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 . 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 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.
DETAILED FINAL ACTION
Status of Claims
Cancelled
Currently Amended
Previously Presented/Original
Pending and Examined
2, 4
1, 3, 5
6, 7
1, 3 and 5-7
Response to Amendment
In their reply dated April 8, 2026, Applicant amended the claims to address one or more objections, rejections, statements and/or claim interpretations of the Office action (OA), and/or to clarify the claim language, and/or to potentially advance prosecution. Applicant incorporated elements of claims 2 and 4 into independent claim 1. The amendment changes the scope of claim 1. Additionally, it changes the scope of claim 4 by removing the structure that “the base member is movable in a vertical direction,” which was part of now cancelled claim 4. Claim 1 previously required “wherein the base member is movable at least in a horizontal direction.” In the current amendment, for claim 1, there is no requirement that the base member be movable in any direction. This movability is first introduced in claim 3.
Examiner briefly discussed with an Applicant representative the implication of not addressing previous claims 4 and 5 with prior art. However, at this juncture and upon further consideration, Examiner believes all claims are susceptible to prior art and has applied pertinent art herein, including a combination of prior art of record and/or one or more new references. See related Interview Summary.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Examiner has considered the information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 04-08-2026. Please refer to the signed copy of the PTO-1449 forms attached herewith.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informality: The verb ‘is’ appears to be missing after ‘filter.’
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (CN205752435, Liu) in view of Hoshiko et al. (CN105210177, Hoshiko)(IDS of 06/27/2025)(machine translations, included new versions provided for improved clarity, are referenced below) and Nishimura et al. (US5628973, Nishimura) (of record).
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Song discloses an active material separation apparatus for separating an active material from a battery member containing the active material (Abstract, [0012], [0015]-[0025], Fig. 1), the active material separation apparatus comprising:
a container 1 (recovery kettle/recycling tank)([0021]);
a base member (box 3) that is disposed inside the container and that is configured to support the battery member ([0021]);
a nozzle 4 that is disposed above the container and that is configured to jet a liquid to the battery member ([0021]), and
a waste liquid part having an opening/closing is disposed below the container (‘liquid outflow switch’),
wherein the waste liquid part is disposed below the base member ([0021], [0028], Fig. 1).
Therefore, Song discloses the claimed invention, except
a valve for the opening/closing disposed below the container; and
a contact portion having a shape corresponding to a shape of a lower surface edge portion of the base member is provided on an inner surface of the container, and
the inside of the container is divided into a first space above the contact portion and a second space below the contact portion by bringing the lower surface edge portion of the base member in contact with the contact portion.
Saito discloses a cleaning method and a cleaning apparatus, wherein the introduction of a spray-based cleaning medium and the extraction of the introduced cleaning medium are controlled, thereby suppressing the re-adhesion of the cleaned material mixed in the cleaning medium when cleaning components such as semiconductor substrates (Abstract, [0002]). Saito also discloses that the inner surface of the processing tank 11 (i.e., container) is provided with a cartridge guide 14a (i.e., contact portion) having a shape corresponding to the shape of the lower surface edge of the containing rack 15 (base member), which is movable in the plumb direction (¶¶ 58-106 and Figures 1-8).
Also, one can view the inside of the Saito container as divided into a first space above the contact portion and a second space below the contact portion, which is obtainable by bringing the lower surface edge portion of the base member in contact with the contact portion.
Saito also discloses the use of valves for controlling a discharge ([0088], [0098], [0109]).
Nishimura discloses a treating method and a treating apparatus of a used lithium cell or battery, wherein a treating fluid is in contact with a negative electrode containing lithium of a lithium cell under a first condition to react a surface portion of the negative electrode, and a treating fluid is in contact with lithium existing inside an article formed on the surface of the negative electrode under a second condition (Abstract, col. 1, lines 1-3). Nishimura discloses the use of opening/closing valves for controlling fluid flow (col. 14, lines 7-65).
When the claimed invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ a valve disposed below the container, to assist in controlling liquid including waste liquid discharge as suggested in Saito and for more precise control of the release of liquid, as suggested by Nishimura.
Moreover, one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to design the active material separation apparatus in any reasonable and workable configuration such as suggested by Saito, where the contact portion is shaped and configured as claimed.
Additional Disclosure Included: Claim 3: The base member 3 is movable in a horizontal direction (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Song and Saito combined discloses or suggests the active material separation apparatus according to claim 1, except wherein a second waste liquid part different from the waste liquid part that is a first waste liquid part is provided.
A different second waste liquid part is essentially a duplication of parts where the second part is employed for the potential use of different solvent to separate different active materials, where one would expect the different parts to facilitate additional efficient separation and convenience.
At the time when the claimed invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to employ a second waste liquid part different from the waste liquid part that is a first waste liquid part for use with different active materials where this is a modified duplication of parts with little patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is achieved.
Regarding claim 6, Song, Saito and Nishimura combined discloses or suggests the active material separation apparatus according to claim 1, except wherein an annular inner lid portion is provided inside the container.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an appropriately shaped lid or cover to assist in holding and protecting the container’s contents.
Regarding claim 7, Song, Saito and Nishimura combined discloses or suggests the active material separation apparatus according to claim 1, except wherein a collecting filter disposed inside the container is provided.
However, Song teaches the use of a filter element and vacuum filter ([0012], [0014], [0021], [0023], [0027]).
At the time when the claimed invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to alternately or in addition provide a collection filter inside the treatment tank for additional filtering where desired.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 04-08-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Yamasaki was employed as the primary reference in the prior OA, and Song is the primary reference in this OA. The arguments with respect to Yamasaki are thus moot in light of the modified rejections. Nishimura was a secondary reference but is applied only supplementally in this OA for the feature of a waste liquid part. However, this feature is also addressed with Song.
With respect to the amended claims, Examiner has added one or more new references and/or additional or clarified rationales with respect to any new or added/amended limitations. As such, Examiner believes all claim limitations as well as each of Applicant’s relevant arguments are fully and properly addressed either in this section or in the modified patentability analysis above.
While Examiner appreciates Applicant’s efforts to expedite prosecution of the Application, for the stated reasons, Examiner believes the claims are not presently in condition for allowance. As implied in the response to amendment section above, this is a full reconsideration of the case and any inference that the application was/is in condition for allowance based on the non-application of prior art to now cancelled claim 4 and the previous claim 5.
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.
Electronic Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or an earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hayden Brewster whose telephone number is (571) 270-1065. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9 AM - 4 PM.
Alternatively, to contact the examiner, Applicant may send a communication, via e-mail or fax. Examiner’s direct fax number is: (571) 270-2065. Examiner's official e-mail address is: "Hayden.Brewster@uspto.gov." However, since e-mail communication may not be secure, Examiner will not respond to a substantive e-mail unless Applicant’s communication is in accordance with the provisions of MPEP §502.03 & related sections that discuss the required Authorization for Internet Communication (AIC). Nonetheless, all substantive communications will be made of record in Applicant’s file.
To facilitate the Internet communication authorization process, Applicant may file an appropriate letter, or may complete the USPTO SB439 fillable form available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf, preferably in advance of any substantive e-mail communication. Since one may use an electronic signature with this particular form, Applicant is encouraged to file this form via the Office’s system for electronic filing of patent correspondence (i.e., the electronic filing system (Patent Center)). Otherwise, a handwritten signature is required. In addition to Patent Center, Applicant can submit their Internet authorization request via US Postal Service, USPTO Customer Service Window, or Central Fax. Examiner can also provide a one-time oral authorization, but this will only apply to video conferencing. It is improper to request Internet Authorization via e-mail.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and via 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) form available at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice, or Applicant may call Examiner, if preferable. Applicant can access a general list of patent application forms at either https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms-patent-applications-filed-or-after-september-16-2012 (applications filed on or after September 16, 2012) or https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms (applications filed before September 16, 2012). Note that the language in an AIR form is not a substitute for the requirements of an AIC, where appropriate. The mere filing of an Applicant Initiated Interview Request Form (PTOL-413A) or a Letter Requesting Interview with Examiner, in EFS-Web, may not apprise Examiner of such a request in a timely manner.
If attempts to reach the Examiner are unsuccessful, Applicant may reach Examiner’s supervisor, Bobby Ramdhanie at 571-270-3240. The central 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.
/HAYDEN BREWSTER/Examiner, AU 1779
Prosecution Insights