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
In response to the amendment received May 18, 2026:
Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 10, 14-17, 20-24 and 26-28 are pending. Claims 2, 7, 9, 11-13, 18-19 and 25 have been cancelled as per applicant’s request. Claims 21-24 and 28 are withdrawn.
The previous prior art rejection is withdrawn in light of the amendment. However, a new prior art rejection has been made below All changes to the rejection are necessitated by the amendment.
Election/Restriction
Newly submitted claim 28 directed to an invention that lacks unity with the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Newly added claim 28 lacks unity of invention with claim 1 as the shared technical features are found in the prior art as demonstrated in the rejection to claim 1 below. Thus, there is lack of unity of invention a posteriori.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 28 withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a nonelected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C
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, 10, 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kawakami (US 5,491,037).
Regarding Claim 1, Kawakami teaches producing a new lithium cell (claim 13) (i.e. a method for manufacturing a battery cell) comprising opening a spent lithium cell (col. 3, lines 30-31), recovering solid materials containing collectors and positive electrode materials (col. 3, lines 47-48) (i.e. recovering a cathode module from a used battery cell, the recovered cathode module comprising an active material and a current collector), the collectors and positive electrode materials are thereafter respectively regenerated for their reuse (col. 3, lines 61-64), the lithium in the positive electrode active material is reacted with a reacting agent for its recovery (col. 5, lines 27-30), and producing a new lithium cell by using the solid materials recovered (claim 13) (i.e. assembling a new battery cell using the recovered cathode module and an anode module wherein the whole of the recovered cathode module is used in the new battery cell; and performing a re-lithiation process on the recovered cathode module prior to assembling the new battery cell).
Regarding Claim 10, Kawakami teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Kawakami further teaches a positive electrode comprised of a positive electrode active material (Fig. 5, #303) and a positive electrode current collector (Fig. 5, #304) on which the positive electrode active material is disposed (i.e. wherein the current collector acts as a substrate for the active material and provides a path for current flow) (col. 6, lines 47-59).
Regarding Claim 14, Kawakami teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Kawakami further teaches the collectors and positive electrode materials are thereafter respectively regenerated for their reuse (col. 3, lines 61-64), the lithium in the positive electrode active material is reacted with a reacting agent for its recovery by electrolysis (col. 5, lines 27-30), and producing a new lithium cell by using the solid materials recovered (claim 13) (i.e. wherein the re-lithiation process is an electrochemical process) (see also claim 21).
Regarding Claim 17, Kawakami teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Kawakami further teaches the positive electrode active material is reacted with a reacting agent for its cover such as water reacting with lithium to form an aqueous lithium hydroxide solution (i.e. wherein the re-lithiation process comprises chemical immersion with a lithium electrolyte).
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 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawakami (US 5,491,037) in view of Guo (CN111224187A). The English machine translation of Guo et al. is attached in a prior Office action and is referenced below.
Regarding Claim 3, Kawakami teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Kawakami does not teach the used battery cell is from a battery pack which has failed or reached end-of-life.
However, Guo et al. teaches the cathode materials recovered from a waste lithium-ion battery (Para. [0008]) and defines waste lithium-ion batteries as end of lifespan batteries used in vehicles (Para. [0004]) (i.e. wherein the used battery cell is from a battery pack which has reached end-of-life).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Kawakami to incorporate the teaching of wherein the used battery cell is from a battery pack which has reached end-of-life, as there is a large number of discarded lithium-ion batteries that can cause serious environmental pollution and resource waste (Para. [0004]), providing an abundant resource.
Regarding Claim 4, Kawakami teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Kawakami does not explicitly teach wherein the anode module is a new anode module, and wherein the new battery cell comprises the recovered cathode and the new anode module.
However, Guo et al. teaches the positive electrode sheet and positive electrode material are recovered (Para. [0038]) and assembled into the new full cell with a pre
lithiated negative electrode (Para. [0043]) (i.e. wherein the anode module is a new anode module, wherein the new battery cell comprises the recovered cathode module and a new anode module).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Kawakami to incorporate the teaching of the anode module isa new anode module, and wherein the new battery cell comprises the recovered cathode module and the new anode module, as such a method provides excellent battery performance with little capacity decay (Para. [0087]).
Regarding Claim 5, Kawakami teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Kawakami does not explicitly teach the new battery cell comprises a new electrolyte.
However, Guo et al. teaches the assembled full cell comprises an electrolyte which is a carbonate electrolyte (i.e. wherein the new battery cell comprises a new electrolyte) (Para. [0043]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Kawakami to incorporate the teaching of wherein the new battery cell comprises a new electrolyte, as such a method provides excellent battery performance with little capacity decay (Para. [0087]).
Regarding Claim 6, Kawakami teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Kawakami does not explicitly teach the new battery cell comprises a new separator.
However, Guo et al. teaches the new full cell to which the positive electrode is added is a coin cell (Para. [0043]) (i.e. comprises a new separator).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Kawakami to incorporate the teaching of wherein the new battery cell comprises a new separator, as such a method provides excellent battery performance with little capacity decay (Para. [0087]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawakami (US 5,491,037) in view of Kepler et al. (US 2016/0049701).
Regarding Claim 8, Kawakami teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Kawakami teaches the positive electrode active material includes metal oxides (col. 7, lines 15-32).
Kawakami does not explicitly teach the active material comprises a lithium metal oxide.
However, Kepler et al. teaches a process for preparing and recycling a cathode active material for lithium-ion batteries (Para. [0009]) to prepare new lithium ion batteries (Para. [0028]) (i.e. a method of manufacturing a battery cell) wherein the lithium-deficient cathode active material to be used such as lithium cobalt oxide, lithium nickel oxide, lithium manganese oxide (i.e. a lithium metal oxide) or lithium iron phosphate (Para. [0021]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Kawakami to incorporate the teaching of a lithium metal oxide as the active material, as such a material may be collected from used or waste lithium ion batteries (Para. [0047]) and is suitable for recycling (Para. [0046]) and its lithium ions may be replenished to fully lithiate the lithium-deficient cathode active material (Para. [0019]).
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawakami (US 5,491,037) in view of Yang et al. (“An Effective Relithiation Process for Recycling Lithium-Ion Battery Cathode Materials”, 2019).
Regarding Claim 15, Kawakami teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 14 as explained above.
Kawakami does not explicitly teach wherein during the electrochemical re-lithiation process, the recovered cathode module is used as an electrode.
However, Yang et al. teaches direct cycling of cathode materials by electrochemical relithiation in aqueous electrolyte which applies to harvested cathode powder and isolated cathode sheet in which the active materials are still bound together and are electrically connected to the aluminum current collector (pg. 2, col. 2, para. 1) wherein EOL lithium cobalt oxide electrode (WE) and a new lithium cobalt oxide electrode (CE) at a higher current density (see Fig. 1 and pg. 3, col. 1, para. 4) (i.e. wherein during the electrochemical relithiation process the recovered cathode module is used as an electrode).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Kawakami to incorporate the teaching of the relithiation process as taught by Yang et al. wherein the recovered cathode module is used as an electrode, as this approach improves charge transfer and enables the use of a higher current density for relithiating and shortens time to fully restore the lithium stoichiometry (pg. 3, col. 2, para. 1).
Regarding Claim 16, Kawakami teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Kawakami does not explicitly teach wherein the relithiation process is performed using a full cell in which the recovered cathode module is used as a negative electrode, the full cell further comprising a positive electrode comprising lithium .
However, Yang et al. teaches direct cycling of cathode materials by electrochemical relithiation in aqueous electrolyte which applies to harvested cathode powder and isolated cathode sheet in which the active materials are still bound together and are electrically connected to the aluminum current collector (pg. 2, col. 2, para. 1) wherein EOL lithium cobalt oxide electrode (WE) and a new lithium cobalt oxide electrode (CE) (i.e. a positive electrode comprising lithium) at a higher current density (see Fig. 1 and pg. 3, col. 1, para. 4) (i.e. wherein the relithiation process is performed using a full cell in which the recovered cathode module is used as a negative electrode, the full cell further comprising a positive electrode comprising lithium).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Kawakami to incorporate the teaching of the relithiation process as taught by Yang et al. as this approach improves charge transfer and enables the use of a higher current density for relithiating and shortens time to fully restore the lithium stoichiometry (pg. 3, col. 2, para. 1).
Claims 20 and 26-27 are is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawakami (US 5,491,037) in view of Brambilla et al. (US 2020/0082997).
Regarding Claim 20, Kawakami teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Kawakami et al. does not teach the method further comprising packaging the new battery cell in a container.
However, Brambilla et al. teaches forming an energy storage device which may
be a battery (Para. [0029]) (i.e. a method of manufacturing a battery) wherein the
storage cell is packaged into a cylindrical or prismatic housing (i.e. comprising packaging a new battery cell in a container) (Para. [0099]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Kawakami to
incorporate the teaching of packaging the new battery cell in a container as taught by
Brambilla et al., as a housing may provide robust physical protection to the cell (Para.
[0099]).
Regarding Claim 26, Kawakami teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Kawakami et al. does not teach the method further comprising packaging the new battery cell in a container.
However, Brambilla et al. teaches forming an energy storage device which may
be a battery (Para. [0029]) (i.e. a method of manufacturing a battery) wherein the
storage cell is packaged into a cylindrical or prismatic housing (i.e. wherein the container is a cylindrical case or prismatic case) (Para. [0099]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Kawakami to
incorporate the teaching of packaging the new battery cell in a container as taught by
Brambilla et al., as a housing may provide robust physical protection to the cell (Para.
[0099]).
Regarding Claim 27, Kawakami teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Kawakami et al. does not teach the method further comprising packaging the new battery cell in a container.
However, Brambilla et al. teaches forming an energy storage device which may
be a battery (Para. [0029]) (i.e. a method of manufacturing a battery) wherein the
storage cell is packaged into a cylindrical or prismatic housing (i.e. assembling a battery pack using the new battery cell) (Para. [0099]) wherein a plurality of electrodes may be included (Para. [0094]) (i.e. assembling a battery pack).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Kawakami to
incorporate the teaching of assembling the new battery cell into a battery pack as taught by Brambilla et al., as a housing (i.e. assembling) into a battery pack may provide robust physical protection to the cell (Para. [0099]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-6, 8, 10, 14-17, 20 and 26-27 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 ARMINDO CARVALHO JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-5292. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a.m.-5p.m..
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571 272-1481. 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.
/ARMINDO CARVALHO JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights