DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 12/24/2024 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 1-6 are pending. Claims 5-6 are withdrawn for further consideration.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-4, in the reply filed on 5/26/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there would not be a serious search burden on the Examiner. This is not found persuasive because although there may be some overlap of the search for the inventions there is nothing to indicate that the search would be coextensive. Further the examination on the merits of apparatus claims differs from that of method claims. Therefore the extra search and/or examination burden for addressing multiple inventions poses a serious burden to the examiner which makes the restriction requirement proper.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 5-6 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 5/26/2026.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by OZAKI et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2025/0046897), hereinafter OZAKI.
Regarding claim 1, OZAKI teaches: A peeling method for a positive electrode current collector and a positive electrode mixture material for peeling the positive electrode mixture material from the positive electrode current collector (OZAKI teaches a separating method for separating an electrode component into a plurality of elements made of different materials [Abstract; 0013].), the peeling method comprising: effecting induction heating in the positive electrode current collector to dissolve or vaporize a binder of the positive electrode mixture material bonded to the positive electrode current collector (OZAKI teaches the electrode component may be a positive electrode component made of a plurality of materials, the positive electrode component may be configured of a thin film-like positive electrode aluminum material (a positive electrode current collector) and a layer of a positive electrode active material provided on a surface of the positive electrode aluminum material, and the discharge part may be configured to separate the positive electrode aluminum material and the positive electrode active material by the electric pulse discharge, to thereby cause the positive electrode active material to sink downward, indicating it forms a liquid consistency [0013].).
Regarding claim 3, OZAKI teaches: wherein a site where the induction heating is effected is moved (OZAKI teaches the discharge part (11) performs the electric pulse discharge a predetermined number of times on the cut pieces of the electrode components of the battery placed on the placement member (22). The discharge part (11) forms an electrical path during the electric pulse discharge through layers of the cut pieces disposed on the placement member (22) [0046; Fig. 2].).
Regarding claim 4, OZAKI teaches: wherein the induction heating is effected at a plurality of sites in the positive electrode current collector (OZAKI teaches the discharge part (11) performs the electric pulse discharge a predetermined number of times on the cut pieces of the electrode components of the battery placed on the placement member (22). The discharge part (11) forms an electrical path during the electric pulse discharge through layers of the cut pieces disposed on the placement member (22) [0046; Fig. 2].).
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.
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OZAKI et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2025/0046897), hereinafter OZAKI, in view of Bentaj et al. (U.S. 8,746,598), hereinafter BENTAJ.
Regarding claim 2, OZAKI teaches all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but is silent as to: wherein a pulse current is made to flow through a magnetic field generating portion that effects the induction heating. In the same field of endeavor, electrodes, BENTAJ teaches a pulse current is made to flow through a magnetic field [Figs. 2-3; Col. 4, lines 54-55]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicants’ invention to modify OZAKI, by having the pulse current flow through a magnetic field, as suggested by BENTAJ, in order to cause a homogenization of the fragments while facilitating their separation [Col. 4, lines 62-64].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROLINE BEHA whose telephone number is (571)272-2529. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY - FRIDAY 9:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M.
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.
/C.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights