CTFR 18/173,754 CTFR 101033 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims Claims 1-4 are pending. Claim 11 is cancelled. Claims 5-10, 12-18 are withdrawn. Claims 19-20 are new. Response to Amendment Applicant’s amendments filed on 2/9/2026 have been entered. 112 rejection from previous office action has been withdrawn based on applicant’s amendment. 102 rejections from previous office action have been withdrawn based on applicant’s amendment. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-4, 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa et al (JP 2019130474A; machine translation) in view of Tanaka et al (US 20240274915 A1; effective filing date Dec 23, 2021) . Regarding Claim 1, Nakagawa teaches apparatus and method associated with recovering (recycling) negative electrode active material (Paragraph 0007). Each step of the recovery method has associated apparatus to perform the step. The steps per Nakagawa comprise of dispersing electrode material in a solvent, separating the dispersion into a precipitate and supernatant (paragraph 0012), and then drying the precipitate to obtain active material powder (Paragraph 0041). Per MPEP 2115, a claim is only limited by positively recited elements. The inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. The apparatus of claimed invention is configured to work on a niobium titanium oxide. Nakagawa teaches the use of lithium titanate as the negative active material. Nakagawa does not teach niobium titanium oxide as claimed, but the apparatus of Nakagawa is capable of working with claimed electrode material. Nakagawa teaches that the electrode material is dispersed in a solvent, and the solvent may be water (Paragraph 0038). Nakagawa teaches a separation step utilizing a flocculating and sedimenting agent (Paragraph 0039). This is akin to a solid-liquid separation means. Nakagawa teaches that the precipitate from sedimenting step is dried (first heat treatment; Paragraph 0041). Nakagawa does not state any specific conditions of drying (claim states to apply heat treatment to the separated niobium titanium oxide that have been separated by the solid-liquid separation apparatus and conveyed from the solid-liquid separation apparatus, under conditions of a temperature from 600C to 1200C and a time duration from 0.5 hour to 24 hours). However, Tanaka teaches a method for recycling a lithium ion secondary battery which contains niobium titanium complex oxide (Paragraph 0032). Tanaka teaches that the method of the electrode restoration treatment is not particularly limited as long as it includes cleaning and heat treatment that can improve deteriorated electrode performance (Paragraph 0051). The cleaning method with a polar solvent and water is preferred to be immersing the ceramic electrode in the solvent, and performing ultrasonic cleaning or stirring (this is akin to a solid-liquid separation step). After this solid-liquid separation step, the material is fired by heating the battery element preferably at 650 to 1000 ˚C, and the retention time is 0.01 to 20 hours (Paragraph 0052). These heating conditions overlap with the claimed temperature and time duration. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the heating conditions of Tanaka into the drying step of Nakagawa in order to restore and improve the crystallinity of the substance, and enhance the battery performance (Paragraph 0052). It is also obvious that the material from the solid-liquid separation step would be transferred or conveyed from the solid-liquid separation apparatus to the firing/heating apparatus. Regarding Claim 2, Nakagawa teaches a heat treatment step prior to the dispersion step (Paragraph 0030). This is akin to the second heat treatment apparatus as claimed. Nakagawa teaches that the firing method is not particularly limited, and may be performed using a firing furnace (Paragraph 0033). Regarding Claim 3, Nakagawa teaches that the battery container is cut using a diamond cutter or the like, to remove battery components such as electrodes from insider the container. The battery is then disassembled, allowing the separation processes to be carried out effectively. This is akin to the claimed invention of having a separation device configured to separate the electrode from a battery. The apparatus of Nakagawa allows for the removal of positive and negative electrodes from the battery and separating them prior to performing other steps. The instant specification states that the separation apparatus includes a container separation apparatus (cutting device), a positive/negative electrode separation apparatus (instant spec; Paragraph 0060 and Paragraph 0062). Nakagawa’s apparatus as described above, is akin to the instant specification. Regarding Claim 4, Nakagawa teaches that the battery container is cut using a diamond cutter or the like, to remove battery components such as electrodes from insider the container. The battery is then disassembled, allowing the separation processes to be carried out effectively. This is akin to the claimed invention of having a separation device configured to separate the electrode from a battery. The apparatus of Nakagawa allows for the removal of positive and negative electrodes from the battery and separating them prior to performing other steps. The instant specification states that the separation apparatus includes a container separation apparatus, a positive/negative electrode separation apparatus (instant spec; Paragraph 0060). Nakagawa’s apparatus as described above, is akin to the instant specification. Regarding Claim 19, Nakagawa does not teach that the first heating step has a time duration from 1 hour to 24 hours. However, Tanaka teaches a method for recycling a lithium ion secondary battery which contains niobium titanium complex oxide (Paragraph 0032). After a solid-liquid separation step, the material is fired by heating the battery element preferably at 650 to 1000 ˚C, and the retention time is 0.01 to 20 hours (Paragraph 0052). This time duration overlaps with the claimed time duration. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the heating conditions of Tanaka into the drying step of Nakagawa in order to restore and improve the crystallinity of the substance, and enhance the battery performance (Paragraph 0052). Regarding Claim 20, Nakagawa teaches that the precipitate from sedimenting step is dried (first heat treatment; Paragraph 0041). Nakagawa does not state any specific conditions of drying. However, Nakagawa does teach a firing step as a heat treatment step wherein an air atmosphere is used (Paragraph 0034). Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a similar air atmosphere in the drying step of Nakagawa. Furthermore, Tanaka specifies a heat treatment step, i.e. firing the battery element at specific temperature and duration ranges, but it does not particularly limit the atmosphere of the heat treatment step. The instant specification states that the first heat treatment step removes acidic solvent on the surface of the niobium titanium oxide. Tanaka also teaches that unnecessary components or impurities (SEI or the like) remaining in the ceramic electrode can be eliminated or burned off, the residual amount can be further reduced, and the battery performance can be further improved (Paragraph 0052). Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the heat treatment apparatus configured to apply heat treatment to the separated niobium titanium oxide in air under the stated conditions in order to eliminate or burn off residual amount on the electrodes. The ‘heat treatment apparatus configured to apply heat treatment to the separated niobium titanium oxide in air’ defines the apparatus by what it does, rather than what it is. This is a functional limitation, and therefore was not evaluated on its own, but in conjunction with the remainder of claim 20. See MPEP 2173.05(g). Tanaka teaches that the heat treatment step occurs in a firing/sintering type apparatus, and hence teaches the claimed structure. Therefore, it would be capable of performing in the manner claimed. References of Interest Lee et al (US 20180212282 A1) Ise et al (US 20150086872 A1) Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant argues that Nakagawa does not teach the specific conditions for first heat treatment step as claimed. Examiner points to 103 rejection section in this office action which rejects Claim 1 on the basis of Nakagawa in view of Tanaka. Nakagawa provides a heat treatment step, but Tanaka provides possible temperature and duration of the heat treatment, and appreciates removal of residual material from the electrode. Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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 SUHANI JITENDRA PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6278. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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, Maria Veronica D. Ewald can be reached on 571-272-8519 . 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. /SUHANI JITENDRA PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 1783 /MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783 Application/Control Number: 18/173,754 Page 2 Art Unit: 1783 Application/Control Number: 18/173,754 Page 3 Art Unit: 1783 Application/Control Number: 18/173,754 Page 4 Art Unit: 1783 Application/Control Number: 18/173,754 Page 5 Art Unit: 1783 Application/Control Number: 18/173,754 Page 6 Art Unit: 1783 Application/Control Number: 18/173,754 Page 7 Art Unit: 1783 Application/Control Number: 18/173,754 Page 8 Art Unit: 1783
Prosecution Insights