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 .
Claims 1-14 are pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 objected to because of the following informalities: claim 4 recites "the battery element that have cleaned and dried". It is believed applicant intended "the battery element that has been cleaned and dried". Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory/Alicia Chevalier/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1788 double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-14 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-13 of copending Application No. 18/350080 in view of Muramatsu et al. (JP 2012-022969 A ).
Regarding claim 1, application ‘080 claims a method for recycling a lithium-ion secondary battery, comprising: providing a used lithium-ion secondary battery that includes: a battery element including a ceramic positive electrode layer, a ceramic separator, and a ceramic negative electrode layer; an electrolytic solution; a battery container accommodating the battery element and the electrolytic solution, taking out the battery element from the lithium-ion secondary battery; subjecting the battery element to an electrode restoration treatment including cleaning and/or heat treatment; and putting the battery element subjected to the electrode restoration treatment back into the battery container to assemble a lithium-ion secondary battery (claim 1). Application ‘080 further claims that the ceramic positive electrode layer, the ceramic separator, and the ceramic negative electrode layer form one integrated sintered body as a whole which indicates the ceramic separator may be bonded to the ceramic electrode taken out. (claim 6).
Application ‘080 fails to claim taking out the ceramic electrode from the lithium-ion secondary battery so that the positive electrode and the negative electrode are separated from each other.
Muramatsu et al. discloses a method for recycling a used lithium-ion secondary battery (LIB, para. 0009, ref. #10, figure 1) which has a ceramic positive electrode (ref. # 15, figure 1, para. 0029 - lithium-transition metal composite oxides such as, LiCoO2), a ceramic negative electrode (ref. #13, figure1, para. 0030 - Li4Ti5O12), a separator interposed between the positive and negative electrode (ref. #16 figure 1, para. 0042) an electrolytic solution (electrolyte layer, ref. #17, figure 1, para. 0040), and a battery container (laminate sheet, ref. #29, figure 1, para. 0046) accommodating the battery element (power-generating component) and the electrolytic solution. Muramatsu et al. further discloses that the battery elements of the used lithium-ion secondary battery (LIB) is taken out of the container (exterior material, para. 0082, 0113) and the positive electrode, the electrolytic layer (electrolytic solution-impregnated separator), and the negative electrode are peeled off one by one there by separating from each other (para. 0082).
Regarding claim 2, application ‘080 claims electrode restoration treatment comprises cleaning the battery element with a polar solvent to remove impurities contained in and/or adhering to the battery element, followed by drying (claim 2).
Regarding claim 3, application ‘080 claims battery element further comprises a positive electrode current collector and/or a negative electrode current collector, wherein the positive electrode current collector and/or the negative electrode current collector is detached before and/or during the cleaning, and wherein the positive electrode current collector and/or the negative electrode current collector is attached to the battery element after the electrode restoration treatment (claim 3).
Regarding claim 4, application ‘080 claims the electrode restoration treatment comprises heating, at 300 to 1000°C, the battery element that have cleaned and dried. (claim 4).
Regarding claim 5, application ‘080 claims the electrode restoration treatment comprises degreasing the battery element at 300 to 600°C and/or firing the battery element at 650 to 1000°C. (claim 5).
Regarding claim 6, application ‘080 claims the ceramic positive electrode layer is composed of a lithium complex oxide sintered body. (claim 7).
Regarding claim 7, application ‘080 claims the ceramic positive electrode layer is an oriented positive electrode layer containing a plurality of primary grains composed of lithium complex oxide, the plurality of primary grains being oriented at an average orientation angle of over 0° and 30° or less with respect to a layer face of the positive electrode layer. (claim 8).
Regarding claim 8, application ‘080 claims the lithium complex oxide is lithium cobaltate. (claim 9).
Regarding claim 9, application ‘080 claims the negative electrode is a ceramic negative electrode, and the ceramic negative electrode is composed of a titanium-containing sintered body. (claims 1 and 10).
Regarding claim 10, application ‘080 claims the titanium-containing sintered body contains lithium titanate or niobium titanium complex oxide. (claim 11).
Regarding claim 11, application ‘080 claims the separator is a ceramic separator, and the ceramic separator comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of MgO, Al2O3, ZrO2, SiC, Si3N4, AlN, and cordierite. (claim 12)
Regarding claim 12, application '080 claims replacing the electrolytic solution in the lithium-ion secondary battery with a fresh electrolytic solution. (claim 1)
Regarding claim 13, application ‘080 claims replacing the battery container with another battery container after the battery element is taken out and before the battery element is put back into the battery container. (claim 13)
Regarding claim 14, application ‘080 fails to disclose replacing the positive electrode or negative electrode other than the ceramic electrode subjected to the electrode restoration treatment with a new or comparable positive electrode or negative electrode.
Murumatsu et al. discloses replacing the negative electrode other than the ceramic electrode subjected to the electrode restoration treatment with a new negative electrode when assembling the lithium-ion battery (para. 0180).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention of recycling of a used lithium-ion secondary battery to separate the positive and negative electrode after the ceramic electrode has been taken out from the battery and to replace with a new negative electrode when the battery is assembled as taught by Muramatsu et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply recycling method to extend the useful life of ceramic battery elements by regenerating the electrodes, replacing the electrolyte thereby reducing the cost and environmental load.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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.
Claims 3, 13, and 14 are 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.
Claim 3 recites “ceramic electrode further comprises” in line 1. It is unclear if the term “further” implies the ceramic electrode comprises of additional component. Claim 1 fails to specify what ceramic electrode comprises rendering the claim vague and indefinite.
Claim 3 further recites the limitation “detached before and/or during the cleaning” in line 3 is unclear and renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear from what the current collector is detached whether it’s an electrode or the binder or some other component of the battery.
Claim 13 recites “further comprising replacing the battery container”, implying the battery element after electrode restoration treatment is put back into a different battery container. Claim 1 on which claim 13 is dependent on requires the battery element to put into the same container. It is unclear if the battery elements after electrode restoration treatment is put into original or a different battery container rendering the claim vague and indefinite.
Claim 14 recites “comparable” in line 3 rendering the claim vague and indefinite. The term “comparable” is relative term and does not specify any structural, compositional, or performance criteria by which comparability if assessed.
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 (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 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.
Claims 1, 2, 12, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2012-022969 A.
Regarding claim 1, Muramatsu et al. discloses a method for recycling a used
lithium-ion secondary battery (LIB, para. 0009, ref. #10, figure 1) which has a ceramic
positive electrode (ref. # 15, figure 1, para. 0029 - lithium-transition metal composite
oxides such as, LiCoO2), a ceramic negative electrode (ref. #13, figure1, para. 0030 -
Li4Ti5O12), a separator interposed between the positive and negative electrode (ref. #16 figure 1, para. 0042) an electrolytic solution (electrolyte layer, ref. #17, figure 1, para. 0040), and a battery container (laminate sheet, ref. #29, figure 1, para. 0046) accommodating the battery element (power-generating component) and the electrolytic solution.
Muramatsu et al. discloses that the battery elements of the used lithium-ion
secondary battery (LIB) is taken out by cutting or thermally melting and peeling the
outer periphery of the container (exterior material) without damaging the electrode (para. 0082, 0113) and the positive electrode, the electrolytic layer (electrolytic solution-impregnated separators), and the negative electrode are peeled off one by one from each other to be separated into positive electrode and a negative electrode (para. 0082). Muramatsu et al. further discloses the electrode restoration treatment cleaning
the electrodes with a polar medium (cleaning solvent) for predetermined time
thereby removing the deposits formed during repeated charging and discharging of the Lithium-ion battery and cleaning the electrodes (para. 0062, 0177-0178). Muramatsu et al. further discloses the battery element subjected to the electrode restoration treatment (regenerated power generating component) inserted back into the battery container (laminate -type exterior material, para. 0097) to assemble a lithium -ion battery.
Regarding claim 2, Muramatsu et al. discloses electrode restoration treatment
step includes cleaning the ceramic electrode with polar solvents (para. 0062, 0090, 0177) to remove the impurities (solid electrolyte interface -SEI) deposits on the battery element followed by a step of drying the solvent treated electrode (para. 0011, 0068-0069).
Regarding claim 12, Muramatsu et al. discloses the electrolytic solution of the used lithium -ion secondary battery is replaced with a fresh electrolytic solution (para. 0096, 0127, 0160, 0183).
Regarding claim 13, Muramatsu et al. discloses the insertion of solvent treated
and dried ceramic electrode was inserted into a new container (laminate type exterior materialcontainer, para. 0097) thereby replacing the battery container with another battery container after the ceramic electrode is taken out and before the ceramic electrode is put back into the battery container.
Regarding claim 14, Murumatsu et al. discloses replacing the negative electrode other than the ceramic electrode subjected to the electrode restoration treatment with a new negative electrode when assembling the lithium-ion battery (para. 0180).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muramatsu et al. (JP 2012-022969 A) in view of Belharouak et al. (US 12,444,780).
Muramatsu et al. is relied upon as described above.
Regarding claim 3, Muramatsu et al. discloses the battery element further comprises a positive electrode current collector (ref. #12, figure 1) and a negative electrode current collector (ref. #11, figure 1). Muramatsu et al.’s positive electrode includes a positive electrode active material layer, a positive electrode current collector, and positive electrode tab. Muramatsu et al.’s negative electrodes include a negative electrode active material layer, a negative electrode current collector, and negative electrode tab. The positive and negative electrodes, which include the electrode current collectors, are detached from the battery before cleaning (para. 0082, 0113).
Muramatsu et al. fails to disclose attaching of the electrode current collector to the ceramic electrode after the electrode restoration treatment.
Belharouak et al. discloses direct recycling of a used lithium-ion battery having a cathode (LiCoO2, col. 6 line 1-5), anode (col. 6, lines 16-20), anode current collector (col. 7, lines 22-25), cathode current collector (col. 7, lines 17-22), separator (col. 5, lines 24-35), and an electrolyte (col. 5, lines 41-55). The method of recycling includes dissembling the battery in to the battery elements from the container (shell) without damaging or destroying the electrode (Col.7, lines 43-52) and separating the current collector from the electrode (composite electrode, abstract). Belharouak et al. further discloses washing the spent electrodes (composite electrodes) with citrate-based solvent (col. 8, lines 1-4) and thereby detaching the current collector during the cleaning process. Belharouak et al. discloses the detached current collector is recovered (col. 8, lines 35-38) and the current collector is substantially free from corrosion and residual electrode material (col. 8, line 62-67) and can be reused to prepare a new composite electrode and/or a new battery (col. 9, lines 5-10) there by attaching the current collector to ceramic electrode after restoration treatment.
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before
effective filling date of the claimed invention to apply the recycling method of Muramatsu
et al. of a used lithium-ion battery to include detaching the current collector before and/or during the cleaning step and attaching it to the electrode after the restoration treatment as taught by Belharouak et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the recovery and reuse of the current collector reducing the cost and environmental load.
Claims 6 - 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muramatsu et al. (JP 2012-022969 A) in view of Yura et al. (WO 2019221140 A1, using US PG Pub US 2021/0036305 A1).
Muramatsu et al. is relied upon as described above.
Muramatsu et al. fails to disclose the ceramic positive electrode is composed of a lithium complex oxide sintered body, the ceramic positive electrode is an oriented positive electrode containing a plurality of primary grains composed of a lithium complex oxide, the plurality of primary grains being oriented at an average orientation angle of over 0° and 30° or less with respect to a principal plane of the positive electrode, lithium complex oxide is lithium cobaltate, the ceramic negative electrode is composed of a titanium-containing sintered body, the titanium-containing sintered body contains lithium titanate or niobium titanium complex oxide and the separator is a ceramic separator, and the ceramic separator comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of MgO, Al2O3, ZrO2, SiC, Si3N4, AlN, and cordierite.
Regarding claim 6 -11, Yura et al. discloses a lithium-ion secondary battery (lithium secondary battery) which includes a ceramic positive electrode layer composed of a lithium complex oxide sintered body (para. 0014), a ceramic negative electrode layer is composed of a titanium-containing sintered body (para. 0015), a ceramic separator interposed between the positive electrode layer and the negative electrode layer (para. 0016) and electrolyte with which at least the ceramic separator is impregnated (para. 0017) and an exterior body comprising a closed space, the closed space accommodating the battery elements (para. 0018). Yura et al. further discloses the positive electrode (positive electrode layer) is an oriented positive electrode containing a plurality of primary grains, the plurality of primary grains being oriented at an average orientation angle of over 0° and 30° or less with respect to a principal plane of the positive electrode (layer face of the positive electrode layer, para. 0031). Yura et al. further discloses the positive electrode layer is composed of a lithium complex oxide where in, it is lithium cobaltate (para. 0030, 0033). Yura et al. discloses a lithium -ion secondary battery including a negative electrode (negative electrode layer) composed of a titanium-containing sintered body (para. 0014, 0043). Yura et al. further discloses the titanium-containing sintered body contains lithium titanate or niobium titanium complex oxide (para. 0043) and the separator is ceramic and it comprises of MgO (ref. #20, figure 1, para. 0017, 0051).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before
effective filling date of the claimed invention to apply the recycling method of Muramatsu
et al. to a lithium-ion secondary battery as taught by Yura et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply recycling method to extend the useful life of ceramic electrode by regenerating the electrode and replacing the electrolyte thereby reducing the cost and environmental load.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muramatsu et al. (JP 2012-022969 A) in view of Yura et al. (WO 2019221140 A1, using US PG Pub US 2021/0036305 A1 as the English translation) as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Sloop et al. (US 9484606 B1).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Muramatsu et al. fails to disclose the electrode restoration treatment further comprises heating the cleaned and dried battery element at 300 to 1000 oC and degreasing the battery element at 300 to 600°C and/or firing the battery element at 650 to 1000°C.
Sloop et al. discloses recycling and reconditioning of battery electrode materials of used lithium-ion battery (lithium-ion cell), with a ceramic positive electrode (col. 3, line 34) and a ceramic negative electrode (col. 3, lines 30-35). Sloop et al. further discloses the used battery may be deconstructed into their cathode, anode, and packaging parts (col.4, lines 64-66) and rinsing with a solvent to remove dirt, oil, moisture etc. (col. 5, lines 2-4) and drying (col. 6, lines 41-43). Sloop et al. further discloses directly heating, degreasing and/or firing the battery elements (spent electrode material, figure 4) to at least a threshold temperature in the range of 400-900 oC. to promote a change of crystallographic state in the spent electrode material (col. 7, lines 8-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a heating and degreasing step in the electrode restoration treatment of the combination of Muramatsu et al. in view of Yura et al as taught by Sloop et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to heat the spent battery element to promote a change of crystallographic state and to restore the electrochemical performance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISWARYA MATHEW whose telephone number is (571)272-9515. The examiner can normally be reached M-Fri 8:00 AM - 3:00 PM.
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 Automate/I.M./ d Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ALICIA CHEVALIER can be reached at (571) 272-1490. 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.
/I.M./
Iswarya MathewExaminer, Art Unit 1788 02/20/2026
/Alicia Chevalier/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1788