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 March 4, 2026 DETAILED ACTION The Application filed on August 22, 2023 has been received. Claims 1- 16 are currently pending and have been fully considered . Specification The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2018/0212282 A1 ; as found in IDS dated 09/19/2024 ) . As to Claim 15, Lee discloses a recovered positive electrode active material (Abstract). It is noted that claim 15 is a product-by-process claim. The courts have held that "[E] ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) , see MPEP 2113, I. 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) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2018/0212282 A1 ; as found in IDS dated 09/19/2024 ) in view of Kweon et al. (US 2001/0031397 A1) . As to Claim 16, Lee does not specifically disclose the claimed coating. However, Kweon teaches of a positive active material comprising a metal oxide coating provided on a surface thereof (paragraph [0062]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the positive electrode active material of Lee to comprise the claimed metal oxide coating because Kweon teaches that the structural stability of the active material is improved (paragraph [0073]). Claim (s) 1 - 3 , 5 -6, 8- 1 4 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 Claim s 1 - 3 and 13 , 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 g enerally, 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 [00 20 ]). Kim therefore recognizes the amount of salt a result-effective variable in adding enough to adequately perform the washing step (paragraph [00 20 ]). 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 g enerally, 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 , Li 2 CO 3 , LiNO 3 and Li 2 O (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]). Allowable Subject Matter Claim s 4 and 7 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 4) (claim 7) . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ADAM ARCIERO whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5116 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Barbara Gilliam can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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