DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 07/17/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/17/2026.
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.
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sahajwalla (U.S PG Pub 20240079666A1) and Wagner (‘Induction heating as a pre-treatment for the recycling of Li-ion battery cathodes – Technical feasibility’ – cited in IDS by applicant and NPL provided).
Regarding claim 1, Sahajwalla discloses mixing and forming a feedstock of the battery materials including a first and second active materials and first and second current collectors (claim 1), and discloses a two-stage or tiered heating process (a) and (b) to separate/delaminate the first and second active materials from the current collectors [0025] (claim 1 & 8) (see also [0009-0017] & [0019-0032] for the general process descriptions). Sahajwalla discloses the first heating to take place at a lower temperature than the second heating (claims 1-5 & 8-9), and also discloses these heatings taking place for a period of time (claims 7 & 10).
Sahajwalla has not explicitly disclosed the heating being conducted by induction heating, however, such is known from Wagner.
Wagner, drawn also to the art of recycling Li battery cathodes (Abstract), discloses induction heating of the cell to separate the cathode material from the current collector (Abstract; ‘Conclusion’ pg. 8). Wagner discloses that such a process is allows direct reintroduction of the recycled materials into a production process can be achieved and that long transport routes and extensive hydrometallurgical or pyrometallurgical processes can be avoided (pg. 1 paragraph 4 in the ‘Introduction’ section). Wagner also discloses that this induction heating process can be used with anodes to separate out and recycle anode material (pg. 8, first column, paragraph 2).
It would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to have modified the method of Sahajwalla, with the heating being conducted by induction heating, as disclosed by Wagner, to arrive at the instant invention, in order to allow direct reintroduction of the recycled materials into a production process and avoid long transport routes and extensive hydrometallurgical or pyrometallurgical processes.
Regarding claim 2, Sahajwalla has already disclosed separation of the first and second active materials from the first and second current collectors (see claim 1 rejection above).
Regarding claims 3 & 4, Sahajwalla discloses that the separation of the current collectors from the active materials happens after the heating stages [0025].
Regarding claims 5-6, Sahajwalla has disclosed the current collectors to be copper or aluminum [0054].
Regarding claims 7-8, Sahajwalla as modified by Wagner discloses the instant limitations. Wagner discloses that the temperatures that are used in heating the battery materials affects the recycling rate of the battery materials (‘Conclusion’ pg. 8), and thus as such the temperature is a result effective variable which affects the recycling rate, and it is within the purview of an ordinarily skilled artisan to routinely optimize the temperate to achieve needed recycling rates (MPEP 2144.05(II)).
Regarding claim 9, both Sahajwalla and Wagner disclose the feedstock to be in a battery cell (see claim 1 rejection above).
Regarding claim 10, Sahajwalla has disclosed the time periods being as claimed (2 minutes) (claims 7 & 10), thus forming overlapping ranges and obviating the instant range (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claims 11-12, Sahajwalla has disclosed the first and second active materials being a cathode and anode material and being disposed on current collectors that are alternatively copper or aluminum [0054]. Regarding the first active material being an anode material and second active material being a cathode, and vice versa, such would merely involve a rearrangement of parts and a rearrangement of methods steps, both of which are held to be obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results (MPEP 2144.04 IV(C)).
Regarding claim 13, Wagner has disclosed the feedstock being deposited in a housing and being at an ambient temperature and pressure (see section 2.1 and 2.3 pg. 3). It would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to have modified the method of Sahajwalla, with the housing and ambient atmosphere of Wagner to arrive at the instant invention, in order to allow direct reintroduction of the recycled materials into a production process and avoid long transport routes and extensive hydrometallurgical or pyrometallurgical processes.
Regarding claim 14, Sahajwalla as modified by Wagner discloses the instant limitations. Wagner discloses that the induction heating frequency affects the efficiency losses and that low frequencies cause efficiency losses (pg. 4, paragraph 1), thus establishing the frequency as a result effective variable. It is within the purview of an ordinarily skilled artisan to routinely optimize the frequency to achieve needed efficiency (MPEP 2144.05(II)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US-20210320293-A1 – drawn also to Li-cell recycling.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABHISHEK A PATWARDHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8431. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7:30am-5pm.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571)270-5038. 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.
/ABHISHEK A PATWARDHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1746
/MICHAEL N ORLANDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights