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 § 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.
Claim 5 is 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.
In claim 5, line 2, what are the metes-and-bounds of the term “roasting”?
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.
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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arimura et al. (JP 2005-026089 A; hereinafter “Arimura”; listed in the IDS filed 28 November 2024; using Applicant’s submitted English translation).
Regarding claim 1, Arimura teaches a method for treating a secondary battery containing metallic lithium in a negative electrode, the method comprising:
bringing water vapor into contact with a battery cell (vapor phase containing water vapor, see [0012]).
Arimura is silent to specifically teaching wherein the water vapor is at 40° C to 175° C. However, Arimura teaches in order to further promote the hydrolysis reaction of converting lithium hydroxide and/or a transition metal hydroxide from being produced form the lithium-transition metal containing composite oxide, it is also effective to supply H2O under a heated condition (see [0012]). Therefore, Arimura recognizes that the temperature of the water vapor coming into contact with the materials is a result effective variable, and it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of the heated condition through routine experimentation. See MPEP §2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 2, Arimura is silent to wherein a relative humidity of gas that contacts the battery cell in bringing the water vapor into contact with the battery cell is 40% or more. However, Arimura recognizes that a temperature of the water vapor is a result effective variable (see claim 1 rejection above) and also that the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere is a result effective variable as it can be appropriately adjusted in accordance with the state of the hydrolysis reaction (see [0047]). Therefore, as both the concentration and temperature of the water vapor is a result effective variable, the relative humidity, which is just a mathematical expression of the two result effective variables, must itself also be a result effective variable, and it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of the heated condition through routine experimentation. See MPEP §2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 3, Arimura is silent to wherein bringing the water vapor at 40° C. to 175° C. into contact with the battery cell comprises bringing the water vapor at 40° C. to 70° C. into contact with the battery cell. However, Arimura teaches in order to further promote the hydrolysis reaction of converting lithium hydroxide and/or a transition metal hydroxide from being produced form the lithium-transition metal containing composite oxide, it is also effective to supply H2O under a heated condition (see [0012]). Therefore, Arimura recognizes that the temperature of the water vapor coming into contact with the materials is a result effective variable, and it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of the heated condition through routine experimentation. See MPEP §2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 4, Arimura teaches after bringing the water vapor into contact with the battery cell, dissolving, in water, a battery cell constituent material containing the metallic lithium deactivated and recovering the battery cell constituent material (see [0047]-[0049]).
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ido et al. (US 2015/0303445; hereinafter “Ido”).
Regarding claim 1, Ido teaches a method for treating a secondary battery containing metallic lithium in a negative electrode, the method comprising:
bringing water vapor into contact with a battery cell (see [0066] – Ido teaches that the secondary battery 1 can operate at a temperature 70°C or lower based on accessible toy components defined in the Japanese domestic standards. Therefore, since the toy would be operated in all different weather conditions, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed that the secondary battery 1 would come into contact with water vapor in the air at 70°C or lower).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 3, Ido teaches wherein bringing the water vapor at 40° C. to 175° C. into contact with the battery cell comprises bringing the water vapor at 40° C. to 70° C. into contact with the battery cell (see [0066] – 70°C or lower). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 5, Ido teaches not comprising roasting the battery cell (see [0066] – Ido teaches that the secondary battery 1 can operate at a temperature 70°C or lower based on accessible toy components defined in the Japanese domestic standards. Since these temperatures are meant to ensure safe operation, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed that these temperatures ensure that the secondary batter 1 does not roast).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN HA whose telephone number is (571)270-5934. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 EST.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458 . 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.
/S.S.H/Examiner, Art Unit 1735 29 May 2026
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights