DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the February 19th, 2025 arguments and remarks (“Remarks”). The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office 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 Amendments
In response to the amendments received in the Remarks on February 19th, 2025:
Claims 1, 3-17, and 20-26 are pending in the current application. Claims 1 and 13 have been amended. Claims 2 and 18-19 have been cancelled. Claims 14-17 and 24-26 stand withdrawn.
Claim 1 has been amended to further specify that the separation process is a mechanical separation process followed by a subsequent separation process. The amendment is supported by Applicant’s originally filed disclosure, including paragraphs [0040]-[0043] of Applicant’s own PG Publication.
The previous objection to the claims has been overcome in light of the amendment.
The previous rejection under 35 USC 112 is overcome in light of the amendment.
The cores of the previous prior art-based rejections have been overcome in light of the amendment. All changes made to the rejection are necessitated by the amendment.
Prior Art
Previously cited Baek EP3709433 (“Baek”)
Previously cited Sonntag US PG Publication 2016/0340476 (“Sonntag”)
Krause US PG Publication 2001/0033973 (“Krause”)
Previously cited Ishida US PG Publication 2013/0269484 (“Ishida”)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed with the Remarks on February 19th, 2025with respect to Claims 1, 3-13, and 20-23 are based on the claims as amended. While Applicant’s arguments are acknowledged, they are found to be moot in view of the new grounds of rejection, presented below, as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the Claims.
Claim Interpretation
For purposes of examination, the limitation within step a) as defined in lines 21-22 of Claim 1 is interpreted such that the separation process comprises an abrasion step followed by a subsequent separation step, different from the abrasion step based on Applicant’s definition of the mechanical separation as defined in paragraphs [0040]-[0043] of Applicant’s own PG Publication.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 13 line 7 recites the limitation “according to claim 5 or 6.” It is unclear whether the claim depends upon either claim 5 or claim 6. For purposes of examination, Claim 13 is interpreted to be dependent upon Claim 5.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 3-4, 7-12, and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek EP3709433 (for purposes of examination US PG Publication 2021/0083336 is referenced throughout) in view of Sonntag US PG Publication 2016/0340476 and Krause US PG Publication 2001/0033973.
Regarding Claim 1, Baek discloses a method for recycling (reusing) a first (positive) electrode for a lithium-ion (lithium secondary) battery ([0010]-[0011]), the first electrode including a [first] current collector and a [first] coating which cover the first current collector and which comprises first ingredients comprising a first (positive electrode) active material, a first [polymeric] binder, and a first [electrically] conductive additive ([0018], [0027]),
wherein the method comprises:
separating (at least a portion of) the first coating from the first current collector, to recover the first coating ([0018], [0036]),
hot melt mixing (at a temperature between 50 and 85pC) of all or part of the recovered first coating with new second ingredients usable in a lithium battery second electrode of the same polarity as the first electrode ([0044]-[0055]), the second ingredients comprising:
a second active material compatible with said first active material ([0058]) so that the difference between the respective operating voltages of said first active material and of said second active material is 0 V (which falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of lower than or equal to 1V in absolute value) ([0063]) according to a mass ratio [first coating (i.e. 150g mixture of electrode active material, binder, and conducting agent in Example 1) / (first coating + second (positive electrode) active material (i.e. 828.75g of a second positive electrode active material))] of about 15% (which falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of higher than 0% and lower than 70%) (as exemplified in Example 1 [0077]-[0080]),
a second binder ([0018]), and
an [electrically] conductive second additive ([0018]),
to obtain a precursor mixture of a composition able to form a second coating of the second electrode ([0018]).
The skilled artisan would recognize that since the first and second active materials of Baek are identical that they would have a difference between their respective operating voltages of 0V.
Baek fails to disclose that the hot melt mixing is performed without solvent, that the second binder comprises a permanent polymeric binder and a sacrificial polymeric binder which has a thermal decomposition temperature at least 20oC lower than that of the permanent polymeric binder, and c) eliminating at least partially the sacrificial polymeric binder, to obtain said composition.
However, Sonntag discloses a process for preparing a polymeric composition for forming a lithium-ion battery electrode (Abstract).
Sonntag teaches hot [melt] mixing by a melt process and without solvent at least one active material, one binder-forming polymeric phase and one sacrificial polymeric phase such as polyalkene carbonate ([0032]) so as to obtain a mixture, and at least partially eliminating said sacrificial polymeric phase by thermal decomposition ([0031]) in an oven ([0056]), wherein the sacrificial polymer binder has a thermal decomposition temperature at least 20oC lower than that of the permanent polymeric binder ([0032]), so as to obtain said composition in order to produce a composition with very high filler content ([0020]-[0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Baek to further comprise hot melt mixing by a melt process and without solvent at least one active material, one binder-forming polymeric phase and one sacrificial polymeric phase such as polyalkene carbonate including polyethylene carbonator and polypropylene carbonate so as to obtain a mixture, and at least partially eliminating by thermal decomposition in an oven said sacrificial polymeric phase, wherein the sacrificial polymer binder has a thermal decomposition temperature at least 20oC lower than that of the permanent polymeric binder, so as to obtain said composition in order to produce a composition with very high filler content, as taught by Sonntag.
Baek in view of Sonntag fails to disclose wherein step a) is implemented by a separation process comprising a mechanical separation by scraping or sintering with subsequent separation of the first current collector.
However, Krause discloses a method for separating a film from a copper foil (current collector) ([0057]). Krause teaches separating the materials by scraping the film from the copper foil using a razor blade and then following up with subsequential separating processes of pulverizing and sieving in order to obtain a powder material effectively separated from the copper foil such that the material can be re-used to coat a second copper foil ([0057]-[0058]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Baek in view of Sonntag such that step a) is implemented by a separation process comprising a mechanical separation by scraping (which meets the claim limitation of scraping or sintering) with subsequent separation of the first current collector in order to obtain a powder material effectively separated from the first current collector such that the material can be re-used to coat a second current collector, as taught by Krause.
Regarding Claim 3, Baek in view of Sonntag and Krause teaches the instantly claimed method of Claim 1.
Baek discloses wherein the method further comprises before step a) a step a0) of providing the first electrode to be recycled, the method having, between steps a0) and b), no step of purification, enrichment, regeneration, or pyrolysis of said first coating, the first polymeric binder being kept in the first coating to implement step b) (see Example 1 [0077]-[0081]).
Regarding Claim 4, Baek in view of Sonntag and Krause teaches the instantly claimed method of Claim 1.
Baek discloses wherein the method further comprises, before step a), a step a0) of providing the first electrode to be recycled which is new (or unused) so that it is not derived from a battery cell ([0033]), the method having no step of washing the first coating after step a0) and before mixing thereof at step b) with second ingredients (see Example 1 [0077]-[0081] wherein no washing steps are described).
Regarding Claim 7, Baek in view of Sonntag and Krause teaches the instantly claimed method of Claim 1.
As previously described (see Claim 1), Baek discloses wherein the mixing step b) is carried out according to a mass ratio [first coating / (first coating + second active material)] of about 15% (which falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of inclusively comprised between 5% and 60%) (as exemplified in Example 1 [0077]-[0080]).
Regarding Claim 8, Baek in view of Sonntag and Krause teaches the instantly claimed method of Claim 1.
Baek discloses wherein the mixing step b) is carried out according to a mass fraction of all of the first coating (e.g., 150 g) and of the second active material (e.g., 828.75 g) in the entirety of said precursor mixture (e.g., 150 g first coating, 828.75 g second active material, 12.75 g second binder, 8.5 g second electrically conductive additive, 300 g solvent) is about 75% (which falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of inclusively comprised between 55% and 85%) (as exemplified in Example 1 [0077]-[0080]).
Regarding Claim 9, Baek in view of Sonntag and Krause teaches the instantly claimed method of Claim 1.
As previously described (see Claim 1), Baek in view of Sonntag and Krause discloses wherein the mixing of step b) is carried out with the sacrificial polymeric binder which is selected from among polyalkene carbonates (Sonntag [0032]), step c) being implemented by thermal decomposition (Sonntag [0031]).
Regarding Claim 10, Baek in view of Sonntag and Krause teaches the instantly claimed method of Claim 1.
Baek discloses wherein in the mixing of step b) is carried out with the permanent polymeric binder (e.g., KF9700 powder) is different from the first polymeric binder (e.g., PVdF) (as exemplified in Example 1 [0077]-[0080], further [0053]).
Regarding Claim 11, Baek in view of Sonntag and Krause teaches the instantly claimed method of Claim 1.
Baek discloses wherein each of the first electrode and the second electrode is a cathode (positive electrode) with the first active material and the second active material which are identical (the same) ([0063]).
Regarding Claim 12, Baek in view of Sonntag and Krause teaches the instantly claimed method of Claim 1.
Baek in view of Sonntag and Krause fails to disclose steps b1) and b2) between steps b) and c).
However, Sonntag teaches between steps b) (hot mixing) and c) (eliminating sacrificial polymeric binder) (Abstract), b1) shaping the precursor mixture obtain in b) in the form of a sheet, and b2) depositing the sheet of the precursor mixture obtained in b1) over a current collector, in order to obtain the electrode by implementing step c) ([0032], [0045]) such that the electrode has a desired density ([0056]-[0057]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Baek in view of Sonntag and Krause to further comprise between steps b) and c) the following steps: b1) shaping the precursor mixture obtained in b) in the form of a sheet, and b2) depositing the sheet of the precursor mixture obtained in b1) over a second current collector, in order to obtain the second electrode by implementing c) such that the electrode has a desired density, as taught by Sonntag.
Regarding Claim 20, Baek in view of Sonntag and Krause teaches the instantly claimed method of Claim 7.
Baek discloses wherein the mixing of step b) is carried out according to a mass ratio [first coating (e.g., 150 g) / (first coating + second active material (e.g., 438.75 g))] is about 25% (which falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of inclusively comprised between 20% and 55%) (as exemplified in Example 2 [0082]-[0083]).
Regarding Claim 21, Baek in view of Sonntag and Krause teaches the instantly claimed method of Claim 9.
As previously described (see Claim 1), Baek in view of Sonntag and Krause discloses wherein step c) is implemented in a vat (oven) (Sonntag [0056]) in which the sacrificial polymeric binder comprises at least one poly(alkene carbonate) polyol (polyethylene carbonate and polypropylene carbonate) including end groups, more than 50 mol% of which comprise hydroxyl functions, the sacrificial polymeric binder comprising:
a said poly(alkene carbonate) polyol with a weight-average molecular mass comprised between 500 g/mol and 5,000 g/mol, and
a poly(alkene carbonate) with a weight-average molecular mass comprised between 20,000 g/mol and 400,000 g/mol (Sonntag [0032]).
The skilled artisan would recognize that the polyethylene carbonate and polypropylene carbonate of Baek in view of Sonntag and Krause are poly(alkene carbonates) that satisfy the claim limitations of Claim 21, as evidenced by [0034]-[0036] of Applicant’s own Specification.
Regarding Claim 22, Baek in view of Sonntag and Krause teaches the instantly claimed method of Claim 10.
Baek discloses wherein the first polymer binder comprises a halogenated thermoplastic polymer (e.g., PVdF) ([0027]), and the permanent polymeric binder comprises a non-halogenated thermoplastic polymer or an elastomer selected from among thermoplastic elastomers and rubbers, including crosslinked or non-crosslinked diene rubbers (e.g., styrene butadiene rubber) ([0052]).
The skilled artisan would recognize that PVdF is a halogenated thermoplastic polymer as evidenced by [0038] of Applicant’s own Specification and that styrene butadiene rubber is a non-halogenated thermoplastic polymer or an elastomer selected from among thermoplastic elastomers and rubbers, including crosslinked or non-crosslinked diene rubbers as evidenced by [0038] of Applicant’s own Specification.
Regarding Claim 23, Baek in view of Sonntag and Krause teaches the instantly claimed method of Claim 11.
Baek discloses wherein each of the first electrode and the second electrode is a cathode, with the first active material and the second active material which are identical and each comprise the same alloy of lithiated oxides of transition metals selected from among the group consisting of alloys of lithiated oxides of nickel, manganese and cobalt (NMC) and alloys of lithiated oxides of nickel, cobalt, and aluminum (NCA) ([0025], [0063]).
Claims 5-6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek EP3709433 in view of Sonntag US PG Publication 2016/0340476 and Krause US PG Publication 2001/0033973 as applied to Claim 1, further in view of Ishida US PG Publication 2013/0269484.
Regarding Claim 5, Baek in view of Sonntag and Krause teaches the instantly claimed method of Claim 1.
Baek discloses wherein the method further comprises, before step a), a step a0) of providing the first electrode to be recycled which is derived from a spent lithium-ion battery cell ([0033]).
Baek in view of Sonntag and Krause fails to disclose the method further comprising between steps a0) and a) or between steps a) and b), a step a1) of washing the first coating to extract therefrom almost all of an electrolyte that the spent lithium-ion battery contained in contact with the first electrode, by means of an organic washing solvent which is generally inert with respect to the first polymeric binder.
However, Ishida discloses a positive electrode active substance that can be recycled into a battery material ([0009]).
Ishida teaches a washing step S2 immediately after a mechanical separation step (i.e. crushing/shredding step S1 corresponding to the claimed step a)) of washing the first coating to extract therefrom almost all of an electrolyte (LiPF6) that the spent lithium-ion battery contained in contact with the first electrode, by means of an organic washing solvent which is generally inert with respect to the first polymeric binder (alcohol) in order to remove organic components originating from the electrolyte from the first electrode ([0041]-[0044]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Baek in view of Sonntag and Krause to further comprise between steps a) and b), a step a1) of washing the first coating to extract therefrom almost all of an LiPF6 electrolyte that the spent lithium-ion battery contained in contact with the first electrode, by means of the organic washing solvent alcohol that is generally inert with respect to the first polymeric binder in order to remove organic components originating from the electrolyte from the first electrode, as taught by Ishida.
Regarding Claim 6, Baek in view of Sonntag, Krause, and Ishida teaches the instantly claimed method of Claim 6.
As previously described (see Claim 5), Baek in view of Sonntag, Krause, and Ishida discloses wherein the first coating further comprises traces of said electrolyte, which is an aprotic electrolyte based on Li+ cations (LiPF6) (Ishida [0041]-[0044]).
The skilled artisan would recognize that the LiPF6 of Baek in view of Sonntag, Krause, and Ishida is an aprotic electrode based on Li+ cations, as evidenced by [0054] of Applicant’s own Specification.
Regarding Claim 13, Baek discloses a method for recycling at least one cell of a spent lithium-ion battery ([0033]) comprising the following steps:
a dismemberment of said at least one cell to recover a first cathode comprising a first cathode covered with a first cathode coating impregnated with the electrolyte, and
recycling according to the recycling method of claim 5 as taught by Baek in view of Sonntag and Ishida of the first cathode, forming said spent first electrode to be recycled ([0033]-[0050]).
Baek fails to disclose an envelope, a first anode, and a separator.
However, Ishida teaches removing a case (exterior can) to recover a first anode comprising a first anode current collector covered with a first anode coating impregnated with an electrolyte, a first cathode comprising a first cathode covered with a first cathode coating impregnated with the electrolyte, and a separator in order to separate each part of the battery ([0005], [0040]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the method of Baek in view of Sonntag, Krause, and Ishida to further comprise removing a case to recover a first anode comprising a first anode current collector covered with a first anode coating impregnated with an electrolyte, a first cathode comprising a first cathode covered with a first cathode coating impregnated with the electrolyte, and a separator in order to separate each part of the battery, as taught by Ishida.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVIA MASON RUGGIERO whose telephone number is (703)756-4652. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7am-6pm EST.
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 on (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.
/O.M.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729