DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. Information disclosure statements (IDS), submitted June 13, 2023, July 8, 2024, October 13, 2025, and January 6, 2026, have been received and considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
4. All “wherein” clauses are given patentable weight unless otherwise noted. Please see MPEP 2111.04 regarding optional claim language.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
5. Claims 1-2, 6, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN111945006 as evidenced by La WO2019/199014 (using US PG Publication 2021/0115532 as the English translation).
Regarding Claims 1 and 6, Sun discloses a method for recovering an active metal of a lithium secondary battery comprising:
Preparing cathode active material particles containing a lithium-transition metal oxide (positive electrode material is obtained, paras 0011-0012, 0017)
Performing a reduction treatment of the cathode active material particles (see abstract, paras 0013-0014);
Performing ultrasonic wave dispersing hydration of the reduced cathode active material particles (carried out in water, resulting in hydration* of the reduced cathode active material particles, paras 0014-0015);
Recovering a hydrated* transition metal slurry (slurry has lithium-rich aqueous solution, hydrated transition metals Ni, Co, and filter residue (solid) such as manganese monoxide, which is a solid-liquid two-phase process, meeting Claim 6) (paras 0015-0016) (see entire disclosure and especially 0010-0017 and 0023-0046).
*Sun does not specifically recite that the ultrasonic wave dispersing results in hydration or that hydrated particles are recovered. However, the aqueous slurry would form hydrated particles, as evidenced by La (see e.g. para 0068: a wet process using selective separation generates by-products such as hydrates).
Regarding Claim 2, Sun discloses wherein the reduction treatment comprises forming lithium precursor particles (lithium carbonate, para 0015), transition metal oxide particles (manganese monoxide, para 0015), and transition metal particles (Ni, Co, para 0015) from the cathode active material particles since the skilled artisan could consider the ultrasonic wave dispersion hydration step (specifically producing these particles) to be part of the reduction treatment step of Sun.
Regarding Claim 11, Sun teaches multiple leaching stages and so the skilled artisan would understand that a second leaching step, wherein water is added to once-filtered residue (as in para 0046) would result in a rehydration step.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
6. Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Sun CN111945006.
Regarding Claims 7-9, Sun discloses the claimed method as described in the rejection of Claim 1, which is incorporated herein in its entirety. Sun discloses that ultrasonic wave dispersing hydration is carried out ag e.g. 100 W (para 0046) but fails to specifically disclose wherein the ultrasonic wave dispersion hydration comprises applying an ultrasonic wave having a power of 2.5 W/g to 5.5 W/g based on 1 g of aggregates or 0.6 W/g to 1.4 W/g based on 1 g of the recovered transition metal slurry. However, the skilled artisan would find it obvious to carry out experimentation to determine the best power to use to for the ultrasonic wave dispersion step of Sun to apply sufficient power for the materials treated in the steps (see para 0046), such that e.g. the ultrasonic wave dispersion hydration comprises applying an ultrasonic wave having a power of of 2.5 W/g to 5.5 W/g based on 1 g of aggregates or 0.6 W/g to 1.4 W/g based on 1 g of the recovered transition metal slurry since determination of best instrumentation settings for a specific application/reaction conditions is a normal part of the process of designing a method. The Supreme Court decided that a claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that, “[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.” An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Therefore, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, E.).
7. Claims 3-5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun CN111945006, as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of La WO2019/199014 (using US PG Publication 2021/0115532 as the English translation).
Regarding Claims 3-4, Sun discloses the claimed method as described in the rejection of Claim 1, which is incorporated herein in its entirety. Sun fails to specifically disclose wherein aggregates of the lithium precursor particles, the transition metal oxide particles, and the transition metal particles are formed in the reduction treatment, and that the ultrasonic wave dispersion hydration comprises decomposing the aggregates. However, in the same field of endeavor of lithium battery metal recovery, Ha discloses wherein reductive roasting results in aggregation of preliminary lithium precursor and transition/transition metal oxide particles (see e.g. para 0055). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that the method of Sun would result in the formation of aggregates of the lithium precursor particles, the transition metal oxide particles, and the transition metal particles in the reduction treatment at certain temperatures of heat treatment because He teaches that this is a known result of said treatment. Further, it would have been obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the ultrasonic wave dispersion hydration of Sun to recomposite the aggregates since He teaches that it is desirable to not have aggregation of the particles and because Sun teaches e.g. in para 0025 that the ultrasonication to enhance dispersion of the solid powder to improve lithium leaching rate and recovery rate of lithium.
Regarding Claim 5, Sun does not specifically disclose a particle size such that e.g. the aggregates are decomposed into particles having a particle size of 300 µm or less through the ultrasonic wave dispersion hydration. However, it would have been obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to design the method to result in sufficiently small particles
Regarding Claim 10, Sun fails to specifically disclose wherein the reduction treatment of the cathode active material particles is performed in a fluidized bed rector using a reductive gas. However, in the same field of endeavor of lithium battery metal recovery, Ha discloses wherein reductive roasting is carried out under hydrogen gas in a fluid bed reactor because this technique is carried out at temperatures low enough to prevent decomposition and damage of the lithium transition metal oxide while substantially removing impurities (see entire disclosure and especially paras 0034-0047). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Sun such that the reduction treatment of the cathode active material particles is performed in a fluidized bed rector using a reductive gas because Ha discloses wherein reductive roasting is carried out under hydrogen gas in a fluid bed reactor because this technique is carried out at temperatures low enough to prevent decomposition and damage of the lithium transition metal oxide while substantially removing impurities.
8. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun CN111945006, as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Han et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 263 (2020) 121439.
Regarding Claim 12, Sun discloses the claimed method as described in the rejection of Claim 1, which is incorporated herein in its entirety. Sun fails to specifically disclose wherein the method further comprises heat-treating the cathode active material particles at a temperature of 500 °C or less prior to performing the reduction treatment of the cathode active material particles. However, in the same field of endeavor of lithium battery metal recovery, Han discloses that a pretreatment of the battery (which includes the cathode active material particles) using low temperature volatilization at e.g. 120 °C to remove and recycle electrolytes (see entire disclosure and especially the abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include in the method of Sun the step of heat-treating the cathode active material particles at a temperature of 500 °C or less prior to performing the reduction treatment of the cathode active material particles because this allows for removal and recycling of electrolytes.
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yoshioka JP2012-229481. Yoshioka discloses a method for recovering an active metal of a lithium secondary battery comprising:
Preparing cathode active material particles containing a lithium-transition metal oxide and suspending them in water (first process separates positive active material from batteries such as lithium-transition metal oxide/lithium composite oxide LiCoO2 and so on, paras 0010-0017);
Performing a reduction treatment of the cathode active material particles (reduction roasting is performed on the powder product of the first process (paras 0018, 0023-0026); and further discloses dispersion and final treatment steps (see entire disclosure and especially paras 0010-0028).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA S PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-3597. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30a to 3p Eastern Time.
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, Ula Tavares-Crockett can be reached on 5712721481. 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.
/LISA S PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729