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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/06/2023 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b)
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 13-19 and 26 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.
Claim 13 and 14 recite the phrase "so-called" which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear to what degree this extends the breadth of the claimed redox species. While an oxidizing and reducing species are understood, referring to them as “so-called” imparts a level of ambiguity into the breadth of the terms.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 recites the phrase "a second so-called reductant redox species” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear as claim 14 depends from claim 13 which does not recite any first reductant redox species.
Claim 14 further recites the phrase "the so-called oxidant redox species and the so-called reductant redox species forming a pair of redox species” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear as claim 14 recites “a second so-called reductant redox species”, but does not recite “so-called reductant redox species” it is not clear whether the second so-called reductant redox species or any other so-called reductant redox species is forming the pair of redox species.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15-18 are directly or indirectly depend from claim 13 and therefore, have been rejected for the same above reason as above.
Claim 19 recite the phrase “an additional ionic liquid” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether it is another ionic liquid or same ionic liquid with an additional amount.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 26 recite the phrase “a step of dismantling” prior to step a) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear as dismantling is synonymous or similar to opening and/or disassembling, and claim 26 depends from claim 11, which already recites an opening step b), neither the claim nor the instant specification describes what does the dismantling mean.
Claim 26 and 27 recite the phrase “it comprises”, use of “it” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear, what specifically this term refer to in these claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11-12, 20-25, and 27 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 11, the closest prior art Chen et al. [CN 109536713 A] (machine translation) (original provided in the IDS) (Chen hereafter) discloses a method for separating an electrochemical generator comprising a negative electrode containing lithium or sodium and a positive electrode (separating positive electrode active material from aluminum foil in waste lithium-ion batteries using ionic liquids includes the following steps) ([0010]), the method comprising the following steps:,
a) immersing the electrochemical generator in an ionic liquid solution comprising a solvent ionic liquid, (Place the disassembled and sorted waste lithium-ion battery positive electrode sheets into an ionic liquid, vibrate them ultrasonically at room temperature, and let them stand and then remove the aluminum foil (i.e., the active material; the active material is separated from the electrochemical generator) ([0011]-[0012]).
But Chen differs from the instant claim as Chen does not teach step b) and thus does not teach “the following successive steps of a and b” and Chen is also silent about the step,
“b) opening the electrochemical generator with an electrically-insulating element, opening being carried out in the ionic liquid solution.”
Another prior art, Soichiro Kawakami [US5491037] discloses a method for opening an electrochemical generator comprising a negative electrode containing lithium or sodium and a positive electrode, the method comprising the following steps: step b) opening the electrochemical generator with an electrically-insulating element, (a method of opening means kept from ignition in which the cells are cut or bored by a water jet of ultrahigh-pressure water without generation of heat at cut surfaces, and the cells are mechanically cut or bored in an atmosphere of inert gas such as argon gas, in an inert liquid, in water or in an alcohol and a metal, an abrasive such as ceramic (electrically-insulating element) may be mixed in the ultrahigh-pressure water (Col. 4, 55-67 and col. 5, line 1-14)).
But Kawakami differs from the instant claim, as Kawakami teaches water jet to perform opening step, and is silent about the ionic liquid, therefore, Kawakami does not teach,
step a) is carried out in an ionic liquid solution comprising a solvent ionic liquid
and step b) opening is being carried out in the ionic liquid solution.
Another NPL reference, Thomas Waldmann, et.al. [“Review—Post-Mortem Analysis of Aged Lithium-Ion Batteries: Disassembly Methodology and Physico-Chemical Analysis Techniques, Journal of The Electrochemical Society, 163 (10) A2149-A2164 (2016)] teaches during cell opening, care must be taken to prevent internal short circuits of the cell, most probable during cutting of the cell housing, either by penetration or deformation of the electrode stack /jelly roll or by mechanical pressure. It is advantageous to use non-conductive tools, e.g. made from ceramics or with non-conductive coatings. Waldman teaches a special device for opening of 18650 cells that, that is operated inside a glove box, with a cylindrical cell is turned by a remote-controlled motor while the cap of the cell case is cut by a carbide-tipped saw (ceramic tool) (Page: A2151, Li-ion cell opening procedure and separation of components).
Waldman differs from the instant claim, as Waldman’s teachings of opening is performed inside a glove box without immersing into any liquid, as shown in the Fig. 4. and therefore, is not performed in an ionic liquid solution comprising a solvent ionic liquid. Therefore, Waldman also does not teach
step b) opening is being carried out in the ionic liquid solution.
It is to be further noted, there is no motivation to combine Chen and/or Kawakami and/or Waldman, thus, none of these cited prior art, either alone or in combination teach step b) opening is being carried out in the ionic liquid solution.
Therefore, claim 11 is allowable. Claims 12, and 20-25 are directly and indirectly dependent on claim 11 and thus are allowed for the same reasons.
Claim 13-19 and 26-27 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment
of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such
submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAZMUN NAHAR SHAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-5421. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00 AM-7:00PM (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, Merkling Sally can be reached on (571)2726297. 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.
/NAZMUN NAHAR SHAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/DANIELLE M. CARDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738