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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The following is a Final Office Action in response to communication received on 12/8/2025. Claims 1 and 3-9 are pending in this office action. As of the date of this communication, no Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) has been filed on behalf of this case.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 3 are acknowledged. Applicant’s cancellation claims 2 and 9 is acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
On Remarks page 7, Applicant argues the claims recite a specific technical process and not an abstract mental process or method of organizing human activity.
The Examiner strongly disagrees. The subject matter eligibility analysis does not establish a process being the argued “technical” as a reasoning for excluding claims or limitations from being directed towards an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.04)(a)). Rather the Examiner has followed the subject matter eligibility analysis in MPEP 2106, specifically the claims are recited at such a high level of abstraction that the claims recite observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions that could be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper accordingly the claims recite a mental process. Further the claims recite commercial or legal interactions related to business relations as they recite making recycling power batteries decisions based on collected information, where the information is collected at such a high level of abstraction they recite limitations a human or humans could perform. Commercial or legal interactions are in the certain methods of organizing human activity abstract idea groupings. Since mental process or certain methods of organizing human activities are in the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas the claims recite an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.04)(a)(2)).
Therefore the Examiner respectfully disagrees that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
On Remarks pages 8-9, Applicant argues inventive concept and a practical application with respect to the 101 rejection. The Examiner strongly disagrees. It is further noted as detailed below no additional elements are found in the claims beyond the above abstract idea as the claims do not recite nor require any of these limitations being performed by a computer, machine etc. Therefore there are no additional elements beyond the abstract idea. Therefore the claims include no additional elements that would result in a practical application and or significantly more (see MPEP 2106).
On Remarks page 9, Applicant argues the claims do not monopolize. The Examiner understands Applicant’s arguments however the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Questions of preemption are inherent and resolved in the two part framework from Alice Corp and Mayo (found in the 101 rejection below). Further preemption is not the standalone test for determining eligibility. Further while a preemptive claim may be ineligible the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate that a claim is eligible.
See MPEP 2106.04 (cited herein):
While preemption is the concern underlying the judicial exceptions, it is not a standalone test for determining eligibility. Rapid Litig. Mgmt. v. CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F.3d 1042, 1052, 119 USPQ2d 1370, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Instead, questions of preemption are inherent in and resolved by the two-part framework from Alice Corp. and Mayo (the Alice/Mayo test referred to by the Office as Steps 2A and 2B). Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1150, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379, 115 USPQ2d 1152, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 2015). It is necessary to evaluate eligibility using the Alice/Mayo test, because while a preemptive claim may be ineligible, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate that a claim is eligible. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191-92 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10-11 n.14 (1981) ("We rejected in Flook the argument that because all possible uses of the mathematical formula were not pre-empted, the claim should be eligible for patent protection").
On Remarks page 9, Applicant argues the 112 a/first rejection. In view of Applicant’s cancellation of claim 10 the previous 112 a/first rejection has been withdrawn.
On remarks page 10, Applicant argues that Jungst does not teach the amended "the overall process flow range is a range formed by combination of one or more of following processes: a pre-treatment process, a transportation process, a waste treatment process, an in-plant physical treatment process, an in-plant chemical treatment process, a product formation process and a distribution and use process (formally claim 2).
The Examiner first maintains while the Examiner has mapped to this limitation in the efforts of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets this limitation to not limit the claim (see former claim 2). Additionally see MPEP 2111.04 specifically the claim language suggests but does not require steps to be performed nor limit claim structure.
Jungst teaches this limitation in at least Tables 3 and 4 and pages 0309-310. Here specifically Jungst teach multiple alternatives though even if the claim limitation limits claim scope from which the Examiner does not contend based on the above only one is required by the claims based on the recited language of “one or more of”.
For example pre- treatment process, the transportation process, and the waste treatment process in the overall process flow range could map to existing recycling facilitates, distance to recycle, disposal costs, etc., as detailed in previous claim 4.
On Remarks page 10, Applicant argues Jungst does not teach “generating a corresponding boundary, according to the overall process flow range, combined with an evaluation need corresponding to the carbon emission accounting." Applicant argues a total score based on battery recycling attributes does not read on the claim. It is noted here Applicant does not argue the difference between the cited prior art and Applicant’s claims, rather Applicant merely argues that the score does not read on the limitation.
The Examiner strongly disagrees. A boundary as recited in the claims is a very broad limitation that could read on many different aspects of Jungst including a score for recycling a battery (see pages 308-309). Though not required by the claim and therefore not a persuasive argument, a score here is clear and standardized, as it is a result of a standardized way or equation to calculate the score and is used to easily compare different batteries to each other (see Table 5 on page 311). There is no calculation that is required to take place for carbon emissions rather It is broadly recited as “corresponding to carbon emission accounting” which could be merely a benefit or intended result of generating the boundary. Multiple batteries in Table 5 page 311 include carbon components (see Lithium-ion or Lithium polymer)(see page 319), therefore score of whether or not to recycle these products (see Table 5 page 311) corresponds to carbon emissions. Further additionally or alternatively that these scores relate to recycling electric vehicle car batteries that are zero emission and non-fuel transportation, therefore making these scores corresponding to carbon emission accounting (see page 311 and 295)
Therefore the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 and 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 3-9 recite a process as the claims recite a method.
The claim(s) 1 and 3-9 recite(s) the idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and making determinations based on that information, where the information is related to recycling power batteries.
The claims recite observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions that could be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper accordingly the claims recite a mental process.
Further the claims commercial or legal interactions related to business relations as they recite making recycling power batteries decisions based on collected information, where the information is collected at such a high level of abstraction they recite limitations a human or humans could perform.
Mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activities are in the groupings of enumerated abstracts ideas, and hence the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims merely recite limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application in that the claims merely recite:
(1) Adding the words “apply it” ( or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and (2) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Specifically as recited in the claims:
As per claim 1, the claims recite setting a process for a retired power battery, generating boundaries corresponding to valuations and carbon missions, and outputting processes related to recycling of the retired power battery. These are all limitations a human could perform given the broad recitation in the claim. There is no requirement for a computer or machine therefore the claim is all considered part of the abstract idea with no additional elements.
As per claim 3, the claims recite generating different calculations (boundaries) according to collected information and information desired. These are limitations a human could perform given the broad recitation in the claim. There is no requirement for a computer or machine therefore the claim is all considered part of the abstract idea with no additional elements.
As per claim 4, the claims recite generating different outputs according to calculations (boundaries) according to collected information and information desired. These are limitations a human could perform given the broad recitation in the claim. There is no requirement for a computer or machine therefore the claim is all considered part of the abstract idea, with no additional elements.
As per claim 5, the claims merely describe information used in a calculation or determination. These are limitations a human could perform given the broad recitation in the claim. There is no requirement for a computer or machine therefore the claim is all considered part of the abstract idea, with no additional elements.
As per claim 6, the claims merely describe information used in a calculation or determination. These are limitations a human could perform given the broad recitation in the claim. There is no requirement for a computer or machine therefore the claim is all considered part of the abstract idea, with no additional elements.
As per claim 7, the claims merely describe information used in a calculation or determination. These are limitations a human could perform given the broad recitation in the claim. There is no requirement for a computer or machine therefore the claim is all considered part of the abstract idea, with no additional elements.
As per claim 8, the claims merely describe information used in a calculation or determination. These are limitations a human could perform given the broad recitation in the claim. There is no requirement for a computer or machine therefore the claim is all considered part of the abstract idea, with no additional elements.
As per claim 9, the claims merely describe information used in a calculation or determination. These are limitations a human could perform given the broad recitation in the claim. There is no requirement for a computer or machine therefore the claim is all considered part of the abstract idea, with no additional elements.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims merely recite limitations that are not indicative of an inventive concept (“significantly more”) in that the claims merely recite: (1) Adding the words “apply it” ( or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), as previously discussed under the practical application step.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Jungst Recycling of Electronic Vehicle Batteries 2001.
As per claim 1, Jungst teaches A method for defining a carbon emission accounting boundary of power battery recycling, comprising: (see pages 308-309, Examiner’s note: process for calculating a car battery recycling score).
setting an overall process flow range for recycling of a retired power battery, wherein the overall process flow range is a range formed by combination of one or more of following processes: a pre-treatment process, a transportation process, a waste treatment process, an in-plant physical treatment process, an in-plant chemical treatment process, a product formation process and a distribution and use process; (see Tables 3 and 4 and pages 309-310, Examiner’s note: shows different attributes used in the recycling assessment. While the Examiner has mapped to this limitation in the efforts of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets this limitation to not limit the claim see MPEP 2111.04 specifically the claim language suggests but does not require steps to be performed nor limit claim structure).
generating a corresponding boundary, according to the overall process flow range, combined with an evaluation need corresponding to the carbon emission accounting, wherein the evaluation need is predefined and associated with obtaining a specific target output material or product from the recycling, target output being selected from the group consisting of: treated waste, recovered copper and aluminum materials, recovered plastic casings, raw materials for chemical extraction, recycled metal elements, precursor materials for battery cathodes, cathode materials, regenerated batteries, and distributed regenerated batteries; (see pages 307-308 and 310, Examiner’s note: while one of the alternatives is required by the claims, here Jungst teaches multiple of the alternatives, first it is noted that any of the recycled materials from batteries on pages 307-308 can be the broad recitation of “treated waste”, further Jungst teaches aluminum and copper (see page 307), teaches plastic recovered from battery (see pages 307), teaches various recycled metals like iron (see page 307), teaches materials for battery cathodes (see page 308), further teaches lead for new batteries (307 and 310) which could read on regenerated batteries or distributed regenerated batteries as broadly recited in the claims).
outputting, according to the boundary, unit processes and an inventory structure corresponding to the recycling of the retired power battery (see pages 308-311, Examiner’s note: here teaches a method for determining a score for recycling a battery (see pages 308-309), where weights for each attribute of battery are determined (see Table 4 and page 309), then the total score for the battery is determined by multiplying the weight (see Figure 4) by the individual score for the battery (see page 309) and summing the products. An Example score calculation is shown in Figure 5 and page 311)).
Wherein the inventory structure comprises quantified data entries for each unit process, the data entries specifying physical amounts of at least one of: material inputs, energy consumption, material outputs, or emissions associated with the corresponding unit process, thereby forming a structured dataset configured for performing carbon emission accounting and full life cycle assessment of the retired power battery recycling (see page 310, Examiner’s note: only one of the alternatives is required by the claims however Jungst teaches multiple of the alternatives including difficulty in permitting new or expanded facilities (material inputs)(see page 310), value of product, market for recycled product, (material outputs) )(see page 310), effect of air emissions on permitting(see emissions associated with the corresponding unit process)(see page 310). It is noted that the thereby clause does not limit claim scope see MPEP 2111.04, however this limitation is taught in Jungst as is providing information regarding the recycle of power batteries that takes into account emission and life cycle information of the battery (see pages 310-310). Further teaches the battery may include carbon recyclables (see Table 5 on page 311 and page 319 with respect to Lithium-ion and lithium polymer).
As per claim 3, Jungst teaches
wherein generating the corresponding boundary according to the overall process flow range, combined with the evaluation need corresponding to the carbon emission accounting specifically comprises: (see pages 0308-0310, Examiner’s note: process that determines a battery recycle assessment based on various attributes).
when the evaluation need corresponding to the carbon emission accounting covers only waste treatment, generating a first boundary corresponding to the evaluation need by combining the pre- treatment process, the transportation process, and the waste treatment process in the overall process flow range; (see Figure 4, Examiner’s note: this is a broad limitation and could mean one of many different attributes in Table 4 for example existing recycling facilitates, distance to recycle, disposal costs, etc.).
when the evaluation need corresponding to the carbon emission accounting covers obtaining of copper and aluminum metals, obtaining of plastic casings, or preparation of raw materials for chemical extraction, generating a second boundary corresponding to the evaluation need by combining the pre-treatment process, the transportation process, the waste treatment process, and the in-plant physical treatment process in the overall process flow range; (see Figure 4, Examiner’s note: this is a broad limitation and could mean one of many different attributes in Table 4 for example fraction of output that is recyclable/reusable, fraction of output as hazardous waste, scale of existing technology, existing recycling infrastructure, market for recycled product, value of product, etc.).
when the evaluation need corresponding to the carbon emission accounting covers recycling of metal elements, supply of raw materials for preparing precursors, or supply of raw materials for preparing cathode materials, generating a third boundary corresponding to the evaluation need by combining the pre-treatment process, the transportation process, the waste treatment process, the in-plant physical treatment process and the in-plant chemical treatment process in the overall process flow range; (see Figure 4, Examiner’s note: this is a broad limitation and could mean one of many different attributes in Table 4 for example fraction of output that is recyclable/reusable, fraction of output as hazardous waste, scale of existing technology, existing recycling infrastructure, market for recycled product, value of product, etc.).
when the evaluation need corresponding to the carbon emission accounting covers manufacture of regenerated batteries, generating a fourth boundary corresponding to the evaluation need by combining the pre-treatment process, the transportation process, the waste treatment process, the in-plant physical treatment process, the in-plant chemical treatment process, and the product formation process in the overall process flow range; (see Figure 4, Examiner’s note: this is a broad limitation and could mean one of many different attributes in Table 4 for example ease of battery dismantling, fraction of output that is recyclable/reusable, fraction of output as hazardous waste, scale of existing technology, size of batteries currently handled, existing recycling infrastructure, market for recycled product, value of product, etc.).
and when the evaluation need corresponding to the carbon emission accounting covers manufacture of regenerated batteries and putting them on market, generating a fifth boundary corresponding to the evaluation need by combining the pre-treatment process, the transportation process, the waste treatment process, the in-plant physical treatment process, the in-plant chemical treatment process, the product formation process and the distribution and use process in the overall process flow range. (see Figure 4, Examiner’s note: this is a broad limitation and could mean one of many different attributes in Table 4 for example ease of battery dismantling, fraction of output that is recyclable/reusable, fraction of output as hazardous waste, scale of existing technology, size of batteries currently handled, existing recycling infrastructure, market for recycled product, value of product, etc.).
As per claim 4, Jungst teaches
wherein outputting according to the boundary the unit processes and the inventory structure corresponding to the recycling of the retired power battery specifically comprises: (see pages 308-311, Examiner’s note: here teaches a method for determining a score for recycling a battery (see pages 308-309), where weights for each attribute of battery are determined (see Table 4 and page 309), then the total score for the battery is determined by multiplying the weight (see Figure 4) by the individual score by the battery (see page 309) and summing the products. An Example score calculation is shown in Figure 5 and page 311)).
outputting a first transportation process information and a waste treatment process information when the boundary is the first boundary; (see Figure 4, Examiner’s note: this is a broad limitation and could mean one of many different attributes in Table 4 for example existing recycling facilitates, distance to recycle, disposal costs, etc.).
outputting a second transportation process information, a second waste treatment process information, and a second in-plant physical treatment process information when the boundary is the second boundary; (see Figure 4, Examiner’s note: this is a broad limitation and could mean one of many different attributes in Table 4 for example fraction of output that is recyclable/reusable, fraction of output as hazardous waste, scale of existing technology, existing recycling infrastructure, market for recycled product, value of product, etc.).
outputting a third transportation process information, a third waste treatment process information, a third in-plant physical treatment process information, and a third in-plant chemical treatment process information when the boundary is the third boundary; (see Figure 4, Examiner’s note: this is a broad limitation and could mean one of many different attributes in Table 4 for example fraction of output that is recyclable/reusable, fraction of output as hazardous waste, scale of existing technology, existing recycling infrastructure, market for recycled product, value of product, etc.).
outputting a fourth transportation process information, a fourth waste treatment process information, a fourth in-plant physical treatment process information, a fourth in-plant chemical treatment process information, and a fourth product formation process information when the boundary is the fourth boundary; (see Figure 4, Examiner’s note: this is a broad limitation and could mean one of many different attributes in Table 4 for example ease of battery dismantling, fraction of output that is recyclable/reusable, fraction of output as hazardous waste, scale of existing technology, size of batteries currently handled, existing recycling infrastructure, market for recycled product, value of product, etc.).
and outputting a fifth transportation process information, a fifth waste treatment process information, a fifth in-plant physical treatment process information, a fifth in-plant chemical treatment process information, a fifth product formation process information, and a fifth distribution and use process information when the boundary is the fifth boundary. (see Figure 4, Examiner’s note: this is a broad limitation and could mean one of many different attributes in Table 4 for example ease of battery dismantling, fraction of output that is recyclable/reusable, fraction of output as hazardous waste, scale of existing technology, size of batteries currently handled, existing recycling infrastructure, market for recycled product, value of product, etc.).
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.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jungst Recycling of Electronic Vehicle Batteries 2001 further in view of Zobell et al. (United States Patent Number: US 6,275,768).
As per claim 5, Jungst teaches
wherein the transportation process information corresponding to the retired power battery comprises a scope of transportation within and outside a plant, transportation means, (see Table 4, Examiner’s note: It is noted that the Examiner interprets the whole limitation of claim 5 to not limit claim scope see MPEP 2111.04 as this wherein clause merely describes data that may be considered in the process but does not require any steps to be performed or limit a claim to a particular structure. In the efforts solely of compact prosecution the Examiner has mapped to the claims. However, these broad limitations could include limitations size of existing technology, distance to recycler, existing recycling facilities, etc.),
; and the waste treatment process information corresponding to the retired power battery comprises a waste treatment method, a waste recycling method, a standardized waste discharge method, and parameter information of required equipment and input-output logistics information. (see Table 4, Examiner’s note: these broad limitation could include ease of dismantling, fraction of output that is recycle/reusable, fraction of our put as hazardous waste, scale of existing technology, existing recycling facilities, market for recycled products, value of products, hazardous material status, toxic metals content, difficulty in permitting new or expanded facilities, effect of air emissions on permitting).
Jungst does not expressly teach the transportation process comprises a fuel type, and fuel consumption per hundred kilometers
However Zobell et al. which is in the art of fuel consumption (see abstract) teaches the transportation process comprises a fuel type, and fuel consumption per hundred kilometers (see column 1 lines 20-40 and column 2 lines 38-50, Examiner’s note: teaches fuel consumption for hundred kilometers of driving).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Jungst with the aforementioned teachings from Zobell et al. with the motivation a using a commonly known feature for establishing budgets and selecting the right vehicle (see Zobell et al. 1 lines 20-40) when determining distance of a recycling facility and disposal costs is known (see Jungst Table 4).
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jungst Recycling of Electronic Vehicle Batteries 2001 further in view of Ellis et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2013/0256198).
As per claim 6, Jungst teaches
wherein the in-plant physical treatment process information corresponding to the retired power battery comprises equipment information of discharge, and first data on input and output of materials and energy for each functional unit. (see Table 4, Examiner’s note: It is noted that the Examiner interprets the whole limitation of claim 5 to not limit claim scope see MPEP 2111.04 as this wherein clause merely describes data that may be considered in the process but does not require any steps to be performed or limit a claim to a particular structure. In the efforts solely of compact prosecution the Examiner has mapped to the claims. However, these broad limitations could include easy of battery dismantling, fraction of output as hazardous waste, value of product, disposal costs, hazardous material status, toxic metals content, effect of air emissions on permitting etc.).
Jungst does not expressly teach the in-plant physical treatment process comprises heat treatment, crushing, sorting, and mechanical disassembly processes.
However, Ellis et al. which is in the art of recycling car batteries (see paragraphs 0002-0003) teaches the in-plant physical treatment process comprises heat treatment, crushing, sorting, and mechanical disassembly processes (see paragraphs 0067 and 0076, Examiner’s note: heat treatment, crushing milling and sorting the battery).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Jungst with the aforementioned teachings from Ellis et al. with the motivation of using known type of attributes related to battery disassembly (see Ellis paragraphs 0067 and 0076), when attributes related to the disposal costs, easy of battery dismantling, existing recycling facilities, etc. are all known (see Jungst Table 4).
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jungst Recycling of Electronic Vehicle Batteries 2001 further in view of Ellis et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2013/0256198) further in view of Kochhar et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2020/0078796).
As per claim 7, Jungst teaches
wherein the in-plant chemical treatment process information corresponding to the retired power battery comprises the equipment information of, and second data on input and output of materials and energy for each functional unit. (see Table 4, Examiner’s note: It is noted that the Examiner interprets the whole limitation of claim 5 to not limit claim scope see MPEP 2111.04 as this wherein clause merely describes data that may be considered in the process but does not require any steps to be performed or limit a claim to a particular structure. In the efforts solely of compact prosecution the Examiner has mapped to the claims. However, these broad limitations could include ease of battery dismantling, fraction of output as hazardous waste, value of product, disposal costs, hazardous material status, toxic metals content, effect of air emissions on permitting etc.).
Jungst does not expressly teach the in-plant chemical treatment process comprises leaching, chemical purification, extraction purification, crystallization, liquid preparation, reaction, filtration and washing, drying, foreign matter separation, and calcination processes
However, Ellis et al. which is in the art of recycling car batteries (see paragraphs 0002-0003) teaches leaching (see paragraphs 0032 and 0049, Examiner’s note: leaching).
chemical purification, extraction purification (see paragraphs 0050,0066, and 0079, Examiner’s note: purification).
liquid preparation, (see paragraph 0071, 0075, and 0078, Examiner’s note: liquids).
reaction, (see paragraphs 0059, and 0070, Examiner’s note: reaction).
Filtration (see paragraphs 0080-0082, 0085-0086, and 0102, Examiner’s note: filters).
washing, (see paragraphs 0071, 0075-0076, and 0102, Examiner’s note: washing).
foreign matter separation, (see paragraphs 0001, 0004, and 0052, Examiner’s note: separation of materials).
and calcination processes (see paragraph 0062 and 0066, Examiner’s note: calcination process).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Jungst with the aforementioned teachings from Ellis et al. with the motivation of providing additional information related to the dissembling of electronic vehicle batteries (see Ellis et al. paragraphs 0002-0003), when performing different dissembling and hazardous material calculations are known (see Jungst Table 4).
Jungst in view of Ellis does not expressly teach crystallization and drying
Kochhar et al. which is in the art of recycling batteries (see abstract) teaches crystallization and drying (see paragraphs 0123-0126, 0177, and 0260-0261, Examiner’s note: crystallization and drying).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Jungst in view of Ellis with the aforementioned teachings from Kochhar et al. with the motivation of using other types of known processes with respect to battery recycling (see Kochhar et al. paragraphs 0123-0126, 0177, 0260-0261), when performing different dissembling and hazardous material calculations are known (see Jungst Table 4).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jungst Recycling of Electronic Vehicle Batteries 2001 further in view of Ernst et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2002/0161700).
As per claim 8, Jungst teaches
wherein the product formation process information corresponding to the retired power battery comprises product packaging materials, packing materials, (see Table 4, Examiner’s note: It is noted that the Examiner interprets the whole limitation of claim 5 to not limit claim scope see MPEP 2111.04 as this wherein clause merely describes data that may be considered in the process but does not require any steps to be performed or limit a claim to a particular structure. In the efforts solely of compact prosecution the Examiner has mapped to the claims. However, these broad limitations could include market for recycled product, value of product, disposal costs, existing collection infrastructure, difficulty in permitting new or expanded facilities, etc.).
Jungst does not expressly teach the product formation process information comprises pelletizing program information.
Ernst which is in the art of packing information (see abstract) teaches the product formation process information comprises pelletizing program information (see paragraph 0021, Examiner’s note: packing materials include pellets, and the optimal choice depends on cost, weight, and the desired degree against damage).
Before the effective filing dare of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Jungst with the aforementioned teachings from Ernst with the motivation of using other known attributes to calculate disposal costs (see Ernst paragraph 0021),when determining disposal costs is known (see Jungst Table 4).
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jungst Recycling of Electronic Vehicle Batteries 2001 further in view of Brouwer et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2017/0005374).
As per claim 9, Jungst teaches
wherein the distribution and use process information corresponding to the retired power battery comprises product distribution and use logistics information and information on carbon emissions due to the power battery (see Table 4, Examiner’s note: It is noted that the Examiner interprets the whole limitation of claim 5 to not limit claim scope see MPEP 2111.04 as this wherein clause merely describes data that may be considered in the process but does not require any steps to be performed or limit a claim to a particular structure. In the efforts solely of compact prosecution the Examiner has mapped to the claims. However, these broad limitations could include size of battery currently handled, effect of air emissions on permitting, etc.).
Jungst does not expressly teach the distribution and use process information corresponding to the power battery loading weight.
However Brouwer et al. which is in the art of recycling batteries (see abstract) teaches the distribution and use process information corresponding to the power battery loading weight (see paragraphs 0002-0004, Examiner’s note: regulations based on vehicle weight).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Jungst with the aforementioned teachings from Brouwer et al. with the motivation of using a known regulation to determine vehicle recycling (see Brouwer et al. paragraphs 0002-0004), when determining things like battery size and fraction that is recyclable are known (see Jungst Table 4).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Reclamation of Automotive Batteries: Assessment of Health Impacts and Recycling Technology Task 2 April 1999 California Environmental Protection Agency
22. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIERSTEN SUMMERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6542. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7-3:30.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached on (571) 270- 3923. 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.
/KIERSTEN V SUMMERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights