Global Patent Analysis of Battery Recycling Technologies: A Comparative Study of Korea, China, and the United States

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper deals with the patent research in the specific domain of battery recycling by presenting an extended analysis of trends on secondary batteries and related technologies in three countries: Korea, China, and the United States. The proposed approach is interesting and the obtained results are useful for policy makers. The paper stands out for its good organization and logical presentation, as well as an excellent English style. However, the paper must be carefully revised for the sake of clarity.

The following issues are recommended to improve the paper:

1.     Abstract: state clearly / detail the applied research method(s)/methodology and paper novelty.

2.     Define all acronym at their first use, even they are well known in literature. E.g., OEM, IPC, CNT, etc.

3.     Introduction: typically, this section ends by stating the limits of the state of the art (the gap) and the original contributions of the paper. The paper structure (its Sections) should be also briefly presented at the end of Introduction.

4.     “[Yo2W30/84_All]” – unclear reference.

5.     Figure 1: the year 2024 is irrelevant as only few months are included here. Proposal to remove it or at least leave open the window (by dashes/dotted lines) for further increasing of patent number.

6.      Table 1: it is included in Table 2, so it can be removed! It would be interested to include really here the total patent number of each contributor (is mentioned in the table caption, but not included: “Table 2. Number of patent applications…”).

7.     Table 2: give a clear description of all used codes in the column “Technology Keyword”, e.g., C22B-003, H01M-010, etc.

8.     Table 3. Harmonize the legend of Table 2 vs. Table 3, they can be combine into a single table. Define clearly the time period (range of years) considered here.

9.     Figure 2: H/V axis titles are missing.

10.  Introduce better the applied methodological approach: e.g., why individual/personal patent applications are not considered (there are only institutions/companies as contributors)? Address also the case of secret innovation in companies.

11.  Conclusions: the limits of the proposed approach, as well as future works, should be highlighted here.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

 

I sincerely appreciate the valuable feedback provided on my manuscript titled "Global Patent Analysis of Battery Recycling Technologies: Comparative Study of Korea, China, and the United States." Following the guidance from the reviewer, I have carefully revised my manuscript. Below are my responses to each comment and the corresponding changes made:

 

1. Abstract: state clearly / detail the applied research method(s)/methodology and paper novelty.

• This revision includes a clear explanation of the research methods used and highlights the novelty of the paper.

 

2. Define all acronym at their first use, even they are well known in literature. E.g., OEM, IPC, CNT, etc.

• Regarding the specific comment to define all acronyms at their first use, I have made the following adjustments:

1. OEM: Original Equipment Manufacturer
2. IPC: International Patent Classification
3. CNT: Carbon Nanotube (For this start-up part, I removed because of the overall relevance of contents.)

• I have ensured that these and all other acronyms are clearly defined upon their first mention in the text.

 

3. Introduction: typically, this section ends by stating the limits of the state of the art (the gap) and the original contributions of the paper. The paper structure (its Sections) should be also briefly presented at the end of Introduction.

• This revised introduction clearly identifies the limitations of existing research, explains the original contributions of the paper, and briefly introduces the structure of the paper, enabling readers to easily understand the content of the study.

 

4. “[Yo2W30/84_All]” – unclear reference.

• As per your suggestion, I have removed the unclear reference (“[Yo2W30/84_All]”).

 

5. Figure 1: the year 2024 is irrelevant as only few months are included here. Proposal to remove it or at least leave open the window (by dashes/dotted lines) for further increasing of patent number.

• As per your suggestion, I have removed the data for the year 2024, as it is still in progress (only up to June). I have updated Figure 1 accordingly and removed the reference to the decrease in patent numbers in China for 2024.

 

6. Table 1: it is included in Table 2, so it can be removed! It would be interested to include really here the total patent number of each contributor (is mentioned in the table caption, but not included: “Table 2. Number of patent applications…”).

• As per your suggestion, I have removed Table 1 and included the total number of patents for each contributor in Table 2.

 

7. Table 2: give a clear description of all used codes in the column “Technology Keyword”, e.g., C22B-003, H01M-010, etc.

• To ensure clarity, I have changed the terminology to "IPC-based technology keyword" and included the total number of patents for each contributor in Table 2.

 

8. Table 3. Harmonize the legend of Table 2 vs. Table 3, they can be combine into a single table. Define clearly the time period (range of years) considered here.

• As per your suggestion, I have combined Table 2 and Table 3 and included the relevant time period. Additionally, I added time period from 2007 to 2024 considered here.

 

9. Figure 2: H/V axis titles are missing.

• I added H/V axis title.

 

10. Introduce better the applied methodological approach: e.g., why individual/personal patent applications are not considered (there are only institutions/companies as contributors)? Address also the case of secret innovation in companies.

• I have added a section to the methodology regarding the aforementioned content.
• "In this study, the analysis of patents was limited to companies. This is because the purpose of the study was to measure how companies in each country innovate battery recycling technology through the tool of patents. Therefore, the patents of individual researchers were not analyzed in this study. For reference, the proportion of individual patents in battery recycling patents in South Korea, China, and the United States was not significant. In South Korea, there were 16 out of a total of 65 patents, in China, there were 748 out of 3,496 patents, and in the United States, there were 247 out of 548 patents."

 

11. Conclusions: the limits of the proposed approach, as well as future works, should be highlighted here.

• Thank you for your valuable feedback. Based on your suggestions, I have revised the Conclusions section to address the limitations of the proposed approach and to highlight potential future research directions. The added content now includes the following points:

1. Economic impact assessments of patent activities could reveal cost savings from recycling and the economic benefits of enhanced technologies.
2. Environmental impact assessments could evaluate the reductions in resource extraction and waste generation.
3. Developing a technological roadmap could identify future trends and emerging technologies in battery recycling, guiding strategic planning and investment decisions.
4. Conducting detailed case studies of leading companies would provide deeper insights into their strategies and contributions.
5. Examining national policies and their impact on battery recycling technologies could offer recommendations for policy improvements.
6. Analyzing market trends and forecasting future demand for battery recycling technologies, considering the rapid growth of the electric vehicle market, would provide valuable insights into the industry's future directions.

• These additions aim to provide a more comprehensive outlook on the potential benefits and further research opportunities in the field of battery recycling technologies. I hope these revisions meet your expectations and align with the objectives of the study.

 

I am grateful for the reviewer’s feedback, which has significantly enhanced the clarity and quality of my manuscript. I hope that my revised manuscript meets the journal's standards and is deemed suitable for publication.

 

Thank you once again for your time and consideration.

 

Sincerely,

Chae-Hoon Lee

Technology Commercialization Department

Korea Electronics Technology Institute (KETI)

[Email: [email protected]]

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The review article entitled "Global Patent Analysis of Battery Recycling Technologies: Comparative Study of Korea, China, and the United States" is devoted to systematizing and explaining the current state of patents for battery recycling, including LiBs. The relevance of the review is undeniable, as the recycling of Li-ion batteries is a challenge for humanity, and environmentally friendly recycling technologies should be developed and improved. The topic of the manuscript is in line with the journal and its relevance is unquestionable. The manuscript can be considered for publication after some corrections and improvements.

 - Despite the fact that the manuscript is devoted to the analysis of patents in three countries, we would like to see a brief graphical summary of the number of patents in other countries: e.g. Germany, Japan, etc.

 - For a better understanding, the article lacks a more in-depth analysis of the patent market. If possible, indicate who are the buyers (acquirers) of patents.

 - A review article would benefit from a clear indication of the scope of a patent, e.g. what type of batteries are being recycled and by what method. This data can be summarized in a table. This will help readers understand what specific aspects are addressed in the patent.

- A manuscript may benefit from a well-defined structure with major sections and subheadings. This will make it easier for readers to navigate through the content and find the information they are interested in.

 - The literature review section could be expanded to include a more comprehensive analysis of existing patents. It would be useful to include summaries of key battery recycling studies, their results, and any gaps or limitations in existing knowledge. This would provide a stronger foundation for the subsequent sections of the review.

- I do not think it is appropriate to provide information on various start-ups as this is not within the scope of the manuscript.

 - Сheck the cited references carefully. Some links are not working / not up to date.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

 

I sincerely appreciate the valuable feedback provided on my manuscript titled "Global Patent Analysis of Battery Recycling Technologies: Comparative Study of Korea, China, and the United States." Following the guidance from the reviewer, I have carefully revised my manuscript. Below are my responses to each comment and the corresponding changes made:

 

1. Despite the fact that the manuscript is devoted to the analysis of patents in three countries, we would like to see a brief graphical summary of the number of patents in other countries: e.g. Germany, Japan, etc.

• As per your suggestion, I have added Figure 2, and through Figures 1 and 2, I have compared and analyzed the trends and trajectories of patent filings in Korea, China, and the USA, as well as Germany, Europe, Japan, and the UK.

 

2. For a better understanding, the article lacks a more in-depth analysis of the patent market. If possible, indicate who are the buyers (acquirers) of patents.

• As your suggestion, I added sub-section in Chapter 3 (patent analysis). I recognize the importance of a comprehensive understanding of the patent market, including the identification of patent buyers (acquirers). To enhance the depth of our analysis, I have incorporated additional data and insights regarding the entities acquiring these patents. Additionally, we analyzed the contents of the most frequently sold patents to identify prevailing technology trends.

 

3. A review article would benefit from a clear indication of the scope of a patent, e.g. what type of batteries are being recycled and by what method. This data can be summarized in a table. This will help readers understand what specific aspects are addressed in the patent.

• As you suggested, we have categorized the types of battery recycling patents for Korea, China, and the United States. This categorization was performed using topic analysis, focusing on the frequently occurring keywords in each patent abstract.

 

4. A manuscript may benefit from a well-defined structure with major sections and subheadings. This will make it easier for readers to navigate through the content and find the information they are interested in.

• As you suggested, I have added subheadings to Chapter 2 (LR; literature review) and 3 (patent analysis).

 

5. The literature review section could be expanded to include a more comprehensive analysis of existing patents. It would be useful to include summaries of key battery recycling studies, their results, and any gaps or limitations in existing knowledge. This would provide a stronger foundation for the subsequent sections of the review.

• As your suggestion, I have revised literature review section now provides a more comprehensive analysis of existing patents, summarizing key studies, their results, and identifying gaps or limitations in the current knowledge base.

 

6. I do not think it is appropriate to provide information on various start-ups as this is not within the scope of the manuscript.

• Following your suggestion, I have removed the startup section.

 

7. Сheck the cited references carefully. Some links are not working / not up to date.

• As you suggested, I have rechecked the URLs of all cited references. (I confirmed that all of them open correctly.)

 

I am grateful for the reviewer’s feedback, which has significantly enhanced the clarity and quality of my manuscript. I hope that my revised manuscript meets the journal's standards and is deemed suitable for publication.

 

Thank you once again for your time and consideration.

 

Sincerely,

Chae-Hoon Lee

Technology Commercialization Department

Korea Electronics Technology Institute (KETI)

[Email: [email protected]]

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No additional recommendations.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am satisfied with the answers for my questions and comments. Moreover, the author has significantly improved the text of the manuscript taking into account my suggestions. I believe that the manuscript can be considered for publication without other corrections.