DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. In particular, the abstract is not a single paragraph.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Claim Objections
Claims 16-17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16-17 recites “Computer program element” that should be “A computer program element”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory 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 1-17 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-16 of copending Application No. 18/841,705 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because limitations in one claim can obviously be applicable in the corresponding claim.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Instant application (18/848,430)
Co-pending application (18/841,705)
1. A computer-implemented method for monitoring and/or controlling a recyclate feed for production of at least one component of a product, the method comprising the steps of:
providing recycling data associated with the use of one or more recycled precursor(s) in the production of the at least one component of the product;
providing operation data associated with at least one operation property of at least one production plant;
determining, based on the recycling data and the operation data, a recyclate feed content of one or more recycled precursor(s);
providing the recyclate feed content of one or more recycled precursor(s) for production of at least one component of a product; and
controlling and/or monitoring the recyclate feed based on the recyclate feed content of one or more recycled precursor(s) for production.
2. The method according to claim 1, wherein the recycling data includes a recyclate amount of one or more precursor(s), a recyclate quota for one or more precursor(s) and/or a total recyclate feed content for the at least one component of the product.
3. The method according to claim 1, further comprising the step of providing target performance parameter(s) associated with a chemical performance of the component to be produced.
4. The method according to claim 1, further comprising the step of providing at least one emission target related to the use of one or more recycled precursor(s) in the production of the at least one component, wherein the recyclate feed content is determined based on the at least one emission target related to the use of the one or more recycled precursor(s).
5. The method according to claim 1, further comprising the step of providing a total emission target for producing the at least one component, wherein the recyclate feed content is determined based on the total emission target for producing the at least one component.
6. The method according to claim 5, wherein the total emission target is related to the recyclate feed content and/or the at least one operation property of the production plant.
7. The method according to claim 4, wherein the production plant meeting the at least one emission target for use of precursor(s) and/or the total emission target for producing the at least one component is selected.
8. The method according to claim 1, wherein operation data includes availability data relating to an availability of one or more recycled precursor(s) for producing the at least one component of the product, wherein the availability data is derived from product or material identifiers associated with recycled material.
9. The method according to claim 1, wherein operation data includes capacity data associated with a capacity of the at least one production plant for producing the component of the product, process data relating to process specifics of the at least one production plant for producing at least one component of the product and/or emission data relating to emissions of the at least one production plant for producing at least one component of the product.
10. The method according to claim 1, further comprising the step of selecting the production plant for producing the at least one component of the product, wherein the selection depends on operation data, preferably process data, capacity data and/or emission data.
11. The method according to claim 1, the selection of the production plant for producing the at least one component of a product depends on operation data, at least one emission target, a total emission target and/or the determined recyclate feed content.
12. The method according to claim 1, wherein the at least one component of the product is an electrode active material, wherein the one or more recycled precursor(s) are derived from black mass material.
13. The method according to claim 1, further comprising:
determining, based on the determined recyclate feed content, operation instructions for controlling a precursor feed of at least one virgin precursor and/or at least one recycled precursor based on the determined recyclate feed content and/or the selected production plant; and
providing operation instructions for controlling a precursor feed of at least one virgin precursor and/or at least one recycled precursor.
1. (Currently amended) A computer-implemented method for production of at least one component of a battery, the method comprising:
providing recycling data associated with a use of one or more recycled precursor(s) in the production of the at least one component of the battery;
providing operation data associated with at least one operation property of at least one production plant;
determining, based on the recycling data and the operation data, a recyclate feed content of the one or more recycled precursor(s);
generating an operation instruction for controlling a precursor feed of the production plant based on the recyclate feed content of the one or more recycled precursor(s) for the production of the at least one component of the battery; and
producing the at least one component of the battery based on the operation instruction at the production plant, the at least one component having the determined recyclate feed content of the one or more recycled precursors.
2. (Previously presented) The method of claim 1, wherein the recycling data includes a recyclate amount of one or more precursor(s), a recyclate quota for the one or more precursor(s) and/or a total recyclate feed content for the at least one component of the battery.
3. (Previously presented) The method of claim 1, further comprising: providing target performance parameter(s) associated with a chemical performance of the component to be produced.
4. (Previously presented) The method of claim 1, further comprising:
providing at least one emission target related to the use of one or more recycled precursor(s) in the production of the at least one component, wherein the recyclate feed content is determined based on the at least one emission target related to the use of the one or more recycled precursor(s).
5. (Previously presented) The method of claim 1, further comprising: providing a total emission target for producing the at least one component, wherein the recyclate feed content is determined based on the total emission target for producing the at least one component.
6. (Previously presented) The method of claim 5, wherein the total emission target is related to the recyclate feed content and/or the at least one operation property of the production plant.
7. (Previously presented) The method of claim 4, wherein the production plant meeting the at least one emission target for use of precursor(s) and/or a total emission target production of the at least one component is selected.
8. (Currently amended) The method of claim 1, wherein the operation data includes availability data relating to an availability of one or more recycled precursor(s) for producing the at least one component of the battery, wherein the availability data is derived from battery or material identifiers associated with recycled material.
9. (Currently amended) The method according of claim 1, wherein the operation data includes capacity data associated with a capacity of the at least one production plant for producing the component of the battery, process data relating to process specifics of the at least one production plant for producing the at least one component of the battery and/or emission data relating to emissions of the at least one production plant for producing the at least one component of the battery.
10. (Currently amended) The method of claim 1, further comprising: selecting the production plant for producing the at least one component of the battery, wherein the selection depends on the operation data.
11. (Currently amended) The method of claim 10, wherein the selection of the production plant for producing the at least one component of the battery depends on the operation data, at least one emission target, a total emission target, and/or the determined recyclate feed content.
12. (Previously presented) The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one component of the battery is an electrode active material, wherein the one or more recycled precursor(s) are derived from black mass material.
19. (New) The method of claim 1, wherein the operation instructions control an input material of the production plant, the input material including virgin precursor(s) and the recycled precursor(s).
14. An apparatus for controlling and/or monitoring a recyclate feed for production of at least one component of a product, the apparatus comprising:
one or more processing nodes; and
one or more machine-readable media having thereon machine-executable instructions that are structured such that, when executed by the one or more processing nodes, cause the apparatus to perform the following steps:
providing recycling data associated with the use of one or more recycled precursor(s) in the production of the at least one component of the product;
providing operation data associated with at least one operation property of at least one production plant;
determining, based on the recycling data and the operation data, a recyclate feed content of one or more recycled precursor(s);
providing the recyclate feed content of one or more recycled precursor(s) for production of at least one component of a product; and
controlling and/or monitoring the recyclate feed based on the recyclate feed content of one or more recycled precursor(s) for production.
15. A method for monitoring and/or controlling production of at least one component of a product or to determine an environmental footprint of at least one component of a product to be produced or to verify a recycling quota of a product comprising providing the recyclate feed content generated according to claim 1; and generating instructions to monitor and/or control production of the at least one component of the product.
16. Computer program element with instructions, which, when executed computing devices of a computing environment, is configured to carry out the steps of the method according to claim 1.
17. Computer program element with instructions, which, when executed computing devices of a computing environment, is configured to carry out the steps as provided by the apparatus of claim 14.
14. (Currently amended) An apparatus for production of at least one component of a battery, the apparatus comprising:
one or more processing nodes; and
one or more non-transitory machine-readable media having thereon machine-executable instructions that are structured such that, when executed by the one or more processing nodes, cause the apparatus to:
provide recycling data associated with a use of one or more recycled precursor(s) in the production of the at least one component of the battery;
provide operation data associated with at least one operation property of at least one production plant;
determine, based on the recycling data and the operation data, a recyclate feed content of one or more recycled precursor(s);
generate an operation instruction for control a precursor feed of the production plant based on the recyclate feed content of one or more recycled precursor(s) for production of the at least one component of the battery; and
produce the at least one component of the battery based on the operation instruction at the production plant, the at least one component having the determined recyclate feed content of the one or more recycled precursors.
15. (Previously presented) A method of using the recyclate feed content generated according to the method of claim 1, the method comprising using the recyclate feed content to determine an environmental footprint of the at least one component of the battery to be produced or to verify a recycling quota of the battery.
16. (Previously presented) A non-transitory computer program element with instructions, which, when executed by computing devices of a computing environment, is configured to carry out the method of claim 1.
16. (Previously presented) A non-transitory computer program element with instructions, which, when executed by computing devices of a computing environment, is configured to carry out the method of claim 1.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1:
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. MPEP 2106.03.
The claim is to a computer-implemented method, i.e. one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A prong one: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04(11) and the October 2019 Update, a claim "recites" a judicial exception when the judicial exception is "set forth" or "described" in the claim.
The claim recites: “determining, based on the recycling data and the operation data, a recyclate feed content of one or more recycled precursor(s);”
These limitations recite concepts that can be practically performed in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Thus, the limitations fall into the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. (Step 2A prong one: YES).
Step 2A prong two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. 2019 PEG Section lll{A){2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because: Besides the abstract idea, the claim recites the additional limitations of:
“providing recycling data associated with the use of one or more recycled precursor(s) in the production of the at least one component of the product;
providing operation data associated with at least one operation property of at least one production plant;
providing the recyclate feed content of one or more recycled precursor(s) for production of at least one component of a product; and
controlling and/or monitoring the recyclate feed based on the recyclate feed content of one or more recycled precursor(s) for production.”
The limitations “providing recycling data associated with the use of one or more recycled precursor(s) in the production of the at least one component of the product; providing operation data associated with at least one operation property of at least one production plant; providing the recyclate feed content of one or more recycled precursor(s) for production of at least one component of a product” merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception because they claim mere data gathering.
The limitation “controlling and/or monitoring the recyclate feed based on the recyclate feed content of one or more recycled precursor(s) for production” does not integrate the invention into a practical application because it’s just “applying” the abstract idea. It can also be viewed as generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a technological environment.
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A prong two: NO).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. MPEP 2106.05
Regarding the additional elements:
The limitations “providing recycling data associated with the use of one or more recycled precursor(s) in the production of the at least one component of the product; providing operation data associated with at least one operation property of at least one production plant; providing the recyclate feed content of one or more recycled precursor(s) for production of at least one component of a product” represents mere instructions to apply a judicial exception and is recited at high level of generality. These limitation in the claim are thus insignificant extra-solution activity. This is also well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d) – receiving or transmitting data over a network.). Kepler (US20160072162A1) discloses providing a powder mixture of LiCoO2 cathode material and a graphitic anode material, each with some PVDF contaminant, from a Li-ion battery, and the particle size range of the mixture is 5-50 μm. Belharouak (US20220200074A1) discloses providing for the delamination of the electrode material from the current collector in the mixture to give a free electrode material and a free current collector. Further, Mogan (US9353237B2) discloses providing a bio-based plastic article, the article including an identifier.
The limitation “controlling and/or monitoring the recyclate feed based on the recyclate feed content of one or more recycled precursor(s) for production” merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception because it claims mere data outputting. Ellis (US9156038B2) discloses controlling the magnetic field intensity and/or gradient, and the nature of the active magnetic surface, predetermined electrode active materials separated from the slurry may be concentrated and purified to produce an electrode active material concentrate at step 24. Park (US11715849B2) discloses dissolving PVDF from an EOL cathode and filtering the solution to separate the EOL cathode particles and PVDF/carbon. Further, Alemrajabi (US20240102127A1) discloses producing a cathode active material precursor having a desired active material target ratio for use in a lithium-ion secondary cell or in the production of a lithium-ion secondary cell.
In view of the foregoing, in accord with MPEP 2106.05(d), simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception does not qualify the claim as reciting “significantly more”. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept (Step 2B: NO). The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 2-13, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations of claim 2 further defines the recycling data, claims 3-5, 10 further defines the step, claim 6 further defines the total emission target, claim 7 further defines the production plant, claims 8-9 further defines operation data, claim 11 further defines the selection, claim 12 further defines the at least one component of the product, claim 13 further defines the method, which have been established to include abstract ideas. There are no additional limitations in the claims to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that would impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. Accordingly, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, claims 2-13are not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 14-17, the claims have similar limitations as claim 1; moreover, claim 14 recites an apparatus, claim 15 recites a method, claims 16-17 recite computer program element, which are generic computer components and do not practically integrate the invention nor amount to significantly more. The claims 14-17 are not patent eligible.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter in the form of computer program element that is clearly not limited to a non-transitory tangible medium. The instant claim recites "one or more machine-readable media." According to MPEP § 2111, examiner is obligated to give the terms or phrases their broadest interpretation definition awarded by one of an ordinary skill in the art unless applicant has provided some indication of the definition of the claimed terms or phrases. Therefore, Examiner interprets the claimed machine-readable media to include any type of medium which includes a carrier wave medium such as signals. Signals are directed to a non-statutory subject matter. Thus, claim 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Examiner suggests adding to the claim the term ‘non-transitory’ in front of “machine-readable media” to overcome this rejection.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter in the form of computer program element that is clearly not limited to a non-transitory tangible medium. The instant claim recites "a computer element, such as a computer program or a computer readable storage medium, with instructions, which, when executed by one or more computing node(s) of a computing environment, are configured to carry out steps of any of the methods disclosed herein and/or as provided by any of the apparatuses disclosed herein." According to MPEP § 2111, examiner is obligated to give the terms or phrases their broadest interpretation definition awarded by one of an ordinary skill in the art unless applicant has provided some indication of the definition of the claimed terms or phrases. Therefore, Examiner interprets the claimed computer element to include any type of medium which includes a carrier wave medium such as signals. Signals are directed to a non-statutory subject matter. Thus, claim 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Examiner suggests adding to the claim the term ‘non-transitory’ in front of “computer program element” to overcome this rejection.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 8-11, and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Suzuki et al. (US6633795B1 – hereinafter Suzuki).
Regarding Claim 1, Suzuki teaches a computer-implemented method for monitoring and/or controlling a recyclate feed for production of at least one component of a product (see column 11, lines 10-14; Suzuki: “Next, description will be directed to the recycle method decision procedures for the component parts undergone the decision processings in the steps 206 and 207, respectively. FIG. 3 illustrates a recycle method decision procedure for component parts exited the step 206.”), the method comprising the steps of:
providing recycling data associated with the use of one or more recycled precursor(s) in the production of the at least one component of the product; (see column 10, lines 31-41; Suzuki: “Referring to FIG. 2, upon reception of a discarded television by the recycling factories 6 and 7, information concerning the discarded television inputted from the article specifications information database 35 shown in FIG. 5 is acquired (step 201), whereon the recycle processing method for the discarded television is decided on the basis of the acquired information. For deciding the recycle processing method, it is first determined whether the discarded television can be restored as a useful article in a restoration capability decision step 203 which is-composed of three steps mentioned below.”) [That is, the acquired information reads on ‘recycling data’]
providing operation data associated with at least one operation property of at least one production plant; (see column 5, lines 16-32; Suzuki: “In conjunction with the recycling factory, two different types of recycling factories can be conceived in dependence on whether the recycling factories have been built on a maker-by-maker basis or in common to a plurality of manufacturers. In the case of the exemplary scenario illustrated in FIG. 1, the discarded television recycling factory 6 for individual manufacturer is assumed to be dedicated for a particular maker or manufacturer while the recycling factory 7 for multi manufacturers is assumed as being capable of accommodating the discarded televisions manufactured by plural unspecific manufacturers in common. In each of the recycling factories 6 and 7, information as required is collected in accordance with recycling rules (1) to (6) mentioned hereinafter, whereon recycling methods are determined or decided for the individual discarded televisions as collected, which is then followed by recycle processings.”)
determining, based on the recycling data and the operation data, a recyclate feed content of one or more recycled precursor(s); (see column 11, lines 15-26; Suzuki: “At first, from the information concerning the component parts constituting the discarded television as well as the information concerning the disassembling of the discarded television which is stored in the article specifications information database 35, information concerning the parts and the assemblies which are separated when the discarded television is disassembled or decomposed is extracted for each of the parts and the assemblies (step 206 a), whereupon decision is made as to whether the parts or the assemblies can be reused in a step 206 b.”)
providing the recyclate feed content of one or more recycled precursor(s) for production of at least one component of a product; and (see column 12, lines 54-61; Suzuki: “the parts and the assemblies separated or classified in dependence on the recycle processing methods (step 210 to step 214) are subjected to the corresponding recycle processings, respectively. Among them, in the recycle processing for the multi-material parts (resulting from the processing step 223), they are fragmentated to be subsequently separated into the restoration-destined materials and the energy-recovery-destined materials”)
controlling and/or monitoring the recyclate feed based on the recyclate feed content of one or more recycled precursor(s) for production. (see column 7, lines 29-38; Suzuki: “The parts supplied to the harmful/hazardous material processing factory 14 are classified into restoration-destined materials, energy-resource-destined materials and waste materials after the treatment, whereon the restoration-destined materials are sent to the material manufacturer 12 (route 14 a), while the energy-resource-destined materials are transferred to the energy-resource-destined material buyer 13 (route 14 b) with the waste materials being disposed of for reclamation (route 14 c).”)
Regarding Claim 2, Suzuki teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, Suzuki further teaches wherein the recycling data includes a recyclate amount of one or more precursor(s), a recyclate quota for one or more precursor(s) and/or a total recyclate feed content for the at least one component of the product. (see column 13, lines 38-54; Suzuki: “(1) Article Specifications Information (Details of Which are Illustrated in FIG. 7) …Contents: outer dimensions, weight, performance information (such as dissipation power), information of component parts (part number, part name, manufacturer, model name, material, material manufacturer, weight, information concerning harmful/hazardous parts, information concerning reusable part candidate, use history, etc.), disassembling method, assembling method, quality check method, etc.”)
Regarding Claim 8, Suzuki teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, Suzuki further teaches wherein operation data includes availability data relating to an availability of one or more recycled precursor(s) for producing the at least one component of the product (see column 21, lines 28-38; Suzuki: “FIG. 22 is a view for illustrating an exemplary method of making available the article information indicated in the form of a bar code in an article information indicating portion 21 j of a casing of the discarded article 21 (whose portion may be realized by a correspondingly printed label or the like secured to the casing or printing the bar code directly on the casing according to the instant embodiment of the invention) by means of the bar code reading device 46. As is shown in FIG. 22, by reading out the bar code from the discarded article 21 by the bar code reading device 46, it is possible to make available the article information.”), wherein the availability data is derived from product or material identifiers associated with recycled material. (see column 4, lines 13-14; Suzuki: “Available information sources: recycle processing method information database on a material/part basis provided externally of discarded articles”)
Regarding Claim 9, Suzuki teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, Suzuki further teaches wherein operation data includes capacity data associated with a capacity of the at least one production plant for producing the component of the product, process data relating to process specifics of the at least one production plant for producing at least one component of the product and/or emission data relating to emissions of the at least one production plant for producing at least one component of the product. (see column 31, lines 43-51; Suzuki: “In conjunction with the recycling factory, several different types of recycling factories can be conceived, as exemplified by a maker-based recycling factory which accepts the discarded articles of a specific maker or manufacturer, a recycling factory which is capable of accommodating the discarded articles manufactured by unspecific manufacturers and additionally a recycling factory which limits the category or type of the acceptable articles.”)
Regarding Claim 10, Suzuki teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, Suzuki further teaches further comprising the step of selecting the production plant for producing the at least one component of the product (see column 5, lines 19-26; Suzuki: “In the case of the exemplary scenario illustrated in FIG. 1, the discarded television recycling factory 6 for individual manufacturer is assumed to be dedicated for a particular maker or manufacturer while the recycling factory 7 for multi manufacturers is assumed as being capable of accommodating the discarded televisions manufactured by plural unspecific manufacturers in common.”), wherein the selection depends on operation data, preferably process data, capacity data and/or emission data. (see column 31, lines 39-49; Suzuki: “The input unit 34 is a device for inputting to the recycle method decision processor unit 29 the article information of the discarded articles transported to the recycling factory 18, which information contains at least the manufacturer name, article name, type or model, manufactured date and the manufacture ID number. The input unit 34 can equally be used for inputting the information affixed to be component parts detached from the discarded article. In order to cope with various discarded articles, the input unit 34 should be equipped with devices mentioned below”)
Regarding Claim 11, Suzuki teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, Suzuki further teaches the selection of the production plant for producing the at least one component of a product depends on operation data, at least one emission target, a total emission target and/or the determined recyclate feed content. (see column 7, lines 1-38; Suzuki: “(3) The discarded televisions to be reused as the restored material are pulverized or fragmentated in the recycling factories 6 and 7, whereon some of the fragmentated materials will be supplied to the manufacturing factory 1 as the material for new parts (route 6 e) while the others will be sent to a material manufacturer 12 (route 6 f). The material sent to the material manufacturer 12 undergoes a material restoration processing for performing a required treatment on the fragmentated material, whereon some of the processed materials will be sent to the manufacturing factory 1 as materials for new parts (route 12 a) while the others will be sent to the part manufacturer 10 to be used as the materials for new parts (route 12 b).
(4) Some of the discarded televisions to be reused as the energy resource are fragmentated or pulverized in the recycling factories 6 and 7 to be utilized as the energy resource in the same factory, some of the discarded televisions are delivered to the manufacturing factory 1 (route 6 g) to be utilized as the energy resource in the manufacturing factory 1 and the others are transferred to an energy-resource-destined material buyer 13 (route 6 h).
(5) Some of the parts containing harmful/hazardous materials and requiring special treatment will be treated properly by the part manufacturer 10 (route 6 k), some of them will be sent to a harmful/hazardous material processing factory 14 built to this end to undergo proper treatment (route 6 i) and some will be sent to the harmful/hazardous material processing factory 14 by way of the part manufacturer 10 (route 10 d). The parts supplied to the harmful/hazardous material processing factory 14 are classified into restoration-destined materials, energy-resource-destined materials and waste materials after the treatment, whereon the restoration-destined materials are sent to the material manufacturer 12 (route 14 a), while the energy-resource-destined materials are transferred to the energy-resource-destined material buyer 13 (route 14 b) with the waste materials being disposed of for reclamation (route 14 c).”)
Claims 14-17 contain similar limitations to those in claim 1 are rejected using the same rationale.
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(s) 3 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Wang at al. (US20220311068A1 -hereinafter Wang).
Regarding Claim 3, Suzuki teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; however, Suzuki does not explicitly teach further comprising the step of providing target performance parameter(s) associated with a chemical performance of the component to be produced.
Wang from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches further comprising the step of providing target performance parameter(s) associated with a chemical performance of the component to be produced. (see [0057]; Wang: “A particular feature of the disclosed approach is adaptability to various target chemistries for the recycled batteries, and sourced from various unknown chemistries in the recycling stream.” See [0006]: “Depending on a desired proportion, or ratio, of the desired materials, raw materials are added to the solution to achieve the desired ratio of the commingled compounds for the recycled cathode material for new cells.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Suzuki to include Li’s features of providing target performance parameter(s) associated with a chemical performance of the component to be produced. Doing so would achieve the recycling process that is practical and has high recovery efficiency, and has commercial value as well. (Wang, [0009])
Regarding Claim 13, Suzuki teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; however, Suzuki does not explicitly teach further comprising: determining, based on the determined recyclate feed content, operation instructions for controlling a precursor feed of at least one virgin precursor and/or at least one recycled precursor based on the determined recyclate feed content and/or the selected production plant; and providing operation instructions for controlling a precursor feed of at least one virgin precursor and/or at least one recycled precursor.
Wang from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches further comprising: determining, based on the determined recyclate feed content, operation instructions for controlling a precursor feed of at least one virgin precursor and/or at least one recycled precursor based on the determined recyclate feed content and/or the selected production plant (see [0048]; Wang: “the above approaches converge to a single stream recycling process including both Ni/Mn/Co (NMC) and Ni/Co/Al (NCA) chemistries, by recognizing the common aspects of pH changes and recombining pure (virgin) cathode materials to form a combined precursor having a molar ratio based on the chemistry requirements for the new, recycled cathode materials.”); and providing operation instructions for controlling a precursor feed of at least one virgin precursor and/or at least one recycled precursor. (see [0049]-[0050]: FIG. 8 is a process flow diagram for a combined recycling process for both Ni/Mn/Co and Ni/Co/Al batteries for any suitable molar ratio. In the approach of FIG. 8, the following benefits are achieved: 1. Both LiNixMnyCozO2 and LiNixCoyAlzO2 are cathode materials for Li-ion batteries. These cathode materials can be synthesized in the recycling process. These recovered cathode materials have similar performance with the virgin materials and can be used to make new batteries.”)
The same motivation to combine Suzuki and Wang a set forth for Claim 3 equally applies to Claim 13.
Claim(s) 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Li et al. (US20250014047A1 -hereinafter Li).
Regarding Claim 4, Suzuki teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; however, Suzuki does not explicitly teach further comprising the step of providing at least one emission target related to the use of one or more recycled precursor(s) in the production of the at least one component, wherein the recyclate feed content is determined based on the at least one emission target related to the use of the one or more recycled precursor(s).
Li from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches further comprising the step of providing at least one emission target related to the use of one or more recycled precursor(s) in the production of the at least one component (see [0015]; Li: “the information module includes a storage unit, where the storage unit is configured to store a standard carbon emission obtained according to a carbon emission policy promulgated by a state.”) [The standard carbon emission reads on ‘the at least one emission target’], wherein the recyclate feed content is determined based on the at least one emission target related to the use of the one or more recycled precursor(s). (see [0051]; Li: “A scientific and standardized carbon emission assessment can be carried out on the recycling of decommissioned battery, and a comparison result can be obtained by comparing the carbon emission results with a pre-stored standard carbon emission, so that a relevant company personnel can optimize the carbon emission during the recycling process of decommissioned battery according to the comparison results.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Suzuki to include Li’s features of comprising the step of providing at least one emission target related to the use of one or more recycled precursor(s) in the production of the at least one component, wherein the recyclate feed content is determined based on the at least one emission target related to the use of the one or more recycled precursor(s). Doing so would optimize carbon emissions in the process of recycling decommissioned battery based on the assessment. (Li, [0004])
Regarding Claim 5, Suzuki teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; however, Suzuki does not explicitly teach further comprising the step of providing a total emission target for producing the at least one component, wherein the recyclate feed content is determined based on the total emission target for producing the at least one component.
Li from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches further comprising the step of providing a total emission target for producing the at least one component (see [0044]; Li: “the ranking can be carried out based on a carbon emission, a ratio of the carbon emission to the total weight of the inventory, and so on.”), wherein the recyclate feed content is determined based on the total emission target for producing the at least one component. (see [0051]; Li: “A scientific and standardized carbon emission assessment can be carried out on the recycling of decommissioned battery, and a comparison result can be obtained by comparing the carbon emission results with a pre-stored standard carbon emission, so that a relevant company personnel can optimize the carbon emission during the recycling process of decommissioned battery according to the comparison results.”)
The same motivation to combine Suzuki and Li a set forth for Claim 4 equally applies to Claim 5.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Suzuki and Li teaches all the limitations of claim 5 above, Li further teaches wherein the total emission target is related to the recyclate feed content and/or the at least one operation property of the production plant. (see [0052]; Li: “By establishing a carbon emission assessment system for recycling of decommissioned battery, relevant companies only need to input production-related data and information, select a calculation instruction in the instruction module, and then the emission assessment system can quickly and easily obtain a carbon emission accounting data.”)
The same motivation to combine Suzuki and Li a set forth for Claim 4 equally applies to Claim 6.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Suzuki and Li teaches all the limitations of claim 4 above, Li further teaches wherein the production plant meeting the at least one emission target for use of precursor(s) and/or the total emission target for producing the at least one component is selected. (see [0052]; Li: “A scientific and standardized carbon emission assessment can be carried out on the recycling of decommissioned battery, and a comparison result can be obtained by comparing the carbon emission results with a pre-stored standard carbon emission, so that a relevant company personnel can optimize the carbon emission during the recycling process of decommissioned battery according to the comparison results.”)
The same motivation to combine Suzuki and Li a set forth for Claim 4 equally applies to Claim 7.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Kepler et al. (US 20160072162 A1 -hereinafter Kepler).
Regarding Claim 12, Suzuki teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; however, Suzuki does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one component of the product is an electrode active material, wherein the one or more recycled precursor(s) are derived from black mass material.
Kepler from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the at least one component of the product is an electrode active material (see Abstract; Kepler: “The thus separated materials can easily be collected and further purified and regenerated for reuse in new lithium-ion batteries, providing an efficient and low-cost method for recycling electrode active materials from waste lithium-ion batteries.”), wherein the one or more recycled precursor(s) are derived from black mass material. (see [0004]; Kepler: “The typical process begins with the cell going through a hammer mill in which the entire cell and its components are essentially reduced to a fine powder referred to as the “black mass”.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Suzuki to include Kepler’s features of wherein the at least one component of the product is an electrode active material, wherein the one or more recycled precursor(s) are derived from black mass material. Doing so would provide an efficient and low-cost method for recycling electrode active materials from waste lithium-ion batteries. (Kepler, [0024])
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Spangenberger (US20220271355A1) discloses producing clean black mass, anode or cathode for subsequent recycling.
Borges et al. (US20160371658A1) discloses identifying and manage recyclable materials.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VI N TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1108. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00.
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, ROBERT FENNEMA can be reached at (571) 272-2748. 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.
/V.N.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2117
/Christopher E. Everett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights