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 amendment filed on 12/26/2025 does not place the application in condition for allowance.
In view of the amendment to claim 6, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of claim 6 has been withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1, 4, 5 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. 102 is maintained.
The rejection of claims 2-3 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/26/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Kudo does not indicate the solution remains in a liquid state, however in all steps of the operation the accumulators are manipulated into, within and out of a solution which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as a liquid state. Even if a part of the solution was in the solid state this feature is not excluded by the claims. Applicant also argues the temperature is not held below the thermal runaway temperature, however Kudo discloses suppressing the battery temperature from rising to open the battery safely(¶[0024]-[0025]) and describes the heat generated as dissipating quickly by the solution to reduce the maximum safety of the battery to avoid gas generation and ignition of the electrolyte(¶[0014]) which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as the temperature being kept below the thermal runway temperature.
Applicant further argues Ho does not describe cooling the solution and would therefore be contrary to the teachings of Kudo and not be selected by the skilled person, however Ho describes a ranges of temperatures including below 10 °C (¶[0094]) which is similar to Kudo.
Applicant further argues a skilled person would not have selected Uda because they do not describe the step of cooling or thermal runaway; however both Uda and Kudo are in the same field concerned with using salt solutions for inserting accumulators leading a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of the two references.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kudo (JPH11260426A, reference made to English translation).
Regarding claim 1, Kudo discloses A process for inerting at least one electrochemical accumulator (A)(¶[0010]), comprising the following steps:
0/ selecting a type of salt or mixture of salts, selecting the concentration(s) by weight thereof in an aqueous solution (¶[0022]) and selecting the cooling temperature for the aqueous solution that allows the accumulator(s) to stay at a temperature below or equal to the temperature termed the “thermal runaway temperature” T2(¶[0024], the solution is kept low enough to suppress the temperature rise as much as possible and limit gas ejection, thereby also limiting the temperature below the thermal runaway temperature), the selection additionally ensuring that the aqueous solution remains in a liquid state throughout cooling(¶[0026], the solution remains a solution, i.e. liquid, though removal of the battery from the solution tank);
i/ supplying an aqueous solution of the salt or mixture of salts selected in step 0/(¶[0022]);
ii/ cooling the aqueous solution of the salt or mixture of salts to the temperature determined in step 0/(¶[0024]);
iii/ submerging the accumulator(s) in the cooled aqueous solution of the salt or mixture of salts(¶[0024], solution bath of device);
iv/ short-circuiting the accumulator(s) in order to cause the electrical discharge thereof(¶[0022]).
Regarding claim 4, Kudo discloses the process according to claim 1 and additionally discloses wherein the temperature determined in step 0/ is above or equal to -50° C, in this case 0 °C (¶[0034]).
Regarding claim 5, Kudo discloses the process according to claim 1 and additionally discloses wherein step iv/ is carried out by piercing or crushing the casing of the accumulator(s)(¶[0017]).
Regarding claim 7, Kudo discloses the process for inerting a plurality of electrochemical accumulators according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of accumulators is assembled inside a module or inside a battery pack during steps iii/ and iv/ and where appropriate disassembled at the end of step iv/(¶[0050], see opened reliably).
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.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudo et. al. (JPH11260426A, reference made to English translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ho et. al. (US20180013181A1).
Regarding claim 2, Kudo discloses the process according to claim 1, but does not disclose wherein step i/ consists of supplying an aqueous solution of calcium chloride (CaCl2).
Ho, related to recycling batteries, teaches soaking the battery in an aqueous solution which may contain salts optionally including sodium chloride and/or calcium chloride.
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the aqueous salt solution of Kudo could substitute calcium chloride in place of sodium chloride to create a functioning salt solution.
The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Regarding claim 3, modified Kudo discloses the process according to claim 2 including the use of CaCl2 as a salt, and Kudo additionally discloses wherein the salt concentration is between 0% and 30% by weight, in this case the electrolytic salt concentration is 0.001 to 1.0 wt% (¶[0022]).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP §2144.05.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudo et. al. (JPH11260426A, reference made to English translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Uda et. al. (WO2021201151 as cited in the IDS dated 10/26/22, reference made to attached English translation).
Regarding claim 6, modified Kudo discloses the process according to claim 1, but does not disclose the time for step iv.
Uda, related to deactivating secondary batteries, teaches an aqueous salt solution (calcium hydroxide) is used to deactivate(i.e. discharge) a secondary battery (¶[0058]) and the immersion time may be particularly 30 min to 6 hours (¶[0076]) to provide safe deactivation of the battery(¶[0074]).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP §2144.05.
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 KAREN J. ARMSTRONG whose telephone number is (703)756-1243. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 am-6 pm 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, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
/K.J.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1726 /RYAN S CANNON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726