DETAILED ACTION
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. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP 2023019312, filed on 2/10/2023.
Specification
3. Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
4. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
5. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
6. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract is not in paragraph form. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prickett et al. (US 6180278 B1; Henceforth, Prickett) in view of Arimura et al. (US 8404138 B2; Henceforth Arimura) and Suzuki (JP 2006095367A).
11. Regarding claim 1, the instant claim is drawn to a method of recovering an electrode material comprising: providing an electrode laminate roll in which an electrode laminate is wound, wherein the electrode laminate includes a current collector foil and an electrode material laminated on at least one surface of the current collector foil; unwinding the electrode laminate from the electrode laminate roll and transporting the electrode laminate in the longitudinal direction; and spraying dry ice particles onto the electrode laminate during transport and crushing the electrode material to separate the electrode material from the current collector foil.
12. Prickett teaches a method of reclaiming active material from flexible electrode substrates by mechanical methods (page 1, column 2, lines 48-50). A electrode laminate is provided (Figure 6, annotated below; element 42), composed of a current collector and electrode material laminated on both surfaces (Figure 3, reproduced below, elements 14 and 12, respectively). The electrode laminate is transported in the longitudinal direction (Figure 6, below), where gears (page 3, column 6, lines 11-15; Figure 6, element 30) or milling knurls (Figure 6, element 48) crush and remove the active material (Figure 6, element 52). Prickett does not explicitly teach that electrode laminate is provided in the form of a roll, and is unwound before spraying dry ice particles onto the electrode laminate during transport to crush and separate the electrode material from the collector foil.
PNG
media_image1.png
350
864
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 6, reproduced from Prickett, annotated by the examiner.
PNG
media_image2.png
665
711
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 3, reproduced from Prickett.
13. Arimura teaches a method of using a stripping agent to remove the active material from a current collector (page 2, column 4, lines 1-15). Arimura teaches an apparatus for the application of said method (Figure 4, reproduced below) wherein an electrode laminate roll is provided (Figure 4, element 314) and is unwound (Figure 4). The laminate is largely moved vertically and longitudinally, being dipped in various chambers to apply the stripping agent (Figure 4, elements 320; page 7m, column 13, lines 17-25). The current collector, after the removal of the active material by water jets (Figure 4, element 340 is a chamber where water jets remove the active material, per page 7, column 14, lines 28-33), is collected in a recovery container (Figure 4, element 70; page 7, column 14, lines 42-45). Arimura teaches that the form of the electrode laminate that can be treated is not limited, making the rolled-up electrodes able to be treated with ease (page 3, column 6, lines 64-67 and page 4, column 7, lines 1-2) and that since the stripping agent needs a short amount of time to work on the electrode material, the apparatus can work continuously (page 4, column 8, lines 27-40).
PNG
media_image3.png
500
737
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 4, reproduced from Arimura.
14. Arimura does not teach spraying dry ice particles onto the electrode laminate during transport to crush and separate the electrode material from the collector foil.
15. Suzuki teaches a catalysts recovery method ([0005]) wherein catalyst, disposed both surfaces of an electrolyte membrane ([0015]), is detached by impacting the layer with a group of solid particles ([0005]) by spraying the particles out of a nozzle ([0015]) and recovering the detached catalyst ([0005]). Suzuki teaches the solid particles are preferably dry ice particles, since they vaporize and no not need to undergo other means to separate it from the detached catalyst ([0006]). Suzuki teaches the use of these particles respectively cools the catalyst layer, making it brittle and more likely to detach from the catalyst layer ([0009]).
16. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method to remove electrode active material taught by Prickett by using wound electrode laminates, as taught by Arimura in the same field of endeavor, and using dry ice spray to crush and remove the electrode active material, as taught by Suzuki in the same field of endeavor. Arimura demonstrates precedent in the art to utilize would electrode laminates in an apparatus to strip electrode active material, since it allows for the laminate to be treated in a continuous manner (page 4, column 8, lines 27-40). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the reasonable expectation that incorporating the wound laminate would have had the predictable result of allowing the system of Prickett to operate continually, as the wound electrode laminate would be performing the same function as it had in the system of Arimura . See MPEP 2143 (I) A. There would have been a motivation, as taught by Suzuki to utilize dry ice sprayers to impact and remove active material from a substrate, as the dry ice particles make the active material brittle and more likely to detach from the catalyst layer ([0009]), and, since they sublimate, no additional separation method is needed to remove it from the detached catalyst ([0006]).
17. Regarding claim 3, the instant claim is drawn to the method according to claim 1, wherein touch rolls for adjusting a tension of the electrode laminate are provided on an upstream side of a position at which the dry ice particles are sprayed on the electrode laminate and on a downstream side of a position at which the dry ice particles are sprayed on the electrode laminate, and thereby, the tension is applied to the electrode laminate at a position at which the dry ice particles are sprayed onto the electrode laminate.
18. Prickett, Arimura, and Suzuki teach the method of claim 1. Prickett teaches the use of pins (Figure 6, element 44) in order to keep proper tension of the electrode laminate (page 3, column 6, lines 57-67). Prickett teaches additional pins can be added elsewhere in the apparatus to maintain proper tension (page 3, column 6, lines 65-67).
19. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method to remove electrode active material taught by Prickett, Arimura and Suzuki, as outlined in claim 1, above, by having tensioning pins on the upstream and downstream sides of the dry-ice spraying section, in order to ensure the laminate is tensioned when the laminate is sprayed with dry ice. Prickett teaches the use of tensioning pins to maintain proper tension throughout the electrode laminate during the removal of the active material layer (page 3, column 6, lines 57-67). Thus, there would have been a motivation to ensure there were sufficient tensioning pins in order to maintain the tension, even when using alternate configurations, such as the one taught by Prickett, Arimura and Suzuki.
20. Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prickett, Arimura and Suzuki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Grissel et al. (US 12506189 B2, claiming priority to 3/10/2021; Henceforth Grissel).
21. Regarding claim 2, the instant claim is drawn to the method according to claim 1, wherein a gas is blown at the same time as the spraying of the dry ice particles onto the electrode laminate or after the spraying of the dry ice particles onto the electrode laminate.
22. Prickett, Arimura, and Suzuki teach the method of claim 1. Neither Prickett, Arimura, nor Suzuki explicitly teach gas is blown at the same time as the spraying of the dry ice particles onto the electrode laminate or after the spraying of the dry ice particles onto the electrode laminate.
23. Grissel teaches a method for removing materials from electrodes, the method comprising providing a substrate, in particular a carrier collector of an electrode, on which a coating is applied on one or both sides, and removing the coating (page 1, column 1, lines 37-42). Grissel teaches that the coating is provided in the form of “snow blasting” where carbon dioxide snow particles are shot out of a nozzle using compressed air as the blasting medium (page 1, column 1, lines 42-50), resulting in significantly higher abrasiveness (page 1, column 1, lines 55-58). Grissel teaches multiple rows of blasting nozzles are utilized (page 1, column 2, lines 27-30).
24. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method to remove electrode active material taught by Prickett, Arimura and Suzuki, as outlined in claim 1, above, by having gas blown at the same time as the dry ice spray onto the electrode laminate. There would have been a motivation, as taught by Grissel in the same field of endeavor, to utilize compressed gas to spray carbon dioxide snow particles, as it results in higher abrasiveness (page 1, column 1, lines 55-58). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the reasonable expectation that blowing compressed gas with dry ice particles would have resulted in an improved ability to remove the electrode material, as the incorporating of gas would make the resulting spray more abrasive, as taught by Grissel, leading to an increased probability of removing electrode active material from the laminate with the dry ice particles of Suzuki.
25. Regarding claim 4, the instant claim is drawn to method according to claim 1, wherein the electrode material is laminated on both sides of the current collector foil, and the dry ice particles are sprayed onto both surfaces of the electrode laminate.
26. Prickett, Arimura, and Suzuki teach the method of claim 1. Prickett teaches the electrode material is laminated on both sides of the current collector foil (Figure 3, reproduced below, elements 14 and 12, respectively). Suzuki teaches the use of only one dry ice nozzle to spray one side of a catalyst layer at a time ([0015]). Prickett, Arimura, and Suzuki do not teach the application of dry ice particles on both sides of the electrode laminate.
27. Grissel teaches a method for removing materials from electrodes, the method comprising providing a substrate, in particular a carrier collector of an electrode, on which a coating is applied on one or both sides, and removing the coating (page 1, column 1, lines 37-42). Grissel teaches that the coating is provided in the form of “snow blasting” where carbon dioxide snow particles are shot out of a nozzle using compressed air as the blasting medium (page 1, column 1, lines 42-50). Grissel teaches multiple rows of blasting nozzles are utilized (page 1, column 2, lines 27-30).
28. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method to remove electrode active material taught by Prickett, Arimura and Suzuki, as outlined in claim 1, above, by having multiple sets of blasting nozzles to spray dry ice on both sides of the electrode laminate. Grissel demonstrates precedent in the art for using multiple sets of blasting nozzles to fire carbon dioxide snow particles at both sides of an electrode laminate material (page 1, column 1, lines 37-42 and page 1, column 2, lines 27-30), in order to remove materials from the electrode laminate (page 1, column 1, lines 37-42). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have had the reasonable expectation that incorporating multiple rows of blasting nozzles taught by Grissel spraying the dry ice particles of Suzuki into the method of Prickett, Arimura, and Suzuki would have led to the predictable effect of removing material from both sides of the electrode laminate, as the nozzles would be performing the same function it had in the system of Suzuki, in an orientation previously demonstrated by Grissel. See MPEP 2134 (I) A.
29. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prickett, Arimura, Suzuki and Grissel as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Umetsu et al. (US 20110023543 A1; Henceforth, Umetsu).
30. Regarding claim 5, the instant claim is drawn to the method according to claim 2, wherein the gas is dried air or nitrogen gas.
31. Prickett, Arimura, Suzuki and Grissel teach the method of claim 2. Grissel teaches the gas used to spray carbon dioxide snow particles is compressed air (page 1, column 1, lines 42-50).
32. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method to remove electrode active material taught by Prickett, Arimura, Suzuki and Grissel, as outlined in claim 2, above, by using nitrogen gas to spray the dry ice particles. A person of ordinary skill would have had the reasonable expectation that utilizing dried air or nitrogen in the nozzles to expel the dry ice particles of Suzuki would have been successful, as Grissel teaches using compressed air to spray carbon dioxide snow particles in a similar manner. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that compressed air, dried air and nitrogen are interchangeable for this purpose, as evidenced by Umetsu, who teaches both nitrogen and compressed air can expel dry ice particles in a manner similar to that in the systems of Suzuki and Grissel ([0025] and [0099]). Using dried air or nitrogen would have the benefit of not needing to separate the catalyst material from water, which Suzuki teaches is necessary when water is incorporated in their catalyst removal system by using ice particles as the solid impacting material ([0007]).
33. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prickett, Arimura, Suzuki and Grissel as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Kawakami (US 5972531 A) and Miyamoto et al. (JP2014192029A; Henceforth, Miyamoto).
34. Regarding claim 6, the instant claim is drawn to method of claim 2, wherein the gas is a heated gas.
35. Prickett, Arimura, Suzuki and Grissel teach the method of claim 2. Neither Prickett, Arimura, Suzuki nor Grissel teach the gas is heated.
36. Kawakami teaches a method to recover consistent components of a battery having at least an active material layer formed on a collector, including at least a step of removing the active material layer by applying a thermal shock to the electrode by at least cooling the electrode (Abstract). Kawakami teaches the thermal shock step may be performed by the combination of rapid cooling followed by heating, allowing material to shrink and expand (page 2, column 3, lines 62-67 and page 2, column 4, lines 1-2), thereby separating the active material layer from the collector (page 1, column 2, lines 43-47). Kawakami teaches the thermal shock step may may be performed several times (page 2, column 3, lines 62-67 and page 2, column 4, lines 1-2). Kawakami does not teach that the heating step is composed of blowing warm or hot gas on the electrode.
37. Miyamoto teaches an apparatus for manufacturing a lithium-ion battery that can suppress the generation of a mixed layer at the interface between the electrode material and the separator material, enable thinning of the separator, and reduce the thickness of the battery ([0008]). The apparatus coats one side of an electrode foil, adds a separator material coating the electrode material, and drying the electrode material by blowing hot air onto the electrode material ([0009]). Miyamoto teaches a pre-drying nozzle includes a cover portion that covers the electrode foil within a predetermined range, a temperature control unit that blows warm air adjusted to a predetermined temperature ([0011]), for example for example 80 to 100°C ([0026]).
38. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method to remove electrode active material taught by Prickett, Arimura, Suzuki and Grissel, as outlined in claim 2, above, by blowing warm air on the electrode material after being sprayed by dry ice particles. Miyamoto demonstrates precedent in the art to use nozzles to blow warm air onto electrode materials during manufacturing. Additionally, there would have been a motivation, taught by Kawakami in the same field of endeavor, to induce thermal shock by means of rapidly cooling and heating an electrode laminate, in order to remove materials like active materials from the electrode laminate collector (page 1, column 2, lines 43-47, page 2, columns 3 lines 62-67 and page 2, column 4, lines 1-2). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the reasonable expectation that the incorporation of the nozzles blowing warm air to the system taught by Prickett, Arimura, Suzuki and Grissel would have resulted in increased thermal shock, based on the teachings of Kawakami, allowing for the active material to be removed more effectively from the electrode laminate. See MPEP 2143 (I) A.
39. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prickett, Arimura, and Suzuki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al (KR-20180079841-A; Henceforth, Kim).
40. Regarding claim 7, the instant claim is drawn to the method according claim 1, further comprising winding the current collector foil separated from the electrode material with a winding roll, and providing a current collector foil roll.
41. Prickett, Arimura, and Suzuki teach the method of claim 1. Arimura teaches collecting the current collector in a receptacle (Figure 4, element 70; page 7, column 14, lines 42-45). Neither Prickett, Arimura, nor Suzuki teach winding the current collector foil separated from the electrode material with a winding roll, and providing a current collector foil roll.
42. Kim teaches an electrode drying device comprising an unwinder and a rewinder ([0001]). Kim teaches the purposes is to evenly dry each position of an electrode in a vacuum chamber ([0013]).
43. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method to remove electrode active material taught by Prickett, Arimura and Suzuki, as outlined in claim 1, above, by including a rewinding wheel at the end to collect the current collector, as taught by Kim in the same field of endeavor. Kim demonstrates precedent in the art for including a mechanism to rewind an electrode roll, when working with electrode laminates. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have had the reasonable expectation that the simple substitution of the rewinding device, in place of the receiving receptacle of Arimura, would have yielded the predictable result of allowing the current collector to be rewound and isolated as a foil roll, as it would be performing the same function as it had in the system of Kim. See MPEP 2143(I) D.
Conclusion
44. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN P MURPHY whose telephone number is (571)272-9321. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:30 pm.
45. 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.
46. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicholas A Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
47. 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.
/RPM/Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/OSEI K AMPONSAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights