Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 06, 2026
Application No. 18/322,327

SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR LITHIUM ION BATTERY CATHODE MATERIAL RECOVERY, REGENERATION, AND IMPROVEMENT

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
May 23, 2023
Priority
Nov 23, 2020 — provisional 63/117,267 +2 more
Examiner
DEVINE, MOLLY K
Art Unit
1733
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Princeton Nuenergy Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
67%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 67% — above average
67%
Career Allowance Rate
161 granted / 239 resolved
+2.4% vs TC avg
Strong +30% interview lift
Without
With
+30.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
42 currently pending
Career history
273
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.9%
-39.1% vs TC avg
§103
51.0%
+11.0% vs TC avg
§102
18.6%
-21.4% vs TC avg
§112
26.8%
-13.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 239 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on June 17th, 2026 is acknowledged. Claim Objections Claims 106 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 106, “of of the second group” should read “of the second group” Appropriate correction is required. 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 1-7, 12-13, 20-24, 29-30 and 105-106 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 term “substantially” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claims 2-7, 12-13, 20-24, 29-30 and 105-106 are rejected as they are dependent upon a previously rejected claim. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 2 recites “the method of claim 0”, it appears this should recite the method of claim 1 instead. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-7, 12-13, 20-24, 29-30 and 105-106 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph and under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, set forth in this Office action. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 1 recites “c) substantially simultaneous to steps a) and b) or immediately following steps a) and b), size-separating the mixture of particles by gas-phase centrifugal separation forces in a vortex motion” wherein this limitation, in combination with the remaining limitations of claim 1, was not seen in the searched prior art. The searched prior art teaches flowing a fluidized gas-solid stream of the mixture of particles and a carrier gas through a plasma region at a predetermined flow velocity and a predetermined solid-to-gas volume ratio and exposing the mixture of particles flowing through the plasma region to a non- equilibrium plasma having a predetermined plasma power density for a predetermined plasma exposure time, but does not teach size-separating the mixture simultaneous to or immediately following these steps (see Dudney et al. (US 2017/0200952), Sohn et al. (US 2013/0323595)). Size separation of a mixture of particles is more commonly performed after grinding a lithium ion battery cathode material (see Walch et al. (EP 2975686), Sloop (US 2017/0200989)). Claims 2-7, 12-13, 20-24, 29-30 and 105-106 would be allowed as they are dependent upon claim 1. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Molly K Devine whose telephone number is (571)270-7205. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00-4:00. 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, Michael McCullough can be reached at (571) 272-7805. 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. /MOLLY K DEVINE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 23, 2023
Application Filed
Jul 15, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12697624
SOLAR PANEL RECYCLING AND SORTING MACHINE
2y 6m to grant Granted Aug 04, 2026
Patent 12697623
METAL COLLECTOR AND USE OF IT
1y 8m to grant Granted Aug 04, 2026
Patent 12691472
AIR SORTING UNIT
2y 10m to grant Granted Jul 28, 2026
Patent 12691473
SORTING METHOD FOR AN AUTOMATIC SORTING PROCESS, AND SORTING DEVICE
1y 12m to grant Granted Jul 28, 2026
Patent 12686033
GOODS SORTING SYSTEM, GOODS SORTING METHOD, AND STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 9m to grant Granted Jul 21, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
67%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+30.4%)
2y 3m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 239 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month