DETAILED ACTION
Summary
This is the initial Office Action based on the System for Shredding Batteries and Method for Shredding Batteries filed July 23, 2024.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-21 are currently pending.
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 1, 2, and 4-21 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.
Claims 4, 5, and 15 recite, “one of more of” on line 2.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the cooled material" on line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Dependent claims are rejected for dependency.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the shredded material" on line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Dependent claims are rejected for dependency.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the temperature" on line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Amending “the temperature” to “a temperature” would overcome the rejection.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the temperature" on line 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Amending “the temperature” to “a temperature” would overcome the rejection.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the temperature" on line 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Amending “the temperature” to “a temperature” would overcome the rejection.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the amount of stabilizer" on line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Amending “the amount of stabilizer” to “an amount of stabilizer” would overcome the rejection.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the cooled material" on line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the shredded material" on line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the reactivity of the shredded material" on line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 2, 4-6, 8, 10-15, 20, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McLaughlin et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,888,463).
With regard to claim 1, McLaughlin et al. discloses a battery shredding system of shredding batteries, the system comprising:
a cooling unit that allows an object including one or more batteries to be shredded to be placed therein to cool the object with a coolant in which an inert gas is liquefied in response to a state condition of the object (see cryogenic cooling unit 14, Fig. 1; see line 28-28, column 2 teaching “The batteries are then submerged in liquid nitrogen 14 to lower their temperature to about -320°F”);
a shredding unit that shreds the cooled material cooled in the cooling unit into flake shapes (see shredding unit 16, Fig. 1; see line 39-47, column 2 teaching “use of a shredder” resulting in pieces “about one inch in diameter”); and
a stabilization unit that mixes or combines the shredded material shredded in the shredding unit with a stabilizer in response to the state condition (see stabilization unit 18, Fig. 1; see line 48-50, column 2 teaching “The shredded components are introduced into a reaction tank wherein the Li containing materials are reacted with water 18”).
With regard to claim , McLaughlin et al. discloses wherein
the state condition is a condition for one or more of a type, a specification, and an input amount of the object (see line 18-50, column 2 teaching the state condition is a condition for a type of the object, Li batteries, and input amount/weight of the battery).
With regard to claim 4, McLaughlin et al. discloses wherein
the cooling unit cools, in response to the state condition, the object with one of more of: a first coolant in which N2 gas is liquefied; a second coolant in which Ar gas is liquefied; and a third coolant in which He gas is liquefied (see line 28-28, column 2 teaching “The batteries are then submerged in liquid nitrogen 14 to lower their temperature to about -320°F”).
With regard to claim 5, McLaughlin et al. discloses wherein
the cooling unit cools, in response to the state condition, the object with one of more of: a direct immersion method of immersing the object in the coolant; an indirect cooling method of indirectly cooling the object with the coolant; and a spray spraying method of spraying the coolant onto the object (see line 28-28, column 2 teaching “The batteries are then submerged in liquid nitrogen 14 to lower their temperature to about -320°F”).
With regard to claim 6, McLaughlin et al. discloses wherein
the cooling unit cools the object with a cooling time period corresponding to the state condition (see line 31-38, column 2 teaching “The mass and configuration of the batteries or battery components determine the time needed to achieve adequate cooling”).
With regard to claim 8, McLaughlin et al. discloses wherein
the cooling unit cools the object using the coolant by the amount of coolant used corresponding to the state condition (see line 28-38, column 2 teaching achieving adequate cooling at about -320°F for different mass and configurations to determine the time needed for cooling and amount of liquid nitrogen/coolant to be replenished).
With regard to claim 10, McLaughlin et al. discloses wherein
the cooling unit cools the object to allow the temperature of the object to be below a predetermined temperature (see line 28-38, column 2 teaching achieving adequate cooling at about -320°F for different mass and configurations).
With regard to claim 11, McLaughlin et al. discloses wherein
the shredding unit shreds the cooled material into flake shapes less than a predetermined thickness (see line 39-47, column 2 teaching pieces “about one inch in diameter”).
With regard to claim 12, McLaughlin et al. discloses wherein
the shredding unit shreds the cooled material through a plurality of shredding processes (see line 41-47, column 2 teaching “use of a shredder” resulting in pieces “about one inch in diameter” which is cited to read on the claimed “shreds the cooled material through a plurality of shredding processes” such as during an initial shredding process at the beginning of the shredding and a final shredding process at the end of the shredding).
With regard to claim 13, McLaughlin et al. discloses wherein
the shredding unit shreds the cooled material step by step (see line 41-47, column 2 teaching “use of a shredder” resulting in pieces “about one inch in diameter” which is cited to read on the claimed “shreds the cooled material step by step” such as during an initial shredding step at the beginning of the shredding and a final shredding step at the end of the shredding).
With regard to claim 14, McLaughlin et al. discloses wherein
the stabilizer is either one of a liquefacient that is mixed or not mixed with an H2O component and a compatibilizer that reacts with the shredded material (see line 48-50, column 2 teaching “The shredded components are introduced into a reaction tank wherein the Li containing materials are reacted with water 18”).
With regard to claim 15, McLaughlin et al. discloses wherein
the stabilization unit mixes or combines, in response to the state condition, the shredded material with one of more of: a first stabilizer that is mixed with an H2O component; a second stabilizer that is not mixed with the H2O component; and a third stabilizer that reacts with the shredded material (see line 48-50, column 2 teaching “The shredded components are introduced into a reaction tank wherein the Li containing materials are reacted with water 18”).
With regard to claim 20, McLaughlin et al. discloses wherein
the stabilization unit mixes or combines the shredded material and the stabilizer by the amount of stabilizer used corresponding to the state condition (ss line 48-55, column 2 an amount of water to react with the Li containing materials in order to prevent formation of highly toxic H2S).
With regard to claim 21, McLaughlin et al. discloses a battery shredding method of shredding batteries, the method comprising:
cooling a placed object with a coolant in which an inert gas is liquefied in response to a state condition thereof (see cryogenic cooling 14, Fig. 1; see line 28-28, column 2 teaching “The batteries are then submerged in liquid nitrogen 14 to lower their temperature to about -320°F”);
shredding the cooled material into flake shapes (see comminution 16, Fig. 1; see line 39-47, column 2 teaching “use of a shredder” resulting in pieces “about one inch in diameter”); and
mixing or combining the shredded material with a stabilizer in response to the state condition to stabilize the reactivity of the shredded material to a predetermined reference level (see reaction with H2O 18, Fig. 1; see line 48-50, column 2 teaching “The shredded components are introduced into a reaction tank wherein the Li containing materials are reacted with water 18. In order to prevent the formation of highly toxic H2S, the pH of the reaction water is raised to at least 10 with the addition of LiOH 20”).
Claim(s) 1 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Keisuke et al. (JP 2012195073 A).
With regard to claims 1 and 17, Keisuke et al. discloses a battery shredding system of shredding batteries, the system comprising:
a cooling unit that allows an object including one or more batteries to be shredded to be placed therein to cool the object with a coolant in which an inert gas is liquefied in response to a state condition of the object (see [0022-0023] teaching a cooling unit for freezing with “liquid nitrogen” to a temperature dependent on electrolyte material);
a shredding unit that shreds the cooled material cooled in the cooling unit into flake shapes (see [0024] teaching a shredding unit, crusher, to a material size approximately 30 x 30 mm or less); and
a stabilization unit that mixes or combines the shredded material shredded in the shredding unit with a stabilizer in response to the state condition (see [0031-0033] teaching a stabilization unit, rotating drum, mixing shredded material with a solvent) wherein
the stabilization unit is configured with a rotating body that accommodates the shredded material to rotate in response to the state condition so as to stir the shredded material and the stabilizer (see [0031-0033] teaching rotating drum).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 7, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keisuke et al. (JP 2012195073 A) in view of Zhang et al. (CN 111389540 A).
With regard to claim 7, independent claim 1 is anticipated by Keisuke et al. under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as discussed above.
Keisuke et al. teaches achieving adequate cooling at about -320°F for different mass and configurations to determine the time needed for cooling and amount of liquid nitrogen to be replenished (see line 28-38, column 2) but does not teach measuring a temperature during the cooling to adjust the cooling time period of the object according to a result of the measurement.
However, Zhang et al. a battery shredding system (see Title and Abstract) and teaches using a measuring element to measure a temperature in order to provide for temperature monitoring in real time (see [0046]).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the cooling unit in the system of Keisuke et al. to include using a measuring element, as suggested by Zhang et al., to measure the temperature of the object during cooling because it would have provided for temperature monitoring in real time to achieve a temperature at about -320°F.
With regard to claims 18 and 19, independent claim 1 is anticipated by Keisuke et al. under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as discussed above.
Keisuke et al. teaches, in the stabilization unit, selecting rotation time period and without heating it to a temperature of 300°C or higher because it can become easily damaged potentially generating fine fragments (see [0032-0033]) but does not teach wherein the stabilization unit measures the temperature while mixing and combining the shredded material and the stabilizer to adjust a time period and temperature according to a result of the measurement.
However, Zhang et al. a battery shredding system (see Title and Abstract) and teaches using a measuring element to measure a temperature in order to provide for temperature monitoring in real time (see [0046]).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the stabilization unit in the system of Keisuke et al. to include using a measuring element, as suggested by Zhang et al., to measure the temperature of the object during mixing or combining because it would have provided for temperature monitoring in real time to ensure no rotation at a temperature of 300°C or higher.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keisuke et al. (JP 2012195073 A) in view of Yan et al. (CN 114798704 A).
With regard to claim 9, independent claim 1 is anticipated by Keisuke et al. under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as discussed above.
Keisuke et al. does not disclose wherein the cooling unit punches the object at least once to cool the object.
However, Yan et al. discloses a battery shredding system (see Title and Abstract) and teaches a cooling unit which punches the battery in order to quickly release energy (see [0025]).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the cooling unit in the system of Keisuke et al. to include punching the battery, as suggested by Yan et al., because it would have provided for quickly releasing energy.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keisuke et al. (JP 2012195073 A) in view of Yang et al. (CN 108465518 A).
With regard to claim 16, independent claim 1 is anticipated by Keisuke et al. under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as discussed above.
Keisuke et al. discloses wherein the stabilization unit introduces stabilizer/water solvent onto the shredded material with a particles size below a predetermined diameter (recall [0024] and [0032]) but does not disclose wherein the stabilization unit sprays the stabilizer onto the shredded material.
However, Yang et al. discloses a battery shredding system (see Title and Abstract) and teaches a stabilization unit introducing water onto the material can include spray water pump (see [0089]).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the means to introduce water onto the shredded material of Keisuke et al. for the spray water pump means suggested by Yang et al. because the simple substitution of an element known in the art to perform the same function supports a prima facie obviousness determination (see MPEP 2143 B).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUSTIN Q DAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5120. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 6:00 AM to 2:00 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 Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303) 297-4684. 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.
/DUSTIN Q DAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721 September 23, 2026
