2.png
524
1336
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thus, in response, upon careful consideration, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive because Ho et al. [0057], page 10 teach the same strong bases as required in instant claim 1 and [00131] guides one of ordinary skill to optimize the amount of heterogenous mixture and the time of immersion/agitation, guiding that the “delaminated water-based binder material may form a colloid which tends to form flocs when the amount of battery fragments in the heterogeneous mixture is large”. And example 1 in [00138-00139] guide one of ordinary skill to optimize upto a solids content of upto 50%.
On pages 2-5 of the remarks dated 1/19/2026 Applicants urge that Ho et al. do not teach the claimed 15-30% copolymeric binder structural unit (a). In response, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive because Ho et al. page 23, [00116] copied herein:
PNG
media_image3.png
114
1324
media_image3.png
Greyscale
teach the structural unit (a) as claimed. See page 23, [00116-00120] teaching examples of the monomer having a carboxylic acid group [00117] and examples of the monomer having a sulfonic acid group [00118] and [00120] guiding one of ordinary skill to optimize the amount of binder structural material in general. And example 1, on page 27, [00139] guide one of ordinary skill to optimize upto a solids content of 50 wt.%.
On pages 9-10, Applicant’s urge that Nowack does not teach a composite. In response, contrary to Applicant’s arguments, Nowack teaches their coatings of a nickel matrix in which finely distributed SiC particles are embedded (SiC particles size 2-0.1 microns). See page 3, 5th paragraph from the top.
Finally Applicant’s urge that Goto example 10 is a teaching away to above 15 mol.%. In response, because Ho et al. do not specifically teach the claim 17 proportion from about 50-75% by mole of structure unit c derived from a nitrile group containing monomer, Goto et al. is relied upon for its teaching that it is commonly known to optimize the amount of nitrile group containing monomer structural unit (c) in an amount of about 70-99 mol%. See abstract copied herein:
PNG
media_image4.png
184
684
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, the rejections are maintained below.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-10,13-16, 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ho et al. (WO2018006687A1).
Clam 1 limitation to a method for delaminating a composite by immersing the composite into a delamination solution is taught by Ho et al. Figure 1, teaching immersion into a polar solvent comprising water, alcohol, ketone or a combination thereof. See [0012], sentence below f) in the middle of page 3.
Claim 1 limitation to wherein the composite comprises a metal substrate and a coating applied on one side or both sides of the metal substrate, is read upon by Ho et al. teach a method for recycling lithium-ion batteries, comprising isolating a mixture of anode and cathode materials from waste lithium-ion batteries. The separated electrode materials can easily be collected with high recovery rate, providing
a rapid, efficient and low-cost method for recycling electrode materials from waste lithium-ion batteries. See abstract. It is the Examiner’s position that the mixture of anode and cathode materials from waste lithium-ion batteries meets the wherein clause of claim 1 that the composite comprises a metal substrate and a coating applied on one side or both sides of the metal substrate.
Claim 1 limitation to wherein the coating comprises a copolymeric binder comprising a structural unit (a), derived from a monomer selected from the group consisting of a carboxylic acid group- containing monomer, a sulfonic acid group-containing monomer, and combinations thereof is taught in [00116] teaching the binder material of Ho et al. with the structural unit (a) as claimed. See page 23, [00116-00120] teaching examples of the monomer having a carboxylic acid group [00117] and examples of the monomer having a sulfonic acid group [00118] and [00120] guiding one of ordinary skill to optimize the amount of binder structural material in general.
Clam 1 limitation to wherein the delamination solution comprises a delamination agent selected from the group consisting of lithium hydroxide, sodium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide, rubidium hydroxide, cesium hydroxide, calcium hydroxide, strontium hydroxide, barium hydroxide, lithium oxide, sodium oxide, potassium oxide, rubidium oxide, cesium oxide, calcium oxide, strontium oxide, barium oxide, and combinations thereof is taught in [0057] on page 10.
Ho et al. do not explicitly teach the claim 1 limitation wherein the proportion of structural unit (a) within the copolymeric binder is from about 15% to about 30% by mole, based on the total number of moles of monomeric units in the copolymeric binder.
Examiner notes that Ho et al. [00139] exemplify 5 wt.% polyacrylonitrile binder and 5 wt.% carbon black conductive agent were dispersed in deionized water to form another slurry with a solid content of 50 wt.%. The slurry was then uniformly spread onto copper foil as a current collector using a doctor blade coater and dried at 50 °C for 12 hours to obtain an anode copper film. [00131] guides one of ordinary skill to optimize the amount of heterogenous mixture and the time of immersion/agitation, guiding that the “delaminated water-based binder material may form a colloid which tends to form flocs when the amount of battery fragments in the heterogeneous mixture is large”.
Therefore, it would have been nonetheless obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the claimed method for delaminating a composite by immersing the composite in an aqueous delamination solution of delamination agent and 15% to about 30% by mole structural unit (a) within the copolymeric binder as claimed because Ho et al. teach immersing chopped lithium ion into a delamination solution comprising the same delamination agent [0057], the same claimed carboxylic or sulfonic acid structural unit a [00116] with a polar solvent comprising both water and alcohol [0015] whereby forming a slurry with for delamination in general and guide one of ordinary skill to optimize the proportions of the claimed reagents upto 20 percent.
Regarding claims 2 and 4 to wherein the delamination solution comprises from about 0.3 to 3 M of delamination agent in the delamination solution with an aqueous solvent, is met by the art teaching their method comprises Li oxide with a polar solvent including water, and alcohol. See claim 1 on page 49 and see page 3, and [0057]. The examples in table 1 pages 45-46 meet the claimed 0.3 to 3 M concentration.
Claim 5 is met by example 8 illustrating the aqueous solvent comprises water as the major component (5L) and a minor (1 L acetone) component. See page 45, table 1, exemplary formulation 8.
The carboxylic acid group of claim 7 is taught on page 23, [00117].
The carboxylic acid salt group of claim 8 is taught on page 23, [00115] and [00117] teaching the salt of alginic acid comprises a cation selected from Na, Li, K, Ca, NH4, Mg, Al, or a combination thereof.
The sulfonic acid group of claim 9 is taught on page 23, [00118].
The sulfonic acid salt group of claim 10 is taught on page 23, [00115] and [00118].
The amide monomer structural unit (b) of claim 13 is taught by Ho et al. [00118] teaching acrylamide also meeting the claim 15.
Ho et al. is silent as to the proportion of the structural unit b with the copolymeric binder from 5-20% by mole as required in claim 14, however, Ho et al. teach a delamination slurry and guide one of ordinary skill to optimize the proportions of the claimed reagents by 1 to 20 percent.[0052].
Regarding the metal substrate of claims 19-20, Ho et al. teach on page 7, [0038] teach non-limiting examples of the conductive metal part include an aluminum thin plate, a copper thin plate, a gold thin plate, a silver thin plate, and a platinum thin plate meeting the claims 19 and 20.
Regarding claim 21, see the examples in the Table 1, page 45-47, and the description of the example of used lithium ion batteries (0.5 kg) soaked in 6% NaCl solution and immersed into a mixture of water and acetone for 1 hour at 20°C to recycle the batteries.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho et al. (WO2018006687A1) as applied to claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-10,13-16, 19-21 above, and further in view of Nowack et al. DE10151180B4 Google Patents Translation attached.
Ho et al. is relied upon as above, for teaching the delaminated water-based binder material is a monomer containing a carboxylic acid group, a sulfonic acid group [00116-00120] on page 23 and page 4 [0020] and [00131, page 25] as required in claim 1. However, Ho et al. do not teach the copolymeric binder materials comprising phosphonic acid group of claim 11 or the phosphonic acid salt group of claim 12.
Nowack et al. establish it is well understood in the art of mask cleaning etchant to dissolve at least 0.1 g per liter of dialkylaminomethane diphosphonic acid or salt in the mixture in order to maintain the effectiveness and aging resistance of the mixture. See the last paragraph on page 2 of the attached Google Patents translation.
Ho et al. and Nowack et al. are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of separation slurries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the delamination slurry of Ho et al. with the claimed phosphonic acid group or salt thereof, as claimed because Nowack et al. establish that the claimed phosphonic acid or salt thereof in a separation mixture maintains the effectiveness and aging resistance of the mixture. One of ordinary skill would reasonably modify the mixture of Ho et al. because one would want to maintain effectiveness of the delamination solvent as it is used for immersion for several hours. See [0085] of Ho et al. and PHOSITA would reasonably want the solution to remain efficacious.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho et al. (WO2018006687A1) as applied to claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-10,13-16, 19-21 above, and further in view of Goto et al. (US 11,046,797 B2).
Ho et al. is relied upon as above noting [00139] exemplify 5 wt.% polyacrylonitrile binder and 5 wt.% carbon black conductive agent dispersed in deionized water to form a slurry with a solid content of 50 wt.%. Ho et al. [00131] guides one of ordinary skill to optimize the amount of heterogenous mixture and the time of immersion/agitation, guiding that the “delaminated water-based binder material may form a colloid which tends to form flocs when the amount of battery fragments in the heterogeneous mixture is large”.
However, Ho et al. do not teach the claim 17 proportion from about 50-75% by mole of structure unit c derived from a nitrile group containing monomer.
Goto et al. teach that it is commonly known to optimize the amount of nitrile group containing monomer structural unit (c) in an amount of about 70-99 mol%. See abstract.
Ho et al. and Goto et al. are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of binder composition slurry for immersion of battery composite.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrive at the claimed proportion of structural unit (c) within the copolymeric binder as required by claim 17 because Ho et al. exemplify [00139] a nitrile based delamination solution and suggest optimizing in a 10:1 to about 1:1 mass ratio of the water-based binder material structural unit (a) to an organic-based binder material structural unit c [00120] in general and Goto et al. teach that it is commonly known to optimize the amount of nitrile group containing monomer structural unit (c) in an amount of about 70-99 mol%. See abstract.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PREETI KUMAR whose telephone number is (571)272-1320. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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.
/PREETI KUMAR/ Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights