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 .
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.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 4 recites the limitation “wherein the pH is controlled by adjusting a supply of ozone and hydrogen peroxide.” However, claim 1 upon which it depends requires the supply of only “at least one of ozone and hydrogen peroxide.” Claim 4 is therefore interpreted as allowing the supply of one of either ozone or hydrogen peroxide to be zero.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai et al. (CN 113415813 A) in view of Lee et al. (KR 20150075253 A). The previously provided English machine translations of Dai (CN 113415813 A) and Lee (KR 20150075253 A) are referenced in the analysis below.
Regarding claim 1, Dai teaches a recovery method for a positive electrode active material ([n0001]; [n0002] teaches that the targeted metals are in the positive electrode material), the recovery method comprising:
supplying hydrogen peroxide to a slurry containing the positive electrode mixture to oxidize the positive electrode mixture (water is added to the roasted material [to give a slurry] and oxidation leaching is performed, wherein …hydrogen peroxide can be introduced during the oxidation leaching; [n0047]) to obtain a slurry of the positive electrode active material (when hydrogen peroxide is introduced…the liquid-to-solid ratio is controlled; [n0047]; a solid-liquid ratio implies it was a slurry is maintained; this mixture contains the positive electrode active materials of nickel, cobalt, and manganese; [n0048]), wherein when the positive electrode mixture is oxidized, the pH of the slurry is controlled to be higher than nine (the pH value of the system during the oxidation leching is controlled to be 9-12; [n0019]).
Dai further teaches that waste ternary battery positive electrode material is used as raw material ([n0046]), but does not specifically teach separating and recovering, from a positive electrode plate of a battery in which a positive electrode mixture containing a positive electrode active material is laminated on a positive electrode foil, the positive electrode mixture.
However, Lee also teaches a recovery method for a positive electrode active material ([0007]) which includes separating and recovering, from a positive electrode plate of a battery in which a positive electrode mixture containing a positive electrode active material is laminated on a positive electrode foil, the positive electrode mixture (scrap can be subjected to crushing and particle size separation to remove the aluminum foil component present in the scrap; [0039]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include in the method of Dai the separating and recovery step taught by Lee. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so because Dai teaches that they want positive electrode material as the raw material, and Lee teaches a method to obtain the material separate from the foil on which it is laminated. Combining the method of Lee to the method of Dai thus represents the combining of prior art elements according to known methods with predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 3, modified Dai teaches the method of claim 1, and Dai further teaches that the oxidation leaching can be carried out using different oxidants including air, oxygen, and hydrogen peroxide. Dai does not specifically teach supplying ozone or doing so by bubbling.
However, Lee also teaches a method recovery method for a positive electrode active material ([0007]) using ozone to oxidize the positive electrode mixture ([0042]-[0044]). Lee further teaches the ozone being supplied by bubbling (injection with a diffuser; [0052]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace (or supplement) the hydrogen peroxide used in the method of modified Dai with ozone, as taught by Lee. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Dai teaches that multiple oxidants are effective in their method and Lee teaches that ozone is one such oxidant that is a successful oxidant in an analogous method. The replacement of hydrogen peroxide with ozone supplied by bubbling therefore represents the substitution of one known oxidant with another to obtain predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(B) and MPEP 2144.06(II).
Regarding claim 4, modified Dai teaches the method of claim 1 and further teaches that the pH is to be controlled (the pH value of the system during the oxidation leching is controlled to be 9-12; [n0019]). Dai does not specifically teach controlling the pH by adjusting a supply of ozone or hydrogen peroxide.
However, hydrogen peroxide is known to be weakly acidic (pKa = 11.6), and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the supply of hydrogen peroxide (an acid) as a means to control the pH of the reaction mixture. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Dai teaches that control of pH is important and supply of acids is well understood to control pH. The method of modified Dai controls the supply of ozone at zero, which is interpreted as meeting the limitations of the instant claim (see Claim Interpretation).
Regarding claim 5, Dai teaches a recovery method for a positive electrode active material ([n0001]; [n0002] teaches that the targeted metals are in the positive electrode material), the recovery method comprising:
supplying hydrogen peroxide to a slurry containing the positive electrode mixture to oxidize the positive electrode mixture (water is added to the roasted material [to give a slurry] and oxidation leaching is performed, wherein …hydrogen peroxide can be introduced during the oxidation leaching; [n0047]) to obtain a slurry of the positive electrode active material (when hydrogen peroxide is introduced…the liquid-to-solid ratio is controlled; [n0047]; a solid-liquid ratio implies it was a slurry is maintained; this mixture contains the positive electrode active materials of nickel, cobalt, and manganese; [n0048]), at a pH higher than nine (the pH value of the system during the oxidation leching is controlled to be 9-12; [n0019]). Dai further teaches that waste ternary battery positive electrode material is used as raw material ([n0046]), and that the oxidation leaching can be carried out using different oxidants including air, oxygen, and hydrogen peroxide.
Dai does not specifically teach separating and recovering, from a positive electrode plate of a battery in which a positive electrode mixture containing a positive electrode active material is laminated on a positive electrode foil, the positive electrode mixture; supplying ozone, or doing so by bubbling, or controlling pH by adjusting a supply amount of ozone and a supply amount of hydrogen peroxide.
However, Lee also teaches a recovery method for a positive electrode active material ([0007]) which includes separating and recovering, from a positive electrode plate of a battery in which a positive electrode mixture containing a positive electrode active material is laminated on a positive electrode foil, the positive electrode mixture (scrap can be subjected to crushing and particle size separation to remove the aluminum foil component present in the scrap; [0039]). Lee also teaches using ozone to oxidize the positive electrode mixture ([0042]-[0044]) and the ozone being supplied by bubbling (injection with a diffuser; [0052]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include in the method of Dai the separating and recovery step taught by Lee, as well as supplying ozone by bubbling during the oxidative leaching.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to incorporate the separating and recovery step taught by Lee because Dai teaches that they want positive electrode material as the raw material, and Lee teaches a method to obtain the material separate from the foil on which it is laminated. Combining the method of Lee to isolate the electrode material from the foil with the method of Dai thus represents the combining of prior art elements according to known methods with predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been further motivated to supplement the hydrogen peroxide with ozone introduced by bubbling because Lee teaches that ozone can serve an equivalent purpose as an oxidant in an analogous method. It is noted that the courts have held that “[i]t is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). MPEP 2144.06(I). Because ozone and hydrogen peroxide were both taught in the prior art to effect oxidative leaching from a positive cathode material, it would have therefore been obvious to use both ozone and hydrogen peroxide, as required by the instant claim.
Regarding control of pH using the supply amount of ozone and the supply amount of hydrogen peroxide, while Dai does not specifically teach using the supply amount of ozone and hydrogen peroxide to control the pH, hydrogen peroxide is known to be weakly acidic (pKa = 11.6) and any acid or base behavior of ozone must come from its reactions in the mixture. Furthermore, Lee teaches that the supply amount of ozone is a parameter that can be varied ([0044]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control the pH to higher than nine by adjusting the supply amount of hydrogen peroxide (an acid) and the supply amount of ozone. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the supply of hydrogen peroxide because Dai teaches that control of pH is important and supply of acids is well understood to control pH. They would have been further motivated to also adjust the supply amount of ozone because Lee teaches that it is a variable that can be adjusted based on reaction efficiency, and such control would inherently affect the pH as reactants and products are consumed and generated.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, pages 4-5 of the reply filed 1 October 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1 and 3 under 35 USC § 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive in that Lee alone does not teach the amended claim. Therefore, these rejections have been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection under 35 USC § 103 are made over Dai et al. (CN 113415813 A) in view of Lee et al. (KR 20150075253 A), as analyzed above.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 1 and 2 under 35 USC § 103, page 6 of the reply, that Dai does not disclose a slurry being present before adding ozone or hydrogen peroxide have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Dai discloses that water is added to the positive electrode mixture (roasted material) and oxidation leaching is performed, wherein hydrogen peroxide can be introduced during the oxidation leaching ([n0047]). The mixture of water and the solid electrode mixture materials from which the metals are being leached forms a slurry, and that slurry is present before the introduction of the hydrogen peroxide as part of the oxidation leaching.
Applicant argues on page 6 of the reply for the allowability of new claims 4 and 5 based on the allowability of claim 1, the failure of Lee to teach the further limitations of claim 4, and the same arguments regarding the slurry discussed immediately above. These arguments are not persuasive because claim 1 was found obvious over Dai and Lee, Lee alone is not used to teach the limitations of claim 4, and because Dai does teach the required slurry, as analyzed above.
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 Nicholas A Piro whose telephone number is (571)272-6344. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8:00 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, Sally Merkling can be reached at (571) 272-6297. 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.
/NICHOLAS A. PIRO/Assistant Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/PAUL A WARTALOWICZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735