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 .
METHOD OF RECYCLING POSITIVE ELECTRODE ACTIVE MATERIAL AND RECYCLED POSITIVE ELECTRODE ACTIVE MATEIRAL PREPARED BY THE SAME
Examiner: Adam Arciero S.N. 18/278,382 Art Unit: 1727 September 29, 2026
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s response filed on May 18, 2026 has been received. Claims 1-14 and 16-18 are currently pending. Claim 16 has been amended. Claim 15 has been canceled. Claims 17-18 are newly added.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 17-18 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. The claims depend from canceled claim 15. For purposes of compact prosecution, the claims will be construed to depend from claim 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The claim rejection under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee on claim 15 is withdrawn because Applicant has canceled the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The claim rejection under 35 USC 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lee and Kweon on claim 16 is withdrawn because Applicant has amended the claim.
The claim rejection under 35 USC 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim and Koichiro on claims 1-3, 5-6 and 8-14 are maintained.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 8-14 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (WO 2022/010191 A1; and using US 2023/0062492 A1 for citation purposes) in view of Koichiro et al. (JP 2016-149330; as found in IDS dated 09/19/2024 and using machine translation for citation purposes).
As to Claims 1-3, 13 and 17, Kim discloses a method of recycling a positive electrode active material from a lithium secondary battery, comprising the steps of: recovering an active material (such as lithium cobalt oxide) by heat-treating a waste positive electrode having a current collector and an active material layer coated thereon at a temperature of 300-650º C in air; washing the recovered active material in water; adding a lithium precursor to the washed recovered active material and performing annealing at a temperature of 400-1000º C (paragraphs [0057-0065, 0072, 0079, 0088 and 0090]). Kim does not specifically disclose wherein the washing step comprises water containing an ionic solid salt.
However, Koichiro teaches of a method of recycling a positive active material, comprising: recovering an active material by heat-treating a positive electrode current collector having an active material layer; and washing the recovered active material in water and calcium carbonate (ionic solid salt) (paragraphs [0009 and 0020]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the washing step of Kim to comprise the claimed salt because Koichiro teaches that fluorine is converted to calcium fluoride which is then immediately precipitated (paragraph [0020]).
As to Claim 5, Kim teaches of using water to clean the active material (paragraph [0019]). Kim therefore recognizes the amount of water a result-effective variable in adding enough to adequately perform the washing step (paragraph [0019]). The courts have held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, see MPEP 2144.05 II, B. In addition, the courts have held that generally, differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the amount of water cleaning solution of modified Kim to read on the claims because Kim teaches that a recovered active material can be cleaned and formed into a recycled positive active material (Abstract and paragraph [0019]).
As to Claim 6, Koichiro teaches of wherein the salt is dispersed in the washing solution (paragraph [0020]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the washing step of Kim to comprise the claimed salt dispersion because Koichiro teaches that fluorine is converted to calcium fluoride which is then immediately precipitated (paragraph [0020]).
As to Claim 8, Koichiro teaches of using salt to clean the active material (paragraph [0020]). Kim therefore recognizes the amount of salt a result-effective variable in adding enough to adequately perform the washing step (paragraph [0020]). The courts have held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, see MPEP 2144.05 II, B. In addition, the courts have held that generally, differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the amount of salt in the cleaning solution of modified Kim to read on the claims because Koichiro teaches that fluorine is converted to calcium fluoride which is then immediately precipitated (paragraph [0020]).
As to Claim 9, Kim discloses stirring in the washing step (paragraph [0020]).
As to Claim 10, Kim discloses drying after washing (paragraphs [0025 and 0073]).
As to Claim 11, Kim discloses a lithium precursor such as LiOH, Li2CO3, LiNO3 and Li2O (paragraph [0021]).
As to Claim 12, Kim discloses wherein the lithium precursor is added at least in an amount corresponding to a reduced molar ratio of lithium in the washed active material based on a molar ration of lithium in the active material of step (a) (paragraph [0022-0023]).
As to Claim 14, Kim discloses a surface coating step (d) by mixing the annealed active material and a coating agent and heat treating at 100-1200 ºC (paragraphs 0028-0029]).
As to Claim 16, modified Kim teaches the same claimed materials and method and therefore would intrinsically comprise the claimed surface coating, see MPEP 2112.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 18, 2026 with respect to the independent claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s principle arguments are:
a) Koichiro states that the ionic salt is added after washing (claim 1).
In response to Applicant’s arguments, please consider the following comments:
a) Koichiro teaches wherein the ionic salt is added to the washing solution, which reads on the claims (paragraph [0020]). In addition, the courts have held that the selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious, see MPEP 2144.04, IV, C.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 7 and 18 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior arts of record, Kim, Koichiro, Lee, and Kweon, do not specifically disclose, teach, or fairly suggest the claimed ionic solid salt (claim 4); or wherein a complex compound is formed on a surface of the active material by the ionic solid salt (which is inherently formed using the ionic salts of claim 7) (claim 7); or the claimed metal salt containing carbon of claim 18 (claim 18).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ADAM ARCIERO whose telephone number is (571)270-5116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5 ET.
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.
/ADAM A ARCIERO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
