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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-19 in the reply filed on April 17, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that a search of all pending claims would not pose a serious burden to the Examiner. This is not found persuasive because of the reasons set forth in the Restriction Requirement.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 20-32 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on April 17, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-5, 10, 11, 15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 3-5, 10, 11, 15, 17, and 18, the phrase "preferably" renders each claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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(s) 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bao et al (CN 112093787 A; note that references made herein are with respect to the English translation, of record, submitted with the IDS filed 12/5/2023) in view of Choi et al (KR 20170033787 A; note that references made herein are with respect to the English translation, of record, submitted with the IDS filed 12/5/2023).
Regarding claims 1, 2, and 11, Bao teaches a method of preparing an olivine-type high-entropy lithium battery precursor material from retired lithium battery positive electrode sheets (par. 2). Regarding the claimed mixed metal composition, Bao teaches treatment of spent nickel/cobalt/manganese ternary lithium battery material and spent iron-lithium lithium battery bacterial cathode sheet (par. 11). Choi teaches that said materials are contacted with phosphoric acid, the concentration of the metal ions is adjusted, and subsequently the pH of the solution is adjusted (par. 13).
Bao fails to expressly teach that salts of iron, manganese, cobalt, or a combination thereof are added, an alkaline lithium-containing solution is added, or that the relative amount of Al and/or Fe in the starting materials is included in amounts up to 2 wt%.
Regarding the relative amounts of Al and/or Fe of instant claims 1, 2, and 16, while Bao does not expressly limit the starting amounts to up to 2 wt% (and greater than 0), the general teaching of Bao to include such materials, in any amount, is considered to encompass the claimed ranges. As such, and absent a showing of unexpected results, the claimed amounts are considered to be prima facie obvious. Furthermore, as Bao teaches that the concentration of the materials in the solution is adjusted, the starting values are considered to be essentially irrelevant, absent a showing to the contrary.
Choi, in a similar invention directed toward the manufacturing of a cathode active material precursor for a lithium secondary battery by recycling a waste cathode active material (abstract), teaches that in order to produce a positive electrode active material containing specific amounts of Ni, Co, and Mn, nickel hydroxide and cobalt hydroxide compounds were added to the slurry (par. 55). Finally, in order to produce a cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery, Choi teaches that the synthesized precursor was mixed with lithium hydroxide (par. 58).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 14, and 17, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the claimed invention to utilize hydroxide salts of the component metals in order to adjust the concentrations in the process of Bao, as is effectively taught by Choi, and it likewise would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the claimed invention to combine the solution of Bao with lithium hydroxide in order to prepare a cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery, as is taught by Choi.
Regarding claim 3, it is conventionally known in the art to utilize a conductive material, such as carbon black, with cathode active materials. As Bao, as combined with Choi, is directed toward recovery and regeneration of cathode active materials, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the claimed invention to combine the cathode active material precursor material of Bao, as combined with Choi, with a conductive material, such as carbon black, in order to fabricate a useful cathode active material.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Choi teaches that prior to contact with the phosphoric acid, the spent cathode material is contacted with an acid such as sulfuric acid (par. 17).
Regarding claim 6, Bao teaches that the pH of the solution after adjustment is between 2.0-5.0, preferably 3.0-4.0 (par. 27). As the target materials remain in solution, it is understood that they are soluble in an aqueous solution of pH 5 or less.
Regarding claims 7, 8, and 10, Bao teaches that the spent cathode material includes at least lithium iron phosphate (par. 9).
Regarding claim 9, one of ordinary skill would have been able to utilize additional/similar acids in conjunction with the phosphoric acid with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success, absent a showing of criticality.
Regarding claim 12, while Bao does not expressly limit the amounts of the component materials in the spent cathode, Choi similarly teaches that the composition may be controlled by adding metal hydroxide to the waste cathode active material depending on the composition of the recovered waste cathode active material and the composition of the desired cathode active material (par. 25). As such, Choi effectively teaches that the concentration of the starting material and adjustment material may be selected based upon the desired cathode active material final product, which is to say that the starting material concentrations as well as the adjustment proportions are result effective variables which may be selected and adjusted as desired. As such, the relative concentrations of the mixed metal composition of Bao, as combined with Choi, are not particularly limited and may be selected to suit a particular end product, including the claimed amounts, absent a showing of criticality.
Regarding claim 13, while Bao does not expressly teach the pH of the solution after the phosphoric acid has been added, Bao does teach that from this point, sodium hydroxide may be added to adjust the pH to 2.0-5.0, preferably 3.0-4.0, as discussed above. Adding a base/hydroxide to a solution would have the effect of raising the pH, which means that prior to adjustment up to max pH 5.0, the starting pH must be at a lower value that prior to the pH adjustment, i.e. less than 5.
Regarding claim 15, Bao teaches that the molar ratio of the metal ions in the solution after adjustment may be approximately 1.0:1.0:1.0:1.0 for Ni:Co:Mn:Fe (par. 26). It is noted that claim 15 allows for each ion to be present in a ratio of 0.5:0.5:0.5:0.5, which is effectively the same thing as a 1:1:1:1 ratio.
Regarding claim 18, while Choi does not expressly limit the pH of the solution after addition of the lithium hydroxide, the pH of the solution would inevitably increase. As Bao teaches a pH of up to 5.0, any increase would result in a pH of greater than 5.0, which encompasses the claimed range. Furthermore, it is considered to be within the purview of one having ordinary skill in the art to be able to determine suitable pH values to achieve the desired reaction, including those claimed, such as precipitation of the target material out of solution for retrieval and further processing.
Regarding claim 19, Bao teaches that the product may be washed, filtered, washed, dried, and roasted (par. 14), which is considered to constitute an isolation of the cathode active material.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLIN W SLIFKA whose telephone number is (571)270-5830. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 AM-5:30 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, Ching-Yiu (Coris) Fung can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/Colin W. Slifka/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights