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 / Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 12/18/2025. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined. The amendment and arguments have overcome the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) and the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 9-10, 13, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Deighton (US Patent No. 9,620,790), hereinafter referred to as Deighton.
Regarding claim 1 (Original), Deighton discloses a method of opening a battery in an end-of-life process, the battery comprising a plurality of electrode layers [Deighton, col 10, line 3, lithium battery which is a spiral wound-type battery creating a plurality of electrode layers], the method comprising:
placing the battery in a fluid cutting apparatus [Deighton, fig 5, 202];
forming a stream of a cutting fluid [Deighton, fig 5, 202 and 205, fluid jet]; and
impinging the stream of the cutting fluid onto the battery at a sufficient pressure to form a cut entirely through all layers of the battery [Deighton, fig 5, 206 and fig 2, 54 cuts off the end 16 from the battery and col 7, lines 15-27], wherein the cutting fluid forms a passivating layer at an interface formed by the cut by reacting with one or more electrode materials within the battery [Deighton, col 9, line 66 – col 10, line 10, specifically where the lithium-ion battery is the workpiece, the fluid may include a water-free solution to prevent chemical reactions within the battery].
Regarding claim 3 (Original), Deighton further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein impinging the stream of the cutting fluid onto the battery comprises operating the fluid cutting apparatus at an operating pressure in a range of 30,000 to 70,000 pounds per square inch [Deighton, col 7, lines 15-27, 60,000 psi].
Regarding claim 9 (Original), Deighton further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the stream of the cutting fluid comprises an abrasive [Deighton, col 7, lines 28-43, 58].
Regarding claim 10 (Original), Deighton further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein forming the stream of the cutting fluid comprises combining a liquid component and a gas [Deighton, col 7, lines 28-43].
Regarding claim 13 (Original), Deighton further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein impinging the stream of the cutting fluid onto the battery comprises cutting the battery along a line from a first end of the battery to a second end of the battery [Deighton, fig 2, 54 is along a line from one end of the battery to the second end in order to remove at least the end 16].
Regarding claim 18 (Original), Deighton discloses a method of forming a passivating layer on a lithium-containing component of a lithium-ion battery during a battery opening process [Deighton, abstract], the method comprising:
forming a stream of a cutting fluid [Deighton, fig 2, 54] by combining a liquid component and a gas [Deighton, col 7, lines 28 - 43]; and
impinging the stream of the cutting fluid onto the lithium-containing component of the lithium-ion battery such that the stream of the cutting fluid forms the passivating layer by reacting with the lithium-containing component [Deighton, col 9, line 66 – col 10, line 10, specifically where the lithium-ion battery is the workpiece, the fluid may include a water-free solution to prevent chemical reactions within the battery].
Regarding claim 19 (Original), Deighton further discloses the method of claim 18, wherein the lithium-containing component comprises one or more of lithium, carbon-lithium, silicon-lithium, tin-lithium, or another alloy of lithium [Deighton, col 10, lines 3-10, lithium].
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deighton (US Patent No. 9,620,790) alone, hereinafter referred to as Deighton.
Regarding claim 2 (Original), Deighton discloses the method of claim 1, wherein impinging the stream of the cutting fluid onto the battery comprises operating the fluid cutting apparatus at an operating pressure in a range of 30,000 to 70,000 pounds per square inch [Deighton, col 7, lines 15-27, 60,000 psi].
However, Deighton does not explicitly disclose the operating pressure to be between a range of 10,000 to 30,000 pounds per square inch as required by the claim.
Deighton discloses fluid needs to be optimized to meet the exact configuration of the workpiece being opened up [Deighton, col 7, lines 15-27]. The fluid jet needs to be configured with different pressures depending on the workpiece and the materials that are being cut through such that the operating pressure is disclosed to be a result effective variable in that changing the workpiece requires change in the operating pressure of the cutting fluid. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Deighton device to have the operating pressure within the claimed range, as it involves only adjusting the variable of a component disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Deighton by making the operating pressure to be between 10,000 and 30,000 pounds per square inch as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held in MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”. Further, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range pp [0017] teaches that the range “may be” outside these ranges as well (see MPEP 2144.05(III)(A) and 716.02-716.02(g)).
Claims 4-5, 11-12, 14-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deighton (US Patent No. 9,620,790) as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Hashish et al (US PGPUB No. 2022/0410347), hereinafter referred to as Deighton and Hashish, respectively.
Regarding claim 4 (Currently Amended), Deighton discloses the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose the battery is positioned at a sufficient elevation above the bath of the fluid cutting apparatus to avoid splashes from the bath during cutting.
Hashish teaches a method of opening a lithium-ion battery in an end-of-life process, the method comprising:
positioning the battery over a bath of a fluid cutting apparatus [Hashish, figs 1 and 3, 14 is positioned within 11, and page 1, pp 0005, the workpiece 14 may be a lithium-ion battery];
forming a stream of a cutting fluid [Hashish, fig 3, 55]; and
impinging the stream of the cutting fluid onto the battery [Hashish, fig 3, 55 is impinged onto 14], wherein the battery is positioned at an elevation above the bath of the fluid cutting apparatus to avoid splashes from the bath during cutting [Hashish, fig 3, 14 is positioned within 11, within in area 62 and page 5, pp 0058, 62 is an area to help keep the batteries inert or to make the area inert, and is also capable of preventing splashes and further a shroud 60 is positioned over the workpiece to help with keeping the workpiece].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated and include the bath and shroud to house the battery workpiece and the height of the workpiece within the bath of Hashish within the fluid cutting apparatus of Deighton because the region within the tank [Hashish, fig 3, 62] is to help render an inert area which will help to prevent or lower the potential risk of spark generation [Hashish, page 5, pp 0059, summarized].
Regarding claim 5 (Original), Deighton discloses the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising positioning the battery in a bath of the fluid cutting apparatus.
Hashish teaches a method of opening a lithium-ion battery in an end-of-life process, the method comprising:
positioning the battery over a bath of a fluid cutting apparatus [Hashish, figs 1 and 3, 14 is positioned within 11, and page 1, pp 0005, the workpiece 14 may be a lithium-ion battery];
forming a stream of a cutting fluid [Hashish, fig 3, 55]; and
impinging the stream of the cutting fluid onto the battery [Hashish, fig 3, 55 is impinged onto 14], and
positioning the battery in a bath of the fluid cutting apparatus [Hashish, fig 3, 14 is positioned within 11, within in area 62 and page 5, pp 0058, 62 is an area to help keep the batteries inert or to make the area inert, and is also capable of preventing splashes and further a shroud 60 is positioned over the workpiece to help with keeping the workpiece].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated and include the bath and shroud to house the battery workpiece and to position of the workpiece within the bath of Hashish within the fluid cutting apparatus of Deighton because the region within the tank [Hashish, fig 3, 62] is to help render an inert area which will help to prevent or lower the potential risk of spark generation [Hashish, page 5, pp 0059, summarized].
Regarding claim 11 (Original), Deighton discloses the method of claim 10, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the liquid component of the cutting fluid comprises one or more of water, carbon dioxide, or ammonia.
Hashish teaches a method of opening a lithium-ion battery in an end-of-life process, the method comprising:
positioning the battery over a bath of a fluid cutting apparatus [Hashish, figs 1 and 3, 14 is positioned within 11, and page 1, pp 0005, the workpiece 14 may be a lithium-ion battery];
forming a stream of a cutting fluid [Hashish, fig 3, 55], wherein the cutting fluid comprises combining a liquid component and a gas [Hashish, page 3, pp 0036], wherein the liquid component of the cutting fluid comprises one or more of water [Hashish, page 5, pp 0054 water with an additive to render the fluid inert], carbon dioxide, or ammonia.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add water with an additive to render the fluid inert of Hashish with the cutting fluid of Deighton because per MPEP 2143(I)(A) the combination of old elements is held to be obvious over the prior art. Where in the instant case, to include the water with the additive to render the fluid inert as taught by Hashish in the system of Deighton, each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references. The only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the water with an additive to render the cutting fluid inert as taught by Hashish in the system of Deighton because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, the elements being the cutting fluid having the water with an additive in order to render the fluid inert. In the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination gave the predictable result of the cutting fluid would have a water component that is insert and does not react with the material that is being cut because of the additive.
Regarding claim 12 (Original), Deighton discloses the method of claim 10, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the gas comprises one or more of nitrogen, air, carbon dioxide, argon, or helium.
Hashish teaches a method of opening a lithium-ion battery in an end-of-life process, the method comprising:
positioning the battery over a bath of a fluid cutting apparatus [Hashish, figs 1 and 3, 14 is positioned within 11, and page 1, pp 0005, the workpiece 14 may be a lithium-ion battery];
forming a stream of a cutting fluid [Hashish, fig 3, 55], wherein the cutting fluid comprises combining a liquid component and a gas [Hashish, page 3, pp 0036], wherein the gas comprises one or more of nitrogen [Hashish, page 5, pp 0054, the gas comprises nitrogen], air, carbon dioxide, argon, or helium.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add nitrogen to the gas component as taught by Hashish with the gas of Deighton because er MPEP 2143(I)(A) it has been held that the combination of old elements is obvious over the prior art. Where in the instant case, to include the nitrogen in the gas component as taught by Hashish in the system of Deighton, each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references. The only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the nitrogen as part of the gas component as taught by Hashish in the system of Deighton because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, the elements being the gas having a nitrogen component, as does all pressurized atmospheric air. In the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination gave the predictable result of nitrogen being a relatively inert gas and would not react with the cut material when used within the cutting fluid.
Regarding claim 14 (Currently Amended), Deighton discloses a method of opening a lithium-ion battery in an end-of-life process [Deighton, abstract], the method comprising:
positioning the battery in a fluid cutting apparatus [Deighton, fig 5, 202];
forming a stream of a cutting fluid [Deighton, fig 5, 202 and 205, fluid jet]; and
impinging the stream of the cutting fluid onto the battery at a sufficient pressure to form a cut entirely through the battery [Deighton, fig 5, 206 and fig 2, 54 cuts off the end 16 from the battery and col 7, lines 15-27].
Deighton does not explicitly disclose the positioning of the battery over a bath of the fluid cutting apparatus and wherein the battery is positioned at an elevation above the bath of the fluid cutting apparatus to avoid splashes from the bath during cutting.
Hashish teaches a method of opening a lithium-ion battery in an end-of-life process, the method comprising:
positioning the battery over a bath of a fluid cutting apparatus [Hashish, figs 1 and 3, 14 is positioned within 11, and page 1, pp 0005, the workpiece 14 may be a lithium-ion battery];
forming a stream of a cutting fluid [Hashish, fig 3, 55]; and
impinging the stream of the cutting fluid onto the battery [Hashish, fig 3, 55 is impinged onto 14], wherein the battery is positioned at an elevation above the bath of the fluid cutting apparatus to avoid splashes from the bath during cutting [Hashish, fig 3, 14 is positioned within 11, within in area 62 and page 5, pp 0058, 62 is an area to help keep the batteries inert or to make the area inert, and is also capable of preventing splashes and further a shroud 60 is positioned over the workpiece to help with keeping the workpiece].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated and include the bath and shroud to house the battery workpiece and the height of the workpiece within the bath of Hashish within the fluid cutting apparatus of Deighton because the region within the tank [Hashish, fig 3, 62] is to help render an inert area which will help to prevent or lower the potential risk of spark generation [Hashish, page 5, pp 0059, summarized].
Regarding claim 15 (Original), Deighton as modified further discloses the method of claim 14, wherein forming the stream of the cutting fluid comprises combining a liquid component and a gas [Deighton, col 7, lines 28-43], and wherein the cutting fluid forms a passivating layer at an interface formed by the cut by reacting with one or more electrode materials within the battery [Deighton, col 9, line 66 – col 10, line 10, specifically where the lithium-ion battery is the workpiece, the fluid may include a water-free solution to prevent chemical reactions within the battery].
Regarding claim 16 (Original), Deighton discloses the method of claim 14, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the liquid component of the cutting fluid comprises one or more of water, carbon dioxide, or ammonia.
Hashish teaches a method of opening a lithium-ion battery in an end-of-life process, the method comprising:
positioning the battery over a bath of a fluid cutting apparatus [Hashish, figs 1 and 3, 14 is positioned within 11, and page 1, pp 0005, the workpiece 14 may be a lithium-ion battery];
forming a stream of a cutting fluid [Hashish, fig 3, 55], wherein the cutting fluid comprises combining a liquid component and a gas [Hashish, page 3, pp 0036], wherein the liquid component of the cutting fluid comprises one or more of water [Hashish, page 5, pp 0054 water with an additive to render the fluid inert], carbon dioxide, or ammonia.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add water with an additive to render the fluid inert of Hashish with the cutting fluid of Deighton because per MPEP 2143(I)(A) the combination of old elements is held to be obvious over the prior art. Where in the instant case, to include the water with the additive to render the fluid inert as taught by Hashish in the system of Deighton, each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references. The only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the water with an additive to render the cutting fluid inert as taught by Hashish in the system of Deighton because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, the elements being the cutting fluid having the water with an additive in order to render the fluid inert. In the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination gave the predictable result of the cutting fluid would have a water component that is insert and does not react with the material that is being cut because of the additive.
Regarding claim 17 (Original), Deighton further discloses the method of claim 14, wherein the stream of the cutting fluid comprises an abrasive [Deighton, col 7, lines 28-43, 58].
Regarding claim 20 (Original), Deighton discloses the method of claim 18, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the gas comprises one or more of nitrogen, air, carbon dioxide, argon, or helium.
Hashish teaches a method of opening a lithium-ion battery in an end-of-life process, the method comprising:
positioning the battery over a bath of a fluid cutting apparatus [Hashish, figs 1 and 3, 14 is positioned within 11, and page 1, pp 0005, the workpiece 14 may be a lithium-ion battery];
forming a stream of a cutting fluid [Hashish, fig 3, 55], wherein the cutting fluid comprises combining a liquid component and a gas [Hashish, page 3, pp 0036], wherein the gas comprises one or more of nitrogen [Hashish, page 5, pp 0054, the gas comprises nitrogen], air, carbon dioxide, argon, or helium.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add nitrogen to the gas component as taught by Hashish with the gas of Deighton because er MPEP 2143(I)(A) it has been held that the combination of old elements is obvious over the prior art. Where in the instant case, to include the nitrogen in the gas component as taught by Hashish in the system of Deighton, each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references. The only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the nitrogen as part of the gas component as taught by Hashish in the system of Deighton because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, the elements being the gas having a nitrogen component, as does all pressurized atmospheric air. In the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination gave the predictable result of nitrogen being a relatively inert gas and would not react with the cut material when used within the cutting fluid.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deighton (US Patent No. 9,620,790) in view of Hashish et al (US PGPUB No. 2022/0410347) as applied to claim 5 above, and in further view of Nabeshima et al (US Patent No. 6,673,754), hereinafter referred to as Deighton, Hashish, and Nabeshima, respectively.
Regarding claim 6 (Original), Deighton as modified discloses the method of claim 5, and the bath [Hashish, figs 1 and 3, 11] captures the cutting fluid and has the workpiece at least partially submerged within the fluid [Hashish, page 5, pp 0060], but does not explicitly disclose wherein the bath comprises an ionic strength of between 0.2M and 8M.
Nabeshima teaches a non-flammable cutting fluid [Nabeshima, abstract] comprising: a water based cutting fluid [Nabeshima, col 2, lines 12-27], abrasives [Nabeshima, col 2, lines 12-27], and an additive [Nabeshima, col 4, lines 12-13, polymer and/or a salt] wherein the additive has the formula of :
PNG
media_image1.png
175
529
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein R represents a hydrogen atom or a methyl group; Ml, M2 and M3 are any one of a hydrogen atom, an alkaline metal atom or onium, which may be the same or different; n is an integer equal to or greater than 1; and m is an integer equal to or greater than 0 [Nabeshima, col 19, claim 3, which gives an ionic strength in the range of -1 to +3 M (CH2 has an ionic strength of -1, C has a ionic strength of 0, R can have an ionic strength of 0 or +1, each of COOM1, COOM2, and COOM3, can have an ionic strength of 0 or +1, CH has an ionic strength of 0) where n = 1 and m = 1, which overlies the claimed range of + 0.2 to +8 M].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the cutting fluid containing the additive of Nabeshima as the cutting fluid of Deighton as modified because Deighton just requires that the cutting fluid have abrasives and meet prevent undesired chemical reactions [Deighton, col 10, lines 8-10] where the additive prevents rust from forming [Nabeshima, col 2, lines 25-27, summarized]. Further since it has been held per MPEP 2143(B)(I) that each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. Where in the instant case that is in the substitution of the cutting fluid of Nabeshima for the cutting fluid of Deighton.
Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. The predictable result being that the cutting fluid being used in Deighton now also provides prevention against rust.
Regarding claim 7 (Original), Deighton as modified discloses the method of claim 5, and the bath [Hashish, figs 1 and 3, 11] captures the cutting fluid and has the workpiece at least partially submerged within the fluid [Hashish, page 5, pp 0060], but does not explicitly disclose wherein the bath comprises an alkali metal salt.
Nabeshima teaches a non-flammable cutting fluid [Nabeshima, abstract] comprising: a water based cutting fluid [Nabeshima, col 2, lines 12-27], abrasives [Nabeshima, col 2, lines 12-27] and a salt [Nabeshima, col 2, lines 12-27], wherein the cutting fluid and the bath comprises an alkali metal salt [Nabeshima, col 2, lines 50-46].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the cutting fluid containing the alkali metal salt of Nabeshima as the cutting fluid of Deighton as modified because Deighton just requires that the cutting fluid have abrasives and meet prevent undesired chemical reactions [Deighton, col 10, lines 8-10] where the addition of the alkali metal salts prevents rust from forming [Nabeshima, col 2, lines 25-27, summarized]. Further since it has been held per MPEP 2143(B)(I) that each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. Where in the instant case that is in the substitution of the cutting fluid of Nabeshima for the cutting fluid of Deighton.
Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. The predictable result being that the cutting fluid being used in Deighton now also provides prevention against rust.
Regarding claim 8 (Currently Amended), Deighton as modified discloses the method of claim 5, and the bath [Hashish, figs 1 and 3, 11] captures the cutting fluid and has the workpiece at least partially submerged within the fluid [Hashish, page 5, pp 0060], but does not explicitly disclose wherein the bath comprises one or more of polyethylene oxide, ethylene glycol, polyvinyl alcohol, or ethylene diamine tetraacetic acid
Nabeshima teaches a non-flammable cutting fluid [Nabeshima, abstract] comprising: a water based cutting fluid [Nabeshima, col 2, lines 12-27] and abrasives [Nabeshima, col 2, lines 12-27], wherein the cutting fluid and the bath comprises ethylene glycol [Nabeshima, col 5, lines 62-63].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the cutting fluid containing ethylene glycol additive of Nabeshima as the cutting fluid of Deighton as modified because Deighton just requires that the cutting fluid have abrasives and meet prevent undesired chemical reactions [Deighton, col 10, lines 8-10] and therefore since it has been held per MPEP 2143(B)(I) that each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. Where in the instant case that is in the substitution of the cutting fluid of Nabeshima for the cutting fluid of Deighton.
Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Starting on page 7, regarding claims 1, 14, and 18, the Applicant has argued that the prior art Deighton does not teach a cutting fluid that performs a passivating layer at an interface formed by the cut by reacting with one or more electrode materials within the battery. Respectfully the Office disagrees for the following reasons: First Deighton in the citation states that the liquid media in use can be used to prevent chemical reactions, where this reads on creating a passivating layer because a passivating layer is a coating to prevent the environment from reacting, where the media 56 of Deighton coats the workpiece, and prevents the reactions. Further regarding the reaction with one or more electrode materials, within the battery, Deighton by preventing other reactions within the workpiece must therefore cause some reactions within workpiece as evidenced by lines 11-22 where the media provides self-cleaning and keeps any zinc material thoroughly wet to prevent spontaneous exothermic reactions, which means that Deighton is reacting with the zinc and therefore reads on the limitation. Further still, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In the instant case, the structure of Deighton has been shown to meet the claim and therefore is also capable of meeting the limitation. See MPEP 2114(II). For these reasons, the rejection has been maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hanisch et al (US Patent No. 12,412,941) teaches a method for recycling lithium batteries comprising using a jet to force fluid onto a workpiece.
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 ROBERT NEIBAUR whose telephone number is (571)270-7979. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/ROBERT F NEIBAUR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights