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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1, third line recites "providing at least one electrode said electrode". This is inconsistent and should recite: "providing at least one electrode said at least one electrode" where underlined portion is added. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 2, dependent on claim 1, first to second line recites: "said electrodes are subject to a pressure." This is inconsistent with claim 1, which recites as an antecedent, "at least one electrode," and, therefore, claim 2 should recite: "said at least one electrode[s] [are] is subject to pressure." where underlined portions are added and bracketed portions are removed. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 6, dependent on claim 1 recites "said electro active material". This is inconsistent with claim 1 which recites "comprising electro active materials". . Appropriate correction is required. The examiner will consider the recitation from claim 1 of “comprising electro active materials” as correct.
Claims 8 and 9 objected to because of the following informalities: The acronym "VDF" is used in the phrase "VDF based polymer". This should be further defined.. Appropriate correction is required. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner will consider the acronym, VDF, to mean “vinylidene difluoride” as disclosed in the specification (paragraph [0028]).
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 1-12 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation in element c-: 'at least 60 bar", and the claim also recites in element b-: "a pressure of 60 to 300 bar" which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner will consider that the range of “60 to 300 bar” in element b- also applies to the range of “at least 60 bar” found in element c-.
Additionally, claim 1 recites under element c-, last line: “said gas.” This is indefinite since the antecedent basis of this is recited as “said gas or supercritical fluid” which appears to indicate that the gas is not required because it is recited in the alternative. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner will consider that either alternative “said gas or supercritical fluid” is meant.
Claims 2-12 rejected through dependency.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho (JP6828214B1) with machine translation in view of Fournel (US 8,172,955 B2). Evidence provided for claim 8: UDMachine Polyvinylidene Fluoride (PVDF): Properties and Applications Of This Versatile Polymer (20250 https://ud-machine.com/blog/polyvinylidene-fluoride/
Regarding Claim 1, Ho discloses a method for separating the electrode materials from the current collector in a battery electrode (abs, paragraph [0053] method for recycling lithium-ion batteries), said method comprising:
a-providing at least one electrode said electrode comprising a current collector and a layer of electrode material adhered onto said current collector (paragraphs [0035] [0053]. [0063] binder material causes electrode material to adhere to the conductive metal part to form the electrode; separating the structural portion, the first conductive metal portion, the second conductive metal portion from finer electrode material; where the conductive metal portions act as current collectors), said layer of electrode material comprising electro active materials (paragraphs [0039] [0040] electrode active material including carbon), in powder form (paragraph [0010] carbon forms powder as suspended particles which forms powder as suspended particles) and a binder (paragraph [0053] dissolve binder material)
b- contacting said electrode to a gas or a supercritical fluid at a pressure of 60 to 300 bar (paragraph [0095] gas (air) pressure is applied in an air jet mixer in various ranges from 0.01 MPa (0.1 bar) to about 10 MPa (100 bar)) which overlaps the recited range of 60 to 300 bar.
Prior art which teaches a range within, overlapping or touching the claimed range anticipated if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with “sufficient specificity”. MPEP 2131.03:
However, while Ho discloses that the recovered electrode is dried in an oven under atmospheric pressure for 5 hours (paragraph [0142]), it does not disclose a rapid decreasing of gas pressure of at least 60 bar within 30 seconds or less.
Fournel discloses, in an analogous art, a process for decontaminating and cleaning a solid organic substrate of solid radioactive inorganic particulates (abs). This process uses a gas, which can be controlled under supercritical conditions (Col. 10, ll. 9-16 CO2 in a dense, pressurized state – liquid or supercritical) with the carrying out of compression/decompression cycles, preferably very rapid cycles (Col. 10 ll. 33-35). Moreover, Fournel discloses that an amplitude of this variation in pressure can be from 10 – 100 bar and having time intervals as low as 10 seconds (Col. 10, ll. 35-37).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the disclosure of Ho with the teaching of Fournel, whereby a method for separating battery electrode materials from the current collector in at least one electrode with electrode material adhered onto the current collector, and this electrode is contacted with a gas at a pressure of 60 to 300 bar, as in Ho, would also include that this at least one electrode is subjected to rapidly decompressing the pressure of the gas used or a supercritical fluid as an alternative of at least 60 bar within 30 seconds or less causing rapid decompression of the gas or supercritical fluid, as taught by Fournel.
One with ordinary skill in this art would utilize this method of compression coupled with rapid decompression because this treatment allows for increased penetration of solvent fluid into material and the compression/decompression cycles, especially with supercritical fluids, enhance the mechanical actions and provide more effective, even superior separation/cleaning in a much shorter time and has a positive effect on energy and financial costs (Col. 10 ll. 43-62).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Ho and Fournel disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and Ho further discloses that in step b said electrodes are subject to a pressure of from 90 to 270 bar (paragraph [0095] where the range includes 10 MPa (100 bar) which overlaps with the range of the recited 90 to 280 bar.
Prior art which teaches a range within, overlapping or touching the claimed range anticipated if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with “sufficient specificity”. MPEP 2131.03:
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Ho and Fournel disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and Fournel further discloses, in step c the pressure is rapidly decreased of at least 90 bar in 30 seconds or less (Col. 10 ll. 33-37 10- 100 bar with a possible time interval of 10 seconds).
Prior art which teaches a range within, overlapping or touching the claimed range anticipated if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with “sufficient specificity”. MPEP 2131.03:
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Ho and Fournel disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and while Fournel discloses that the compression/decompression cycles can involve amplitudes of the variation in pressure from 10 to 100 bar and time intervals of 10 seconds, it does not explicitly teach that this is a rapid decrease from maximum treatment pressure to ambient pressure.
However, it would have been obvious to the one with ordinary skill to use this decrease from maximum treatment pressure to ambient pressure because this would overlap with the amplitude of the variation in pressure of 10 to 100 bar within 10 seconds as disclosed by Fournel (Col. 10 ll. 33-37).
Prior art which teaches a range within, overlapping or touching the claimed range anticipated if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with “sufficient specificity”. MPEP 2131.03:
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Ho and Fournel disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and Ho further discloses that at least one electrode is a cathode (abs).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Ho and Fournel disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and Ho further discloses that the electro active material comprises metallic oxides and salts including Li. (paragraphs [0057] [0124] alkali oxide salts and lithium oxide).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Ho and Fournel disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and Ho further discloses that the said electrode material comprises 80% to 99% by weight of electro active materials, and 1 to 20%wt of binder, based on the total weight of the electrode material (paragraph [0160] 90 wt.% hard carbon and 3.5 wt.% as binder).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Ho and Fournel disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and Ho further discloses said binder comprises one or more VDF based polymer (paragraph [0021] would include polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) which is VDF based). See evidence: UDMachine Polyvinylidene Fluoride (PVDF): Properties and Applications Of This Versatile Polymer (2025) https://ud-machine.com/blog/polyvinylidene-fluoride/: The Manufacturing Process Of PVDF Resin: The first step is the VDF or vinylidene fluoride synthesis, which serves as the building block for producing PVDF.
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Ho and Fournel disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and while Fournel further discloses that a gas or supercritical fluid that is used in separating out particulate matter involve a treatment process corresponding the high densities, Fournel is silent as to the fluid having a critical density in the range 0.470-0.220 g/ml.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the gas or supercritical fluid of Ho/Fournel be in the range of 0.470-0.220 g/ml since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
One would have been motivated to use this range because this would make it possible to very rapidly extract and remove the compounds external to the battery components (Col. 13 ll. 53-59).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Ho and Fournel disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and Fournel discloses that the said gas or supercritical fluid is selected from C02, H20, CH30H, CH3CH2OH, and (CH3)2CO (Col. 5 l. 39).
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho (JP6828214B1) with machine translation in view of Fournel (US 8,172,955 B2) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Abusleme (WO 2008/129041 A1) IDS 10/01/2024.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Ho and Fournel disclose all the limitations of claim 8 but while Ho discloses that the binder comprises a VDF based polymer it does not explicitly disclose that the said VDF based polymer comprises at least 50%, by moles of recurring units derived from VDF and 0.1-10%; moles, of recurring units derived from (meth)acrylic monomers of formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
211
308
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein each of R1, R2, R3, equal or different from each other, is independently a hydrogen atom or a C1-C3 hydrocarbon group, and Ro" is a hydrogen or a C1-C5 hydrocarbon moiety comprising at least one hydroxyl group
Abusleme discloses vinylidene fluoride copolymers comprising recuring units derived from hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomers that are used as binder in batteries which includes lithium-ion batteries (paragraphs [0001] [0036]). The recurring units derived from the vinylidene fluoride (VDF) monomer and at least one hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer (MA) is identical to the above formula and this prior art is from the same applicant (paragraph [0014] see figure accompanying paragraph [0014]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the combination of Ho and Fournel with the teachings of Abusleme whereby a method for separating electrode materials from a current collector in a battery electrode with the method of providing a binder comprising one or more VDF based polymer, as disclosed by Ho/Fournel, would have also included having 0.1-10% moles of recurring units derived from the (meth)acrylic monomers of the formula above, wherein each of R1, R2, R3, equal or different from each other, is independently a hydrogen atom or a C1-C3 hydrocarbon group, and Ro" is a hydrogen or a C1-C5 hydrocarbon moiety comprising at least one hydroxyl group, as disclosed by Abusleme.
This would be considered advantageous to the skilled artisan because increasing levels of acrylic acid incorporation dramatically impacts the thermal stability of the fluoromaterial (paragraph [0011]).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Ho, Fournel and Abusleme disclose all the limitations of claim 9 and Abusleme further discloses that the said (meth)acrylic monomer is selected from acrylic acid, hydroxyethyl acrylate, hydroxypropyl acrylate and mixtures thereof (paragraph [0026]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAYNE K. SWIER whose telephone number is (571)272-4598. The examiner can normally be reached M-F generally 8:30 am - 5:30 pm PST.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at 571-270-7457. 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.
/WAYNE K. SWIER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748