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
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 & 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (JP2019034254A; see machine translation) in view of Ryu (KR20060101683A; see machine translation).
Regarding Claims 1 & 4, a method for treating waste lithium-ion batteries (see abstract), the method comprising pulverizing a waste lithium-ion battery and then heat-treating in a range of temperatures equal to or more than a temperature at which an electrolytic solution is evaporated to dryness and less than a temperature at which fluororesin is thermally decomposed (as required by Claim 1) and wherein the heat treatment is performed at a temperature in a range of 100 to 450°C (as required by Claim 4), Nakamura teaches a method for treating a waste lithium-ion battery (see abstract) wherein said method involves heating the waste lithium-ion battery at 100°C to 250°C and then roasting the heated waste lithium-ion battery at 300°C to 650°C (see [0015]) which reads on wherein the heat treatment is performed at a temperature in a range of 100 to 450°C. Nakamura further teaches that the heating process of the waste lithium-ion battery at 100°C to 250°C allows for the volatilization of the electrolytic solution (see [0028]) and specifically teaches a heating temperature of 200°C held for 1 hour (see [0036]) which reads on heat-treating in a range of temperatures equal to or more than a temperature at which an electrolytic solution is evaporated to dryness and less than a temperature at which fluororesin is thermally decomposed. Nakamura further teaches a roasting temperature of 450°C held for 3 hours for roasting the heated waste lithium-ion battery which allows for the processing of the battery without explosion (see [0036]-0037]).
Namura is silent on the pulverizing step occurring before the heat-treating step of a waste lithium-ion battery.
Ryu however teaches a dry separation method for treating waste lithium-ion battery (see L1/P2). Ryu further teaches that the method for treating waste lithium-ion battery involves a first step of crushing at least one waste lithium-ion battery and then drying the crushed material to remove the electrolyte (L3-4/P3). Ryu further teaches that the dry separation method prevents secondary contamination (see L14-17/P2 – L1/P3) and further discloses that the drying time can be determined by the amount of crushed material (see L14-15/P4).
Nakamura and Ryu are analogous art to the claimed invention as both reference are in the field of recycling lithium-ion waste batteries. Ryu discloses a dry separation method of crushing a waste lithium-ion battery to extract cobalt or cobalt oxide before subjecting to a heat-treatment step, Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the dry separation method of Ryu to pulverize a waste lithium-ion battery (as shown by Nakamura) before heat treatment as doing so would minimize secondary contamination and also allow for controlling the drying time depending on the amount of crushed material to be heat-treated.
Claims 2 & 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (JP2019034254A; see machine translation) in view of Ban (JP2005042189A; see machine translation).
Regarding Claims 2 & 5, a method for treating waste lithium-ion batteries, wherein, the method comprising heat-treating a waste lithium-ion battery in a range of temperatures equal to or more than a temperature at which an electrolytic solution is evaporated to dryness and less than a temperature at which fluororesin is thermally decomposed and then pulverizing the waste lithium-ion battery to provide battery powder (as required by claim 2) and wherein the heat treatment is performed at a temperature in a range of 100 to 450°C (as required by Claim 5), Nakamura teaches a method for treating a waste lithium-ion battery (see abstract) wherein said method involves heating the waste lithium-ion battery at 100°C to 250°C and then roasting the heated waste lithium-ion battery at 300°C to 650°C (see [0015]) which reads on wherein the heat treatment is performed at a temperature in a range of 100 to 450°C. Nakamura further teaches that the heating process of the waste lithium-ion battery at 100°C to 250°C allows for the volatilization of the electrolytic solution (see [0028]) and specifically teaches a heating temperature of 200°C held for 1 hour (see [0036]) which reads on heat-treating in a range of temperatures equal to or more than a temperature at which an electrolytic solution is evaporated to dryness and less than a temperature at which fluororesin is thermally decomposed. Nakamura further teaches a roasting temperature of 450°C held for 3 hours for roasting the heated waste lithium-ion battery which allows for the processing of the battery without explosion (see [0036]-0037]).
Nakamura is silent on pulverizing the waste lithium-ion battery to provide battery powder after the heat-treating step.
Ban however teaches a crushing step for crushing lithium-ion battery that has been heat-treated which produces a combination of both coarse metal scrap and fine roasted ash (see [0022]). The crushed material is further sieved to separate the fine roasted ash (see [0023]). Thereafter the roasted ash is further reacted with an acid solution to further extract cobalt (see [[0033]). Ban further teaches that when cobalt is to be recovered from the positive electrode, either roasting or crushing may be performed first (see [0039]).
Nakamura and Ban are analogous art to the claimed invention as both reference are in the field of recycling lithium-ion waste batteries. Ban discloses a method of crushing a heat-treated lithium-ion battery after heat treatment, and further discloses that the either roasting or crushing may be performed first when cobalt is to be recovered from the positive electrode. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to pulverize before heat-treating waste lithium-ion to produce roasted ash (as shown by Ban) which can be further reacted with an acid solution to further extract cobalt.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FIKI V OWHOSO whose telephone number is (571)272-3418. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 5712725453. 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.
/F.V.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/CHRISTOPHER P DOMONE/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
March 31, 2026
Prosecution Insights