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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawakami (US Pat No. 5491037) in view of Kawakami 2 (US Pub No, 2001/0008723)
Regarding Claim 1, Kawakami et al. teaches a lithium-ion battery processing method comprising a collecting step and a cutting step [Example 1, Fig. 5, Fig. 1A, C9, ln 50-56]
the collecting step involving collecting a lithium-ion battery including
an electrode body [101, Fig. 3, C6 ln 30-45],
a battery case [109, Fig. 3, C6 ln 30-40] including an opening [the area of 105 in figure 3, C6 ln 30-40] and housing the electrode body [101, Fig. 3, C6 ln 30-45],
and
an electrode terminal [106, Fig. 3, C6 ln 30-40] connected to the electrode body [101, Fig. 3, C6 ln 30-45] inside the battery case [109, Fig. 3, C6 ln 30-40]
the cutting step involving cutting a connection between the electrode terminal and the
electrode body of the collected lithium-ion battery by using a water jet cutter [C4, ln 60-67, the water jet is used to cut the battery; therefore, would be cutting a connection between the electrode terminal and the electrode body],
wherein the processing method comprises no lithium-ion battery discharging step between the
collecting step and the cutting step [In figure 1, there is no reference to discharging, therefore, meeting the limitations of the claim]
Kawakami et al. is silent on a lid closing the opening of the battery case.
Kawakami 2 et al. teaches the process of recovering components of a sealed battery, where the battery [Fig. 10, 0148], where the battery comprises a lid [see top part of battery surrounding 605, Fig. 10].
an electrode body [601 or 603, Fig. 10, 0153],
a lid closing the opening of the battery case [see top part of battery surrounding 605, Fig. 10].
a battery case [609, Fig. 10, 0153] including an opening [614, Fig. 10, 0153] and housing the electrode body [601 or 603, Fig. 10, 0153],
and an electrode terminal [605, Fig. 10, 0153] connected to the electrode body inside the battery case [Fig. 10, 0153] and partially exposed to outside of the battery case [Fig. 10].,
Since Kawakami et al. teaches a method of recycling a lithium-ion battery, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to utilize the battery of Kawakami 2 et al. in the method of Kawakami et al. as it is merely the recycling of a conventional lithium battery in the art and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Claim(s) 2-3 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawakami (US Pat No. 5491037) in view of Kawakami 2 (US Pub No, 2001/0008723) as applied above in addressing claim 1, in further view of Bobbili (US Pub No. 2023/0175099)
Regarding Claim 2, within the combination above, modified Kawakami et al. is silent on wherein the cutting step involves cutting the lithium-ion battery having a voltage.
Bobbili et al. teaches the use batteries that were fully and half charged, that were cut [0071-0072] as part of a method of recycling lithium-ion batteries [Abstract].
Since Kawakami et al. teaches a method of recycling a lithium-ion battery, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to utilize a fully charged battery as taught by Bobbili et al. in the method of Kawakami et al. as it is merely the recycling of a conventional lithium battery in the art and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding Claim 3, within the combination above, modified Kawakami et al. teaches wherein the electrode terminal is attached to the lid [Kawakami 2: Fig. 10, 0153], and silent on
the cutting step involves separating the lid from the electrode body and the battery case.
Kawakami 2 et al. teaches a lithium battery recycling step which involving opening the battery housing [Fig. 1 0066].
Since Kawakami et al. teaches a method of recycling a lithium-ion battery, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to utilize the recycling step of opening the battery housing as taught by Kawakami 2 et al. in the method of Kawakami et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional engineering design recycling batteries and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding Claim 7, within the combination above, modified Kawakami et al. teaches is silent on wherein the lithium-ion battery includes a solvent,
Kawakami 2 et al. teaches a battery comprising a solvent [0041].
Since Kawakami et al. teaches a method of recycling a lithium-ion battery, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to utilize a battery with a solvent as taught by Kawakami 2 et al. in the method of Kawakami et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional engineering design for batteries and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Within the combination above, modified Kawakami et al. teaches the water jet cutter [C4 ln 60-67] includes a cutting head to eject a fluid, and the cutting head is configured to eject the solvent collected from the lithium-ion battery [C4 ln 60-67, C5 ln 1-10, the water jet would cut through the battery and as a result would eject fluid from the cutting].
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawakami (US Pat No. 5491037) in view of Kawakami 2 (US Pub No, 2001/0008723) and Bobbili (US Pub No. 2023/0175099) as applied above in addressing claim 3, in further view of Sakanaka (US Pub No. 2014/0093761) and Uchida (US Pub No. 2008/0050295)
Regarding Claim 4, within the combination above, modified Kawakami et al. is silent on wherein
the lid and the electrode terminal are made of different materials, and the processing method further comprises a terminal separating step involving separating the electrode terminal from the lid after the cutting step.
Sakanaka et al. teaches a case lid made of aluminum and a terminal made of steel [0213-0214].
Uchida et al. teaches separating the terminals from the lid body of the container [0090].
Since Kawakami et al. teaches a method of recycling a lithium-ion battery, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to utilize a battery with a battery case and lid composition of Sakanaka et al. in the method of Kawakami et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional engineering design for batteries and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Since Kawakami et al. teaches a method of recycling a lithium-ion battery, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to utilize the recycling step of separating the terminals from the lid body of the container of Uchida et al. in the method of Kawakami et al. as it is merely the selection of conventional method for recycling batteries and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Kawakami (US Pat No. 5491037) and Kawakami 2 (US Pub No, 2001/0008723) are the closest prior art.
Modified Kawakami et al. teaches limitations of the claim but does not disclose the limitations of “wherein the lithium-ion battery collected includes an electrolytic solution, and the processing method further comprises a hole making step involving, before the cutting step, making a hole in the
battery case by using the water jet cutter, and an electrolytic solution sucking step involving sucking the electrolytic solution through the hole.” in claim 5, and “further comprising an electrode body
removing step involving, after the electrolytic solution sucking step and the cutting step, inserting
a pushing rod through the hole so as to push the electrode body out of the opening of the battery
case.” in claim 6.
These references, nor any other reference or combination of references in the prior art suggest or render obvious the limitations of “wherein the lithium-ion battery collected includes an electrolytic solution, and the processing method further comprises a hole making step involving, before the cutting step, making a hole in the battery case by using the water jet cutter, and an electrolytic solution sucking step involving sucking the electrolytic solution through the hole.” in claim 5, and “further comprising an electrode body removing step involving, after the electrolytic solution sucking step and the cutting step, inserting a pushing rod through the hole so as to push the electrode body out of the opening of the battery case.” in claim 6.
Therefore; claim 1 is allowed once the limitations of claims 5 and 6 are incorporated into claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL Y SUN whose telephone number is (571)270-0557. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-7PM.
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.
/MICHAEL Y SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728