DETAILED ACTION
Citation to the Specification will be in the following format: (S. # : ¶) where # denotes the page number and ¶ denotes the paragraph number of the pre-grant publication corresponding to this application, US 2024/0283043. Citation to patent literature will be in the form (Inventor # : LL) where # is the column number and LL is the line number. Citation to the pre-grant publication literature will be in the following format (Inventor # : ¶) where # denotes the page number and ¶ denotes the paragraph number.
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 .
Status of Application
The preliminary amendment dated 12/6/2023 has been received and will be entered.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-7 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, and 5 is/are currently amended.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are new.
Claim(s) 2 is/are acknowledged as cancelled.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on:
2/17/2026
11/7/2025
12/6/2023
are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 102-103
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.
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.
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.
I. Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, and 6 – or as stated below - is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR 20070046990 to Chung, et al. (05/04/2007; H01M 10/54).
Citation is to the machine translation accompanying the office action.
With respect to Claim 1, “a preparation step of preparing a raw material comprising at least iron (Fe) and a valuable metal.” Chung teaches cobalt and iron. (Chung at 4: “a battery containing cobalt … iron”). A preparing step is taught. (Chung at 2: “a simple pretreatment (crushing and grinding) process”).
Claim 1 further requires “a melting step of heating and melting the raw material into a melt and then converting the melt into a molten product comprising an alloy and a slag.” Melting is taught. (Chung at 2: “… followed by heating. The molten raw material was melted…”).
Claim 1 further requires “a separation step of separating the slag from the molten product to recover an alloy comprising the valuable metal.” Slag removal is more than reasonably suggested. (Chung at 4: “a slag layer … [is] formed … the slag removal efficiency.”).
Claim 1 further requires “wherein, in the preparation step, a mass ratio of Fe/Co in the raw material is controlled to 0.5 or less.” Table 1 teaches a Fe/Co ratio of 0.9/21.3, or 0.04. (Chung at 5, Table 1; note table formatting in original document).
Claim 1 further requires “in the melting step, oxygen partial pressure in the melt generated by heating and melting the raw material is adjusted to be 10-9-0 atm or less, and an Fe grade in the alloy obtained is set to 5 mass% or less.” The partial pressure is taught. (Chung at 4: “an appropriate oxygen partial pressure of 10-17 atm”). The iron content is taught. (Chung at 5, Table 1; note table formatting in original document).
As to Claim 3, lithium ion batteries are taught. (Chung at 3: “Discharged lithium ion battery…”).
As to Claim 5, flux and solvents, interpreted as oxidants and/or reductants, are added. (Chung at 3).
As to Claim 6, flux and solvents, interpreted as oxidants and/or reductants, are added. (Chung at 3).
II. Claim(s) 4 and 7 – or as stated below - is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20070046990 to Chung, et al. (05/04/2007; H01M 10/54) in view of Applicants Admissions.
Citation is to the machine translation accompanying the office action.
As to Claim 4, to the extent Chung does not teach the composition of the battery can, the Specification admits: “[a] well-known lithium ion battery has a structure in which a negative electrode material, a positive electrode material, a separator, and an electrolytic solution are sealed in an outer can. Here, the outer can is made of a metal such as iron (Fe) or aluminum (Al).” (S. 1: [0002]). Applying the recycling/recovery method of Chung to “a well-known” battery is an obvious expedient, as presumably this would facilitate the recovery of more valuable metals, the stated goal of Chung. (Chung at 2).
As to Claim 7, flux and solvents, interpreted as oxidants and/or reductants, are added. (Chung at 3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL C. MCCRACKEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-6537. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (9-6).
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, Anthony J. Zimmer can be reached on 571-270-3591. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL C. MCCRACKEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights