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 .
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-14, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chinese Patent Publication No. 105 895 854 to Cao, citing to the enclosed machine translation ("Cao") in view of U.S. Patent No. 8,616,475 to Smith ("Smith"). Regarding claims 1, 14, and 16, Cao discloses a method of recycling scrap materials from positive electrodes of lithium ion batteries. Cao at paragraph [0013]. A first step of crushing the electrode into small pieces is performed, followed by heating these pieces in air at 450-650 C for 90-150 minutes. Id. at paragraphs [0014] and [0015]. After heating, the material is sieved such that the aluminum current collector is separated from the electrode material. Id. at paragraph [0016]. The remaining electrode material is then washed with aqueous alkaline solution for 30 minutes, followed by precipitation and separation of the precipitate from the supernatant. Id. at paragraph [0049].
Cao discloses that its method is used on positive electrodes from lithium ion batteries which are known to include binder and conductive additive. Moreover, Cao discloses that its process is aimed at separating the metal oxide material from the carbon-containing binder and conductive additives.
Cao is silent regarding the final step of adding lithium precursor and annealing at 400-1000 C. Nonetheless, Smith discloses related separation methods for separating lithium metal oxide material from lithium ion battery cathodes and includes a final step of adding 0.2-3% lithium hydroxide to lithium metal oxide having been float-separated from carbon and heating in air at 735 C in order to make up for any stoichiometric deficiency in the lithium metal oxide obtained. Smith at column 4 lines 3-7 and 55-57. Thus, in order to ensure that there is no stoichiometric lithium deficiency in the materials of Cao, the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have had reason to add lithium hydroxide and heat in ar at 735 C.
Further regarding claim 3, Cao discloses that its method can be used on any metal oxide active material commonly used as active material in lithium ion batteries, including LiNiMgCo Oxide materials in accordance with claim 3. Cao. at paragraph [0039].
Further regarding claim 4, in the examples of Cao, approximately 8 grams of solid per 100 mL of alkaline solution was used.
Further regarding claims 5 and 11, Cao discloses use of lithium hydroxide in an amount that is high enough to produce a solution of high enough density to efficiently float carbon materials but not so high as to lead to a viscosity that is high enough to preclude efficient separation. Cao at paragraph [0042]. Thus, Cao discloses the amount of lithium hydroxide to use as a result effective variable, rendering the claimed range of amount obvious.
Further regarding claims 6 and 7, the Office finds that because the step of washing the calcined solid with alkaline is aimed at separating the carbon portion from the metal oxide portion, the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have reason to stir the solution to promote separation of the carbon and metal oxide such that the carbon can float while metal oxide sinks. Regarding the timing of this stirring, because Cao is aimed at a time and energy efficient process, the person or ordinary skill in the art would have reason to perform the stirring immediately following the cooling of the calcined material, which will happen in substantially less than a week following the calcining.
Further regarding claims 8, 9, and 17 the Office finds that because the disclosed process is substantially similar to that of Applicant, it will necessarily result in similar particle size distributions.
Further regarding claim 10, each of the working examples of Cao include drying the precipitate collected after washing with alkaline solution.
Further regarding claims 12 and 13, Smith discloses that the amount of lithium compound to use should correspond to a stoichiometric deficiency in the material. Smith at column 4, lines 3-7. Thus, absent a showing of unexpected results, the Office finds that selection of the amount of lithium to use is a result effective variable rendering the amounts recited in claims 12 and 13 obvious.
Claims 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. section 103 as being unpatentable over Cao in view of Smith and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0138514 to Schauer ("Schauer"). Cao and Smith are applied as described above. As noted, they result in lithium metaloxides that can be used as lithium ion cathode active materials. They are silent regarding coating the annealed precipitate with a coating agent comprising metals or carbon and heating at 100-1200 C. Schauer discloses that coating positive electrode active material particles with carbon nanotube pulp leads to improved conductivity. Schauer at paragraph [0025]. This is achieved by coating the electrode active material particles, including LiNMC materials such as those discussed in Cao, followed by heating at 165 C. Id. at claims 14, 23, and paragraph [0160]. Thus, in order to provide an active material with excellent conductivity, the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have reason to, after arriving at an LiNMC active material following the process of Cao as modified by Smith, further coat the annealed material with carbon nanotubes and heat at 165 C.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 26, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant first argues that Cao requires pulverization and sieving steps that are not recited in the claims. However, the claim uses open “comprising” language and does not preclude pulverization or sieving, so the argument is irrelevant to patentability.
Applicant next alleges that Cao does not disclose heating the puliverized electrode in air. In support of this Applicant alleges that heating in air would lead to decomposition of carbon where Cao later discloses separating carbon from the active material. The Office disagrees.
Cao starts with characterization of a prior art method that involves a first heat treating step in air to break down binder. Cao describes this is a commonly known heat treatment method. Cao at paragraph [0010]. This prior art method is described as including a second higher temperature heating step (over 650 C) to decompose the carbon conductive material. Id. Cao describes its invention as an improvement over this prior art approach that replaces the need for this second high temperature heating step with an alternative method of separating the active material and conductive carbon after the first commonly known heating in air aimed at decomposing the binder. Id. at paragraphs [0010] and [0025]. Nothing in Cao discloses pulling a vacuum, releasing a vacuum, or introducing inert gas in its heater during its first heat treating step.
Thus, all evidence of record points to the first heating step of Cao being in air, and that such heating would not lead to decomposition of the carbon binder.
Conclusion
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 WYATT P MCCONNELL whose telephone number is (571)270-7531. The examiner can normally be reached 9am to 5pm M-F.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 571-272-1330. 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.
/WYATT P MCCONNELL/Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights