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
Upon entry of the amendment filed on 08 December 2025, Claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are amended; Claim(s) 17-20 is/are withdrawn; and Claim(s) 2 and 4-6 is/are cancelled. The currently pending claims are Claims 1, 3 and 7-20.
Based on applicants’ remarks and amendments (e.g. the specific dopant salts), the 102 and 103 rejections are withdrawn. However, new grounds of rejections are provided necessitated by the amendments.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7-10, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Zheng (CN109897964A, cited in the IDS and a machine translation is provided and referenced from hereon).
Claim 1: Wang discloses a process of producing doped cathode material from exhausted lithium ions batteries by extracting useful elements Co, Ni, Al and Mn via leaching a black mass, adjusting/optimizing the loading amounts by adding metal salts, adding dopant salts, precipitating the components, mixing and sintering/heating (abs, ¶33-58, 79, 91-93 and Figs 1, 2, and 5-8 with accompanying text). Further, Wang discloses various dopants such as Mg salt (¶91-93 and Figs 1, 2, and 5-8 with accompanying text). The Wang reference discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the feature of the dopant selected from the group consisting of Ca, Fe, Nb, Cu, Cr, Zn, and Zr. It is noted that the Wang reference discloses aluminum and magnesium salt and the claim(s) call(s) for salts based having Ca, Fe, Nb, Cu, Cr, Zn, and Zr. In an analogous art, the Zheng reference discloses that the feature of employing the claimed metal salt dopant in the process of recycling Li ions batteries and the art is well known “wherein the doping elements M, M ' or N is any one of the metal elements of Ni, Co, Mn, Na, K, Mg, Ca, Sr, Ba, Al, Ga, In, Ge, Sn, Ti, V, Cr, Fe, Cu, Zn, Y, Zr, Nb, Mo, Cd, W, La, Ce, Nd and Sm in the one kind of or more” (Zheng: abs, pg. 2-4 and examples). In particular, it is noted that Zheng discloses the substitution of art-recognized equivalents. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known component of Zheng to the teachings of Wang would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the cited references shows the ability to apply such features into similar systems, methods and compositions for the benefit gain of affecting the cations mixture. See MPEP 2143. Further, it is noted that obviousness only requires a reasonable expectation of success and there is no evidence nor teaching that the substitution would be repugnant to a skilled artisan.
Claim 3: The Wang and Zheng references disclose the claimed invention but do not explicitly disclose the claimed loading range, ratio and cycles capacity retention. It is noted that the claimed ranges, ratio and cycles capacity retention is construed as result-effective variables, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result. Here, Wang discloses various ranges such as less than 1%, a 1:1:1 ratio with the teaching that any suitable ratio can be employed and is motivated to achieve a product with high cycles charge (Figs 1, 2, and 5-8 with accompanying text). Given that the Wang and Zheng references disclose a similar method to achieve a similar doped cathode material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization such as varying the amount of the dopants and metal salts, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize known variables since the reference also discloses a similar end-product. Further, obviousness only requires a reasonable expectation of success and there is no evidence nor teaching that the selection or optimization of the claimed components and steps would be repugnant to a skilled artisan.
Claims 7-10: Wang and Zheng disclose the NMC feature with various loading amount/ratio adjustments such as less than 50% of Ni or 1:1:1 (Wang: ¶40-79 and Figs 1, 2, and 5-8 with accompanying text).
Claim 14: Wang and Zheng disclose the crystalline structure (Wang: ¶93 and Figs 1, 2, and 5-8 with accompanying text).
Claim 16: Wang and Zheng disclose the lithium carbonate (Wang: Figs 1, 2, and 5-8 with accompanying text).
Claim(s) 8-11 is/are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang and Zheng as applied to claims above, and further in view of AKHONDI (US-20230304128-A1).
The Wang and Zheng references disclose the claimed invention but do not explicitly disclose the feature of NMC ratio such as NMC532. It is noted that the Wang reference discloses optimizing the NMC ratio and the claim(s) call(s) for NMC532. In an analogous art, the AKHONDI reference discloses that the NMC532 component in the process of recycling Li ions batteries is well known (abs, ¶217-232 and Fig 1 with accompanying text). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known component of NMC532 to the teachings of Wang and Zheng would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the cited references shows the ability to apply such features into similar systems, methods and compositions. See MPEP 2143. Further, it is noted that obviousness only requires a reasonable expectation of success and there is no evidence nor teaching that the substitution would be repugnant to a skilled artisan.
Claim(s) 15 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang and Zheng as applied to claims above, and further in view of Seeler (US-20250223188-A1) or Pakr (WO-2022139116-A1, a machine translation is provided).
The Wang and Zheng references disclose the claimed invention but do not explicitly disclose the single crystal feature. It is noted that the Wang reference discloses a crystalline structure and the claim(s) call(s) for a single crystalline structure. In an analogous art, the Seeler or Pakr reference discloses that the single crystalline feature in the process of recycling Li ions batteries is well known (Seeler: abs, ¶57-66 & Pakr: abs, examples and pg. 11). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known single crystalline feature to the teachings of Wang and Zheng would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the cited references shows the ability to apply such features into similar systems, methods and compositions. See MPEP 2143. Further, it is noted that obviousness only requires a reasonable expectation of success and there is no evidence nor teaching that the substitution would be repugnant to a skilled artisan.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 5-8, filed 08 December 2025, with respect to the specific metal salt dopants of Wang, Zhang and Zhang NPL have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 102 and 103 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3, 7-16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
It is noted that the newly-amended claims directed to the specific metal salt dopants are met by the Zheng reference (see above).
The rebuttal of the rejections of claims 8-11, and 15 are based on the arguments presented regarding the Wang reference – since the claims are now rejected based on Wang and Zheng, the rejections are updated and maintained.
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 TRI V NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6965. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Arrie Lanee Reuthers can be reached at 571.272.7026. 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.
/TRI V NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764