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 .
Response to Amendment
The arguments filed 06/24/2026 have been acknowledged. However, they do not overcome the 103 rejection as previously set forth in non-final office action mailed 03/25/2026; new grounds of rejections are presented below.
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.
Claims 1-7, and 10, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by (US-20200328482-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Ho’ in view of (KR-20180042641-A) hereinafter referred to as ‘Jin’ in view of (JP-2019-108585-A) hereinafter referred to as ‘Mitsuhiro’ in view of (US-20210210806-A) hereinafter referred to as ‘Nishikawa’ in further view of ‘Regeneration and reutilization of cathode materials from spent lithium-ion batteries’ hereinafter referred to as ‘Zhao’
Regarding Claim 1,
Ho teaches an active material recovery apparatus (Ho, “In certain embodiments, the mechanical agitating step is performed by stirring, shaking, ultrasonication, vortexing, or a combination thereof. In some embodiments, the mechanical agitation step is performed by a dispersion blade mixer, a stirring mixer, a screw mixer, a conical screw mixer, a planetary stirring mixer, an air jet mixer, a high shearing mixer, an ultrasonic bath, an ultrasonic probe or a combination thereof.”, see [0026]), comprising: a heat treatment bath extending along a first axis, the heat treatment bath comprising a heating zone (Ho, “In some embodiments, the heterogeneous mixture in step d) is heated at a temperature from about 35° C. to about 100° C”, see [0027]) and a screening wall extending along the axis (Ho, “In certain embodiments, the finer electrode materials are screened by passing through a sieve having a mesh width between 2 mm and 4 mm. In certain embodiments, the finer electrode materials are screened”, see [0033]), and the screening wall (Ho, “Since the heterogeneous mixture in the mixing vessel 9 can be effectively circulated by convection while causing collisions among the fragments, the cathode electrode layer can be removed from the aluminum current collector in a short time at high efficiency.”, see [0121]) ; and an exhaust injection and degassing system, wherein the heat treatment bath is configured to removes a binder and a conductive material in an active material layer, wherein the heat treatment bath is configured to perform heat treatment on an electrode scrap comprising the active material layer on a current collector (Ho, “processing the heterogeneous mixture with mechanical agitation for a time period from about 30 minutes to about 5 hours to dissolve a binder material in the cathode and anode layers;”, see [0012]) by rotating the electrode scrap around the first axis (Ho, “In some embodiments, the stirrer is a high shearing mixer. FIG. 2 is a diagram illustrating an embodiment of a high shearing mixer used to stir the heterogeneous mixture.”, see [0114]) and separates the current collector from the active material layer, wherein the screen wall is configured to pass an active material in the active material layer (Ho, “Since the heterogeneous mixture in the mixing vessel 9 can be effectively circulated by convection while causing collisions among the fragments, the cathode electrode layer can be removed from the aluminum current collector in a short time at high efficiency.”, see [0121]) through the screening wall having a mesh structure (Ho, “In certain embodiments, the finer electrode materials are screened by passing through a sieve having a mesh width between 2 mm and 4 mm. In certain embodiments, the finer electrode materials are screened”, see [0033])wherein the active material recovery apparatus is configured to separately recover the current collector that does not pass through the screening wall (Ho, “After stirring, the structural part, copper foil and aluminum foil were removed by passing through a sieve having a mesh width of 4 mm to give a suspension comprised of water and electrode materials.”, see [0158]) ,
Modified Ho does not teach wherein the heat treatment bath and the screening wall are sequentially installed and having a hollow tubular shape having a predetermined space.
Jin teaches wherein the heat treatment bath (Jin, heating section, 500, Fig. 1) and the screening wall (Jin, rotating mesh section, 200, Fig. 1) are sequentially installed and having a hollow tubular shape having a predetermined space (see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
461
685
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Jin teaches that this sequential process and tube allow for recovery without damage to the material (Jin, “(1) can be continuously obtained while maintaining its size and shape. In other words, the cathode active material (1) that has already been used as a cathode or has been manufactured in the best condition for use as a cathode is recovered in its original shape, so that it can be used immediately without going through a separate process such as pulverization.”, see [0047]).
Ho and Jin are analogous as they are both of the same field of battery recovery.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the structure as taught in Ho to have the mesh and heating sections as taught in Ho in order to improve recovery of the components.
Ho does not teach protrusions in a sawtooth shape on a first cross-section orthogonal to the axis and a cooling zone .
Mitsuhiro teaches protrusions in a sawtooth on a cross-section orthogonal to the axis and a cooling zone (Mitsuhiro, protrusion, 19, Fig. 3) (Mitsuhiro, “A, the heating zone B and the cooling zone C are formed from the upstream side to the downstream side in the transport direction F. Thereby, aluminum of the first metal 3a and copper of the second metal 3b, which are useful metals, are separated and recovered.”, see [0042]) .
Mitsuhiro teaches that collision with the protrusion help release built up gasses in the material and shorten the heating time and that the cooling zone is beneficial (Mitsuhiro, “The dropped object to be processed 3 collides with the inner surface 10 a or the protrusion 19 on the bottom side of the rotating cylindrical body 10. Such collisions cause cracks and fractures in the object 3. As a result, the gas and liquid generated in the temperature raising zone A and the heating zone B can be easily discharged from the object 3, so that the heating time in the temperature raising zone A and the heating zone B can be shortened, and the metals are separated and recovered.”, see [0034]) (Mitsuhiro, “A, the heating zone B and the cooling zone C are formed from the upstream side to the downstream side in the transport direction F. Thereby, aluminum of the first metal 3a and copper of the second metal 3b, which are useful metals, are separated and recovered.”, see [0042]).
Modified Ho and Mitsuhiro are analogous as they are both of the same field of battery manufacturing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tube as taught in modified Ho with the cooling zone as taught in Mitsuhiro in order to improve separation.
Modified Ho does not teach that the heat treatment is performed in air.
Nishikawa teaches that the heat treatment is performed in air (Nishikawa, “As illustrated in a flow in FIG. 1, a lithium ion secondary battery of about 3.7 Kg was subjected to a heat treatment step by using a muffle furnace (FJ-41, manufactured by Yamato Scientific Co., Ltd.) as a heat treatment apparatus under a condition of a heat treatment temperature of 850° C. (1 hour for increasing temperature, 2 hours for holding) and an air supply amount of 5 L/min”, [0053])(The examiner notes that 5L/min for 3.7kg is 135mL/min for 100g which is within the range)
Nishikawa teaches that controlling the level of oxygen is desired as it prevents the material embrittlement which makes separation of the current collector more easy (Nishikawa, “the positive electrode current collector made of aluminum foil is embrittled, and is likely to be turned into fine particles in a later-described crushing step”, see [0031]) (Nishikawa, “This embrittlement of the positive electrode current collector is caused by melting or an oxidation reaction…where an oxygen partial pressure is low because of an oxygen-shielding effect of the oxygen-shielding container and a reducing effect provided by a negative electrode active material such as carbon contained in the stack or the lithium ion secondary battery, and thus the embrittlement of the negative electrode current collector due to oxidation does not occur.”, see [0032]).
Ho and Nishikawa are analogous as they are both of the same field of battery recycling.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified heat treatment as taught in Ho to be performed in air as taught in Nishikawa in order to allow for better embrittlement and therefore better separation.
Modified Ho does not teach that the active material is recovered in powder form.
Zhao teaches that the active material is recovered in powder form (Zhao, “The cathode material powder obtained after pretreatment was mixed with a specific amount of Li2CO3, and then the mixture powder was calcinated at 850 °C to fabricate new LCO.”, 3.3 Regenerations Strategy ).
Zhao teaches that a recovered powder can be mixed with new material and can produce promising physical and chemical properties (Zhao, “They proposed a technology to regenerate new LCO cathode material by calcinating the mixture of recycled powders and source of lithium (e.g., Li2CO3, LiOH and LiAc). Results revealed that the LCO synthesized by adding Li2CO3 exhibited the best physical and chemical properties”, 3.3 Regenerations Strategy).
Modified Ho and Zhao are analogous as they are both of the same field of battery recycling methods.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the methods as taught in Ho to collect a powder in order to use it for regeneration and implementation with newer materials for better performing cells.
Regarding Claim 2,
Modified Ho teaches the active material recovery apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a screw type rod extending along the first axis through the center of the heat treatment baths and cooling wherein the rod is configured to rotate (Ho, “In certain embodiments, the stirrer is a screw mixer. In some embodiments, the screw is a left-hand screw or a right-hand screw. In certain embodiments, the screw rotates clockwise or anti-clockwise about its vertical axis”, see [0109]).
Regarding Claim 3,
Modified Ho teaches the active material recovery apparatus of claim 1, wherein the protrusions are continuous or discontinuous along the first axis (Mitsuhiro, “A plurality of protrusions 19 are disposed on the inner surface 10 a of the rotary cylinder 10 in at least one of the temperature raising zone A and the heating zone B.”, see [0033]).
Regarding Claim 4,
Modified Ho teaches the active material recovery apparatus of claim , wherein the protrusions are inside of the screening wall on a first cross-section orthogonal to the first axis (Mitsuhiro, protrusion, 19, Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 5,
Modified Ho teaches the active material recovery apparatus of claim 4, wherein the protrusions are continuous or discontinuous along the axis (Mitsuhiro, “A plurality of protrusions 19 are disposed on the inner surface 10 a of the rotary cylinder 10 in at least one of the temperature raising zone A and the heating zone B.”, see [0033]).
Regarding Claim 6,
Modified Ho teaches the active material recovery apparatus of claim 1, further comprising air inlets in the heat treatment bath (Ho, “In some embodiments, the stirring mixer is an air jet mixer. In certain embodiments, air jet is ejected from holes on the wall of the mixer.”, see [0111]).
Regarding Claim 7,
Modified Ho does not explicitly teach the active material recovery apparatus of claim 2, wherein the air inlets are formed in the protrusions and the rod (Ho, “In some embodiments, the stirring mixer is an air jet mixer. In certain embodiments, air jet is ejected from holes on the wall of the mixer”, see [0111]).
Modified Ho does teach that the air can be used to agitate the mixture and allow for lower impurity (Ho, “In certain embodiments, the heterogeneous mixture can be mechanically agitated by an air jet mixer”, see [0097])(Ho, “Using a stirring mixer, a screw mixer, a conical screw mixer, a planetary stirring mixer or an air jet mixer can result in electrode material with lower impurity content compared to a dispersion blade mixer”, see [0113]).
It would have been obvious to add additional air inlets to the rod in order to allow for air in and therefore allow for more mixing and less impurity, as I would be obvious to try with known results (MPEP 2143 (I)(E)).
Regarding Claim 10,
Modified Ho teaches the active material recovery apparatus of claim 1, wherein the active material recovery apparatus is configured to vibrate (Ho, “In some embodiments, the mechanical agitation is performed by an ultrasonicator.”, see [0093])
Regarding Claim 12,
Modified Ho teaches the active material recovery apparatus of claim 1, wherein the heat treatment bath having the tubular shape includes a first opening on a first end of the heat treatment bath and a second opening on a second end of the heat treatment bath, and wherein the heat treatment bath is configured to receiveinlet, 8, Fig. 2)(Ho, outlet, 10, Fig. 2) the electrode scrap and wherein the heat treatment bath is configured to transfer the separated current collector and the active material to the screening wall, and wherein the heat treatment bath is configured to communicate aicomprises an inlet 8 at an upper part 9 a for introducing small pieces of chopped lithium-ion batteries and an outlet 10 at lower part 9 b for discharging the heterogeneous mixture produced in the vessel.”, see [0114]).
Regarding Claim 13,
Modified Ho the active material recovery apparatus of claim 12, wherein the screening wall having the tubular shape includes (Ho, “comprises an inlet 8 at an upper part 9 a for introducing small pieces of chopped lithium-ion batteries and an outlet 10 at lower part 9 b for discharging the heterogeneous mixture produced in the vessel.”, see [0114]).
Regarding Claim 14,
Modified Ho teaches wherein the heat treatment bath is configured to receive air of 10 mL/min to 100 L/min is added or injected per 100 g of the electrode scrap that is put in the heat treatment bath (Nishikawa, “As illustrated in a flow in FIG. 1, a lithium ion secondary battery of about 3.7 Kg was subjected to a heat treatment step by using a muffle furnace (FJ-41, manufactured by Yamato Scientific Co., Ltd.) as a heat treatment apparatus under a condition of a heat treatment temperature of 850° C. (1 hour for increasing temperature, 2 hours for holding) and an air supply amount of 5 L/min”, [0053])(The examiner notes that 5L/min for 3.7kg is 135mL/min for 100g which is within the range)
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by (US 20200328482 A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Ho’ in view of (KR-20180042641-A) hereinafter referred to as ‘Jin’ , in view of (JP-2019-108585-A) hereinafter referred to as ‘Mitsuhiro’ , in view of (US-20210210806-A) hereinafter referred to as ‘Nishikawa’ in view of ‘Regeneration and reutilization of cathode materials from spent lithium-ion batteries’ hereinafter referred to as ‘Zhao’, in further view of (US-20150367311-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Spence’
Regarding Claim 8,
Modified Ho does not teach the active material recovery apparatus of claim 2, wherein the heat treatment bath is configured to rotate around the rod.
Spence teaches the active material recovery apparatus of claim 2, wherein the heat treatment bath also rotates around the rotates(Spence, “that enables the tube furnace 154 to rotate (as illustrated by the arrow 160) to facilitate the movement of the lead salt precipitate 94 through the length of the tube furnace 154 and uniformly heat the lead salt precipitate.”, see [0046]).
Spence teaches that the rotary heater allows for more constant heating (Spence, “that enables the tube furnace 154 to rotate (as illustrated by the arrow 160) to facilitate the movement of the lead salt precipitate 94 through the length of the tube furnace 154 and uniformly heat the lead salt precipitate.”, see [0046]).
Ho and Spence are analogous as they are both of the same field of battery material recycling.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tube as taught in Ho with a rotating heater in order to allow for more constant heating of the elements as they pass through.
Regarding Claim 9,
Modified Ho does not teach the active material recovery apparatus of claim 1, wherein an angle of the first axis axis is inclined with respect to a surface.
Spence teaches an angle that is adjusted such that the axis is inclined with respect to the ground (Spence, “94 into a tube furnace 154 that is tilted (e.g., declined) at an adjustable angle 156.”, see [0046])
Spence teaches that the inclined angle allows for control over the size, shape, and composition of the end product(Spence, “may enable greater control over the size (e.g., nanoparticles, microparticles), shape (e.g., spherical, elongated, shells, hollow spherical), composition (e.g., amount of free lead per particle, thickness of an outer lead oxide shell relative to the diameter of an inner free lead core), surface area, reactivity, and so forth, by controlling the parameters (e.g., flow rate of the lead salt 94 from the feed hopper 152, diameter of the tube furnace 154, … tilt angle 156,”, see [0046]).
Ho and Spence are analogous as they are both of the same field of battery material recycling.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tube as taught in Ho with incline in order to allow for control over the size, shape, and composition of the end product
.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 06/24/2026 have been fully considered.
On pg.8, the applicant states:
“That is, claim 1 requires two different components, a heat treatment bath and a screening wall. However, the Office Action appears to associate the mixing vessel 9 as both the claimed heat treatment bath and the screening wall. As such, the mixing vessel 9 of Ho does not meet the requirements of claim 1, where the heat treatment bath and the screening wall are two components…Also, claim 1 recites that a screening wall having a mesh structure extending along the first axis, the screening wall comprising a cooling zone. The Office Action appears to assert that this is disclosed by Ho as "the finer electrode materials are screened by passing through a sieve having a mesh width between 2mm and 4 mm." First, this refers what width or diameter of the finer electrode materials that the mesh width of the sieve will pass. Thus, it would not read on the screening wall having a mesh structure extending along the first axis. In fact, Ho is silent as to this limitation.”
This is partially convincing. The examiner has added to the record (KR-20180042641-A) hereinafter referred to as ‘Jin’. Jin teaches a more distinct mesh wall and a more distinct heating section in a tubular arrangement similar to the instant application. The examiner acknowledges that Ho and Jin have with the heat section overlapping with the mesh section. However, the examiner points to the fact that ‘Mitsuhiro’ teaches a cooling section (Mitsuhiro, 14, Fig. 1) in a similar cooling tube. The examiner contends that it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the tube heating mesh structure as taught in Ho and Jin with the cooling zone taught in Mitsuhiro in order to improve separation.
On pg.9 , the applicant states:
“As discussed in the previously filed December 18, 2026 Amendment, Mitsuhiro provides both the heating and cooling zones within a single rotating cylindrical body, and does not include a screening wall. That is, Mitsuhiro lacks a screening wall structure altogether because Mitsuhiro integrates both the heating and cooling zones within a single rotating cylinder. As such, Mitsuhiro fails to disclose or suggest the screening wall comprises a cooling zone.”
However, this is not convincing. The applicant is arguing against the references individually rather than the obviousness of the combination of the references (see MPEP 2145 (IV)). It is true that each reference teaches different features. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tube construction with the mesh as taught in Ho or Jin with the cooling zone as taught in Mitsuhiro, due to the recovery benefits of a cooling zone.
On pg.9, the applicant states:
“Regarding Nishikawa, Nishikawa at paragraph [0032] discloses the heat treatment step in FIG. 1, where the positive current collector made of aluminum foil is embrittled, so that it is likely to be turned into fine particles in a later crushing step…This is contrary to the claimed invention. For example, the specification at page 15 discloses that at a temperature equal to or greater than 650 C, a phenomenon occurs that the current collector melts ( Al melting point is 660 C) and the active material layer may not separate from the current collector. Thus, Nishikawa fails to disclose or suggest the heat treatment bath is configured to perform heat treatment in air on an electrode scrap comprising the active material layer on a current collector by rotating the electrode scrap around the first axis and separating the current collector from the active material layer…. While Ho does mention heating in para. [0027], this heating is not the same as the heat treatment recited in claim 1. That is, Ho discloses the heterogeneous mixture in step d) is heated at a temperature from about 350 C. to about 1000 C, in one embodiment. Thus, this heating cannot be said to be a heat treatment performed in air, as the heating is to heat a heterogeneous mixture, which is pieces of the chopped lithium-ion batteries immersed in a polar solvent. That is, heating is performed on a polar solvent.”
However, this is not convincing. One of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the claimed invention would not have been aware of the disclosure of the instant application (see MPEP 2142). Therefore, the teachings of the instant disclosure do not preclude obviousness. Further, the claims do not require that heat treatment prevents the melting of the current collector (see MPEP 2145 (VI)). Therefore, the melting of the current collector is not relevant to the claimed heat air treatment.
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 SEAMUS PATRICK MCNULTY whose telephone number is (703)756-1909. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:00am to 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, Nicholas A. Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/S.P.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights