DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 were subject to restriction requirement mailed on 01/15/2026.
Applicant filed a response, and elected Group I, claims 1-19, and withdrew claim 20, without traverse on 03/17/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending, and claim 20 is withdrawn.
Claims 1-7 and 9-19 are rejected.
Claim 8 is objected to.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-19 in the reply filed on 03/17/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/17/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 13, it is suggested to amend “the intermediate cathode material” to “the intermediate cathode material having surface defects” to ensure proper antecedent basis and clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 3 is 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.
Claim 3, recites a phrase “the aqueous acid”, which lacks antecedent basis. The phrase ‘an aqueous acid” is first recited in claim 2. The examiner interprets that claim 3 dependents on claim 2, instead of on claim 1.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-7 and 9-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al., US 2021/0391606 A1 (Wang), in view of Lee et al., KR 20230033480A (Lee) (published March 8th, 2023).
The examiner has provided a machine translation of Lee et al., KR 20230033480A (Lee). The citation of the prior art set forth below refers to the machine translation.
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Wang teaches cathode material from exhausted lithium ion batteries are dissolved in a solution for extracting the useful elements such as cobalt, nickel and manganese, to produce active cathode materials for new batteries (reading upon leaching a black mass from the recycled lithium-ion battery stream to obtain a leach solution including a molar ratio of metallic elements); depending on a desired proportion, or ratio, of the desired materials, raw materials are added to the solution to achieve the desired ratio of the commingled compounds for the recycled cathode material for new cells (reading upon adjust the ratio of the metallic elements in the leach solution to a selected molar ratio) (Wang, Abstract);
For example, the concentration of Mn2+, Co2+ and Ni2+ in the solution is tested, and adjusted with additional CoSO4, NiSO4 and MnSO4 (reading upon adjusting with additional metal salts) (Wang, [0041]);
NaOH solution is added to increase the pH, thus adjusting a pH of the solution such that the desirable materials for the recycled charge materials precipitate, i.e., Ni1/3Mn1/3Co1/3(OH)2 can be coprecipitated (reading upon co-precipitating the metallic elements and the additional metal salts from the leach solution to form a cathode material precursor having the selected ratio) (Wang, [0041]);
the recovered Ni1/3Mn1/3Co1/3(OH)2 and Li2CO3 are sintered to produce the cathode material (reading upon sintering a combination of the cathode material precursor and a lithium salt to form a sintered cathode material and wherein the lithium salt is lithium carbonate) (Wang, [0041]).
Further regarding claims 1 and 10, Wang does not explicitly disclose mechanically deagglomerating the sintered cathode material to form an intermediate cathode material having surface defects, and heat treating the intermediate cathode material to form the cathode material, or the wherein the sintered cathode material has a single crystal structure.
With respect to the difference, Lee teaches a cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery containing single crystal particles (Lee, Abstract). Lee specifically teaches oxide particles obtained by subjecting the mixture of nickel-based metal precursor and a lithium precursor to a first heat treatment (Lee, page 9, 6th paragraph from bottom); then, the oxide particles having a porous structure obtained by the primary heat treatment may be pulverized to control the particle size distribution; a secondary heat treatment may be further performed. When the second heat treatment is further performed, a cathode active material having higher crystallinity can be obtained (Lee, page 9, 4th-5th paragraphs from bottom).
As Lee expressly teaches, the single-crystal cathode active material has fewer grain boundaries than the polycrystal cathode active material, so negative surface reactions such as formation of a rock salt phase or side reaction with the electrolyte can be suppressed due to a limited reaction area between the cathode active material and the electrolyte; accordingly, the single-crystal cathode active material can better withstand mechanical stress due to the structural change during charge/discharge cycles, compared to the polycrystal cathode active material (Lee, page 3, 6th paragraph).
Lee is analogous art as Lee is drawn to a cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery.
In light of the motivation of preparing cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery containing single crystal particles, which including pulverizing and a second heat treatment of lithium containing oxide particle obtained by the primary heat treatment, as taught by Lee, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to prepare the cathode active material according to Lee’s teaching, and pulverize the material from sintering recovered Ni1/3Mn1/3Co1/3(OH)2 and Li2CO3 and apply a second heat treatment, in order to produce a cathode active material with single crystal and high crystallinity, and thereby arrive at the claimed inventions.
Further regarding claim 1, Wang in view Lee further teaches in Example 2, the secondary heat treatment, the surface defect is healed (Lee, page 19, 5th paragraph), i.e., the material after pulverizing has surface defects.
Regarding claims 2-4, as applied to claim 1, Wang in view of Lee further teaches the sieved cathode powder will be leaching by sulfuric acid and hydrogen peroxide (Wang, [0037]).
Regarding claims 5-6, as applied to claim 1, Wang in view of Lee teaches the recovered Ni1/3Mn1/3Co1/3(OH)2 (Wang, [0041]), i.e., wherein the metallic elements are nickel, manganese and cobalt.
Regarding claim 7, as applied to claim 1, Wang in view of Lee further teaches the recycled battery chemistry is nickel, manganese, cobalt (NMC); typical molar ratios include 80% Ni, 10% Mn, 10% Co (i.e., 80 mole% nickel), however any suitable ratio may be employed (Wang, [0081]).
Regarding claim 10, as applied to claim 1, Wang in view of Lee further teaches nickel based lithium metal oxide particles contain single crystal particles (Wang, Abstract); during the first heat treatment, phase change and grain growth proceeds (Lee, page 9, 6th paragraph); during the secondary heat treatment, higher crystallinity can be obtained. Therefore, the single crystalline phase is already achieved after the first heat treatment.
Regarding claims 11-12, as applied to claim 1, Wang in view of Lee further teaches the oxide particles obtained by the primary heat treatment may be pulverized, and pulverization is a jet mill that applies strong force to remove the strong aggregations (Lee, page 9, 2nd paragraph from bottom).
Regarding claims 13-14 and 16, as applied to claim 1, Wang in view of Lee further teaches the second heat treatment is performed at an oxidizing gas atmosphere (Lee, page 9, 3rd paragraph), at 600 ˚C to 900 ˚C; the oxidizing gas atmosphere uses an oxidizing gas such as air (Lee, page 9, 3rd paragraph).
Regarding claim 15, as applied to claim 1, given that Wang in view of Lee teaches that the second heat treatment is performed at a desired oxidizing gas atmosphere, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to select a flow of the oxidizing gas, including the presently claimed, depending on the size of the furnace and/or production throughput.
Regarding claims 17-19, as applied to claim 1, given that Wang in view Lee teaches an identical or essentially identical process, i.e., a method of producing a cathode material from a recycled lithium-ion battery stream, comprising leaching, co-precipitating, a first heat treatment, pulverizing/jet milling and a secondary heat treatment, with those of the presently claimed, therefore, it is clear that Wang in view of Lee would necessarily and inherently meet the claimed limitations that wherein the surface defects are surface roughness, surface cracks, or a combination thereof; wherein the cathode material has 80% fewer surface defects than the intermediate cathode material; and wherein the cathode material has improved specific capacity and improved capacity retention compared to the intermediate cathode material.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 8, neither Wang or Lee teaches or suggests that wherein the cathode material precursor has a single crystal structure. On the contrary, Lee teaches the nickel-based metal precursor has amorphous characteristics (Lee, page 5, 2nd paragraph from bottom).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELING ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8043. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00am-5:00pm EST.
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 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.
/KELING ZHANG/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights