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 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.
Claim 5 is 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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the end material" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1,2,4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang, H. et al., “In-situ pyrolysis based on alkaline medium removes fluorine-containing contaminants from spent lithium-ion batteries,” Journal of Hazardous Materials 457 (2023) 131782 (now Huang).
As to Claim 1, Huang discloses a method whereby black mass i.e. electrode material which further contains a fluorinated binder is enclosed in a container with a fluorine removal additive under sintering conditions (Fig. 2, pg. 5) wherein the additive is calcium hydroxide (Conclusion, pg. 11).
However, Huang fails to disclose 1) the electrode material “has never been performing intercalation and deintercalation of a charge carrier” and 2) the use of magnesium hydroxide.
As to difference 1), the Examiner notes the mechanism for capturing fluorine impurities as illustrated by Huang would be the same whether electrode material is used or pristine since the same components are effectively present.
It would have been obvious to use to prior art method on a pristine material as claimed as both the prior art and claimed materials would have similar components.
As to difference 2), Huang notes the advantages of using an cheap inorganic base to remove fluorine containing impurities from the electrode material (Conclusion, pg. 11). The Examiner notes that magnesium hydroxide is another inexpensive inorganic base in the same period of the periodic chart.
It would have been obvious to substitute the calcium hydroxide of the prior art with the magnesium hydroxide of the claims as substitution of compounds with similar chemical properties and availability/expense would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
As to Claim 2, Huang disclose the electrode materials were treated with a sodium chloride solution which the Examiner posits contains water (2.1 Materials and preparation, pg. 2).
As to Claim 4, the pyrolysis occurs at up to 550 deg C (2.2.4 In-situ pyrolysis process of B, pg. 3).
As to Claim 5, Huang discloses the electrode materials as NCM (nickel cobalt manganese) materials (2.1 Materials and preparation, pg. 2) which is similar to the materials that are being used in the instant Specification (Instant Specification, para. 0019). The Examiner respectfully submits the prior art material would thus display the layered structure as the claimed material and prior art material are similar or the same.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Specifically, none of the prior art discloses a process whereby a magnesium hydroxide at the weight ratios disclosed are used in the process claimed to treat an electrode material nor is there any teaching, suggestion or motivation to arrive at the claimed limitation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAISON P THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-8917. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:00 am-3:30 pm EST.
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 Jones can be reached at (571) 270-7733. 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.
/J.P.T/Examiner, Art Unit 1762
/jt/ 6/10/2026
/ROBERT S JONES JR/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1762
Prosecution Insights