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 II claims 1-18, 21 in the reply filed on 04/14/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Groups I and II are sufficiently related such that there is not a serious search burden. This is not found persuasive because Groups I and II lack a common special technical feature as described in the restriction requirement dated 3/02/2026. Further, Group I would require a unique text search as well as a search in at least CPC H01M10/54 while Group II would require a unique text search and a search in at least CPC H01M4/525.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim19-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 04/14/2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/04/2023, 07/25/20204, 05/20/2025,08/28/2025, 05/14/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 21 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 17 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 17 contains the limitation “a concentration of 1 to 10,000 ppm”. It is not clear if this is in reference to the total electrode material or just the positive active material. For the purpose of examination, it is considered that a concentration of 1 to 10,000 ppm is equivalent to 0.0001-1% by mass of positive active material.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 16, 18, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. ("A novel pulsated pneumatic separation with variable-diameter structure and its application in the recycling spent lithium-ion batteries", Waste Management, 2021) hereinafter "Zhu", in view of Un et al. (KR100475588B1) hereinafter "Un". Reference is made to the enclosed machine translation. Cited on the IDS 05/14/2026.
Regarding claim 1, Zhu teaches a method of recycling a positive electrode active material (Abstract; Fig. 1), comprising: a step of fragmenting a waste battery comprising a positive electrode, a separator, and a negative electrode to form waste battery scraps (Section 2.1 pp. 21; Fig. 1 crushing); a step of removing the negative electrode by jetting compressed air onto the waste battery scraps (Section 2.1 pp. 21; Fig. 1 pneumatic separation; Section 2.2 pp. 21-22; Fig. 2 & 7 pneumatic separation step separates separators, and active materials). Zhu teaches further separation of positive and negative electrode materials (Fig. 2 flotation process; Section 2.4). It is the examiner’s position that the “air blower” taught by Zhu meets the limitation of “jetting compressed air”, in light of the instant specification, which discloses compressed air jet pressure of 0.5-2 bar ([81]), a range that overlaps with atmospheric pressure. Therefore, an air blower operating in normal atmospheric conditions meets the limitation of claim 1.
Zhu does not teach step of treating the waste battery scraps from which the negative electrode has been removed with a solvent to remove the separator and obtain positive electrode scraps.
However, Un teaches a secondary battery recycling method ([7]-[9]) comprising treating waste battery scraps from which the negative electrode has been removed with a solvent ([10]-[11]). Un teaches that anode plates, cathode plates, and respective currents collectors are first separated ([9]). Un teaches a simple and complete removal of polymer material from electrode material such as LiCoO2 ([10]; LiCoO2 is considered a positive electrode scrap), the recovery of high purity Co3O4 ([10]; [11]), and teaches that recovery of material from discarded secondary batteries and scrap materials provides significant economic benefits ([8]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process taught by Zhu by incorporating treating waste battery scraps from which the negative electrode has been removed with a solvent as taught by Un.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have modify the process taught by Zhu by incorporating treating waste battery scraps from which the negative electrode has been removed with a solvent as taught by Un with a reasonable expectation of successfully separating out positive electrode scrap because the method taught by Un is known in the art for separating polymer materials from positive electrode materials. Further, the recovery of material from discarded secondary batteries and scrap materials is economically motivated ([8]; [12]).
Un does not explicitly teach that the solvent is used to remove the separator.
However, Un teaches a polymer membrane ([7] “polymer electrolyte membrane”) and teaches a method of removing residual polymer from a positive electrode active material using a solvent ([10]-[11]; electrode is immersed in an organic solvent to remove polymer material). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that the process taught by Un removes polymer membrane residue as polymer membrane residue is a polymeric material and Un teaches the separation of polymeric material from positive electrode material ([10]-[11]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Zhu teaches the method according to claim 1. Modified Zhu further teaches wherein, in the fragmenting step (i.e. step A), the waste battery is a stack-type cell (Zhu Fig. 1 shows a stacked battery; Un [7] “arranged in the order of negative electrode/electrolyte/positive electrode using a polymer electrolyte membrane”).
Regarding claim 5, modified Zhu teaches the method according to claim 1. Zhu further teaches wherein, in the jetting compressed air step (i.e. step B), compressed air jetted onto the waste battery scraps separates the negative electrode, and the separated negative electrode is discharged by centrifugal force (Fig. 2; Section 2.2; cyclone type pneumatic separation separates via centrifugal force).
Regarding claim 16, modified Zhu teaches the method according to claim 1. Modified Zhu further teaches wherein the positive electrode active material comprises a lithium iron phosphate compound or a lithium cobalt oxide (Zhu section 3.1 pp. 23 “LiFePO4”; Un [10] “LiCoO2”).
Regarding claim 18, modified Zhu teaches a recycled positive electrode active material prepared by the method according to claim 1 (Zhu section 3.5 pp. 28 “171.21 kg of cathode active materials’; Un [11]).
Regarding claim 21, Zhu teaches a method of recovering a positive electrode (Abstract; Fig. 1; pp. 21 “To achieve full-size recovery of all electrode fragments”), comprising: a step of fragmenting a waste battery comprising a positive electrode, a separator, and a negative electrode to form waste battery scraps (Section 2.1 pp. 21; Fig. 1 crushing); a step of removing the negative electrode by jetting compressed air onto the waste battery scraps (Section 2.1 pp. 21; Fig. 1 pneumatic separation; Section 2.2 pp. 21-22; Fig. 2 & 7 pneumatic separation step separates separators, and active materials). Zhu teaches further separation of positive and negative electrode materials (Fig. 2 flotation process; Section 2.4). It is the examiner’s position that the “air blower” taught by Zhu meets the limitation of “jetting compressed air”, in light of the instant specification, which discloses compressed air jet pressure of 0.5-2 bar ([81]), a range that overlaps with atmospheric pressure. Therefore, an air blower operating in normal atmospheric conditions meets the limitation of claim 1.
Zhu does not teach step of treating the waste battery scraps from which the negative electrode has been removed with a solvent to remove the separator and obtain positive electrode scraps.
However, Un teaches a secondary battery recycling method ([7]-[9]) comprising treating waste battery scraps from which the negative electrode has been removed with a solvent ([10]-[11]). Un teaches that anode plates, cathode plates, and respective currents collectors are first separated ([9]). Un teaches a simple and complete removal of polymer material from electrode material such as LiCoO2 ([10]; LiCoO2 is considered a positive electrode scrap), the recovery of high purity Co3O4 ([10]; [11]), and teaches that recovery of material from discarded secondary batteries and scrap materials provides significant economic benefits ([8]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process taught by Zhu by incorporating treating waste battery scraps from which the negative electrode has been removed with a solvent as taught by Un.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have modify the process taught by Zhu by incorporating treating waste battery scraps from which the negative electrode has been removed with a solvent as taught by Un with a reasonable expectation of successfully separating out positive electrode scrap because the method taught by Un is known in the art for separating polymer materials from positive electrode materials. Further, the recovery of material from discarded secondary batteries and scrap materials is economically motivated ([8]; [12]).
Un does not explicitly teach that the solvent is used to remove the separator.
However, Un teaches a polymer membrane ([7] “polymer electrolyte membrane”) and teaches a method of removing residual polymer from a positive electrode active material using a solvent ([10]-[11]; electrode is immersed in an organic solvent to remove polymer material). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that the process taught by Un removes polymer membrane residue as polymer membrane residue is a polymeric material and Un teaches the separation of polymeric material from positive electrode material ([10]-[11]).
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Zhu, as applied above, in view of Liu et al. ("Safer Lithium-Ion Batteries from the Separator Aspect: Development and Future Perspectives", Energy Environ. Mater. 2021, 4, 336–362) hereinafter "Liu". Cited on the IDS filed 05/14/2026.
Regarding claim 2, modified Zhu teaches the method according to claim 1. Modified Zhu teaches a polymer separator (Un [7]).
Modified Zhu does not teach wherein the separator is a ceramic-coated polymer separator.
However, Liu teaches that ceramic-coated polymer membranes are beneficial and have enhanced mechanical strength and reduced thermal shrinkage at elevated temperatures (Section 5 pp. 357; Section 3 pp. 339; Section 3.1.2 pp. 339-342).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a ceramic-coated polymer membrane in the process taught by modified Zhu.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize a ceramic-coated polymer membrane in the process taught by modified Zhu because Liu teaches their enhanced mechanical strength and reduced thermal shrinkage compared to traditional polymer separators (Section 5 pp. 357; Section 3 pp. 339; Section 3.1.2 pp. 339-342).
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Zhu, as applied above, in view of Hanisch et al. (“Recycling of lithium-ion batteries: a novel method to separate coating and foil of electrodes”, Journal of Cleaner Production, 108 (2015) 301-311) hereinafter “Hanisch”. Cited on the IDS filed 5/20/2025.
Regarding claim 4, modified Zhu teaches the method according to claim 1. Zhu teaches modifying the operating parameters of the pneumatic separator based on particle characteristics such as size (section 3.2-3.4 pp. 24-27).
Modified Zhu is silent as to the area of the battery scraps.
However, Hanisch teaches a method of recycling secondary batteries comprising a step of fragmenting electrodes and a subsequent air jet sieve separation (Section 2.8 pp. 305). Hanisch teaches that electrodes are cut into 4mmx40mm pieces, corresponding to an area of 1.6cm2 (Section 2.8 pp. 305).
Modified Zhu teaches a recycling method comprising a step of crushing a waste battery comprising a positive electrode, a separator, and a negative electrode to form waste battery scraps (Section 2.1 pp. 21; Fig. 1 crushing) and a step of pneumatic separation using an air blower (Section 2.1 pp. 21; Fig. 1 pneumatic separation; Section 2.2 pp. 21-22; Fig. 2 & 7). Hanisch teaches an analogous method comprising a step of cutting waste battery electrodes and a step of separating using an air jet sieve (Section 2.8 pp. 305).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method taught by modified Zhu to utilize waste battery scraps of different dimensions, such as 1.6cm2, as taught by Hanisch.
One of ordinary skill in the art could modify the method taught by modified Zhu to utilize waste battery scraps of different dimensions, such as 1.6cm2, as taught by Hanisch with a reasonable expectation of successfully separating components because pneumatic separation processes utilizing various size materials are known in the art.
Claim(s) 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Zhu, as applied above, in view of Chen et al. (US20210242514A1) hereinafter "Chen".
Regarding claims 6-7, modified Zhu teaches the method according to claim 1. Un further teaches wherein, in the solvent step, the solvent used is an organic solvent such as, for example, benzene, toluene, xylene, acetone ([10]).
Modified Zhu does not teach wherein the solvent is a mixed solvent containing acetone and an alcohol.
However, Chen teaches methods of recycling electrodes (abstract) from a lithium-ion battery, such as a lithium cobalt oxide battery, lithium-ion manganese oxide battery, lithium-ion polymer battery, lithium-ion phosphate battery, lithium-sulfur battery, lithium-titanate battery, thin film lithium-ion battery, lithium ceramic battery, and the like ([0073]). Chen teaches that recovery of electrode material can involve an organic solvent such as acetone, methanol, ethanol, benzene, toluene, or a combination thereof ([0078]). Chen teaches that a solvent should be suitable to dissolve the desired components and there are many examples of appropriate solvents known to one of ordinary skill in the art ([0078]).
Chen teaches that recovery of electrode material can involve an organic solvent such as acetone, methanol, ethanol, benzene, toluene, or a combination thereof ([0078]). The process taught by modified Zhu requires an organic solvent (Un [10]); ethanol and methanol are alcohols which are examples of an organic solvent (Chen [0078]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process taught by modified Zhu to utilize a mixed solvent, such as acetone and ethanol, as taught by Chen.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have modified the process taught by modified Zhu to utilize a mixed solvent, such as acetone and ethanol, as taught by Chen with a reasonable expectation of success because selection of particular solvents is known to one of ordinary skill in the art based on suitability of dissolution of desired components ([0078]). The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP §2144.07).
Regarding claim 8, modified Zhu in view of Chen teaches the method of claim 6.
Modified Zhu in view of Chen does not explicitly teach wherein the mixed solvent has a weight ratio of acetone to the alcohol of 4:6 to 6:4.
However, Chen teaches that a solvent should be suitable to dissolve the desired components and there are many examples of appropriate solvents known to one of ordinary skill in the art ([0078]). Chen teaches that recovery of electrode material can involve an organic solvent such as acetone, methanol, ethanol, benzene, toluene, or a combination thereof ([0078]).
Therefore, in view of the teachings of Chen, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the process taught by modified Zhu in view of Chen to utilize a mixed solvent, such as acetone and ethanol, at a weight ratio of, for example, 1:1.
One of ordinary skill in the art could further modify the process taught by modified Zhu in view of Chen to utilize a mixed solvent, such as acetone and ethanol, at a weight ratio of, for example, 1:1 with a reasonable expectation of success because acetone and ethanol are known organic solvents for use in electrode recycling and selection of particular solvents is known to one of ordinary skill in the art based on suitability of dissolution of desired components ([0078]). The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP §2144.07).
Claim(s) 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Zhu, as applied above, in view of Lee et al. (US 20180212282 A1) hereinafter "Lee". Cited on the IDS filed 07/25/2024.
Regarding claim 9, modified Zhu teaches the method according to claim 1.
Modified Zhu does not teach a step of heat-treating the obtained positive electrode scraps at 300 to 650 °C in air to recover a positive electrode active material.
However, Lee teaches a method of recovering a positive electrode active material (abstract) including separating a positive electrode into a collector and a positive electrode part; firing the separated positive electrode part; washing the fired resultant; adding a lithium-containing material into the washed resultant and firing to recover a lithium transition metal oxide (abstract; [0011]). Lee teaches a step of firing obtained positive electrode scraps at 400 to 800 °C in air to recover a positive electrode active material ([0022]-[0025]; overlapping with the claimed range). Lee teaches that firing is used to remove organic substances such as binders, conductors, organic solvents, or the like ([0026]-[0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process taught by modified Zhu by further including a firing step as taught by Lee.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the process taught by modified Zhu by further including a firing step as taught by Lee to remove residual organic solvent ([0025]-[0026]).
The firing step temperature conditions taught by Lee overlap with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP §2144.05)
Regarding claim 10, modified Zhu in view of Lee teaches the method according to claim 9. Lee further teaches a step of washing the recovered positive electrode active material with water to remove any residual fluorine left from the incomplete removal of fluorine containing materials such as PVDF binder ([0028]-[0032] “pure water”; clause after “or” is optional and therefore not a required limitation).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to further modify the process taught by modified Zhu in view of Lee by adding a step of washing the recovered positive electrode active material with water as taught by Lee.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to further modify the process taught by modified Zhu in view of Lee by adding a step of washing the recovered positive electrode active material with water as taught by Lee to remove any residual fluorine left from the incomplete removal of fluorine containing materials such as PVDF binder ([0028]-[0032]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Zhu in view of Lee teaches the method according to claim 10. Lee further teaches wherein, in a washing step (i.e. step E), the washing is performed by mixing and stirring the recovered positive electrode active material and water ([0028]-[0032]; [0044]; when water and positive electrode material are combined, they necessarily mix; the ordinary definition of “washing” includes agitation with or in water which meets the limitation of stirring).
Regarding claim 12, modified Zhu in view of Lee teaches the method according to claim 10.
Lee does not explicitly teach a step (i.e. step E) further comprises drying the washed positive electrode active material.
However, Lee further teaches a step a lithium precursor is added to the washed positive electrode active material and the washed positive electrode may be fired at a temperature of 500-1,200° C to reform a positive electrode active material of the lithium transition metal oxide ([0036]). Lee teaches that a step in which a lithium-containing raw material is added and fired is carried out to supplement lithium which becomes insufficient due to drop-off during the previous steps ([0034]). It is the examiner’s position that firing the washed positive electrode material at 500-1200℃, which is above the boiling point of water, will cause water to evaporate, thereby meeting the limitation of “drying the washed positive electrode active material”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the process taught by modified Zhu in view of Lee by adding a step of adding a lithium precursor to the washed positive electrode active material and firing at 500 to 1200 °C as taught by Lee.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to further modify the process taught by modified Zhu in view of Lee by adding a step of adding a lithium precursor to the washed positive electrode active material and firing at 500 to 1200 °C as taught by Lee to supplement lithium which becomes insufficient due to drop-off during the previous steps ([0034]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Zhu in view of Lee teaches the method according to claim 10. Lee further teaches a step (i.e. step F) of adding a lithium precursor to the washed positive electrode active material and performing annealing at 500 to 1200 °C in air ([0033]-[0036]). Lee teaches that the resultant after washing is a positive electrode active material of the lithium transition metal oxide ([0034]). Lee teaches that step in which a lithium-containing raw material is added and fired is carried out to supplement lithium which becomes insufficient due to drop-off during the previous steps ([0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the process taught by modified Zhu in view of Lee by adding a step of adding a lithium precursor to the washed positive electrode active material and performing annealing at 500 to 1200 °C in air as taught by Lee.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to further modify the process taught by modified Zhu in view of Lee by adding a step of adding a lithium precursor to the washed positive electrode active material and performing annealing at 500 to 1200 °C in air as taught by Lee to supplement lithium which becomes insufficient due to drop-off during the previous steps ([0034]).
The firing step temperature conditions taught by Lee overlap with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding claim 14, modified Zhu in view of Lee teaches the method according to claim 13. Lee further teaches where a lithium precursor comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of LiOH, Li2CO3 or the like ([0035]).
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Zhu in view of Lee (US 20180212282 A1), as applied above, in further view of Li et al. ("Enhancing the performances of Li-ion batteries by carbon-coating: present and future", Chem. Commun, 2012) hereinafter "Li".
Regarding claim 15, modified Zhu in view of Lee teaches the method of claim 13.
Modified Zhu does not teach a step (i.e. step G) of coating the annealed positive electrode active material with a coating agent containing metals or carbon and performing heat treatment at 100 to 1,200 °C.
However, Li teaches that carbon coating electrode materials can effectively increase the electrode conductivity, improve the surface chemistry of the active material, and protect the electrode from direct contact with electrolyte, leading to enhanced cycle life of the batteries (Abstract). A carbon coating supplies fast electrons and can be also permeable for Li+ ions from the surrounding electrolyte solution, ensuring effective ambipolar diffusion of Li+ and e− into/out of active particles regardless of particle conductivity (Section 2.1 pp. 1202-1203). Li teaches that carbon coated active materials are calcined at various temperatures from 300-1000 ℃ depending on the active material composition (Table 2 pp. 1213-1214; Section 3.1 pp. 1204-1208)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method taught by modified Zhu in view of Lee by adding an additional step of applying a carbon coating to the positive active material and performing heat treatment at 300 to 1000 °C as taught by Li.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the method taught by modified Zhu in view of Lee by adding an additional step of applying a carbon coating to the positive active material and performing heat treatment at 300 to 1000 °C as taught by Li to increase the electrode conductivity, improve the surface chemistry of the active material, and protect the electrode from direct contact with electrolyte, leading to enhanced cycle life of the batteries (Abstract).
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Zhu, as applied above, in further view of Jian et al. ("Al2O3 coated LiCoO2 as cathode for high-capacity and long-cycling Li-ion batteries", Chinese Chemical Letters 29 (2018) 1768-1772) hereinafter "Jian"".
Regarding claim 17, modified Zhu teaches the method of claim 1. Modified Zhu teaches a positive electrode active material may be LiCoO2 ([7]).
Modified Zhu does not teach wherein the recycles positive electrode active material comprises Al2O3 in a concentration of 1 to 10000ppm.
However, Jian teaches LiCoO2 positive active material coated with 0.5 wt% Al2O3 (pp. 1771). Jian teaches that LiCoO2 positive active material coated with 0.5 wt% Al2O3 shows enhanced electrochemical performance (pp. 1771; abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the positive electrode active material taught by modified Zhu by incorporating an aluminum oxide coating as taught by Jian.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the positive electrode active material taught by modified Zhu by incorporating an aluminum oxide coating as taught by Jian to improve electrochemical performance (pp. 1771; abstract).
For the purpose of examination, it is considered that a concentration of 1 to 10,000 ppm is equivalent to 0.0001-1% by mass of positive active material. Therefore, the material taught by Jian has an aluminum oxide concentration overlapping with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP §2144.05).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FELICITY B. ALBAN whose telephone number is (703)756-5398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at 571-270-7871. 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.B.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights