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 .
The Applicant’s amendment filed on 10/21/2025 was received. Claims 1 was amended. Claims 13-17 were newly added.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/21/2025 has been entered.
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 1 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.
Regarding to claim 1: the limitation of “after the performing of the initial charging, discharging the secondary battery assembly, which has the battery voltage of 3.1 V to 3.7 V by the initial charging, until the battery voltage of the secondary battery assembly reaches 3.2 V or lower” is contradictory as it is impossible to discharge the battery to 3.2V if the battery is initially charged to 3.1V only.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosobuchi et al. (JP 2004311103 A) in view of Tejima et al. (JP 2012049039 A) on claims 1-9, 11, 12 are withdrawn because Applicant amended independent claim 1. The claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosobuchi et al. (JP 2004311103 A) in view of Tejima et al. (JP 2012049039 A) and Yamamoto et al. (JP 2020145104 A) on claims 10 is withdrawn because Applicant amended independent claim 1.
Claims 1, 3, 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onizuka (US 20150207173 A1) in view of Tejima et al. (JP 2012049039 A).
Regarding to claim 1: Onizuka discloses a method of manufacturing a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery (par. 1). The method comprises
a wound electrode assembly (50) (equivalent to a flat-shaped wound electrode body) (par. 61, 62, fig. 2) in which a positive electrode (64) (equivalent to a positive electrode plate) and a negative electrode (84) (equivalent to a negative electrode plate) are wound, with two separator sheets (90) being intervened therebetween (par. 61, fig. 2);
a nonaqueous electrolyte (par. 64); and
a battery case (15) (par. 64, fig. 2) that houses the wound electrode assembly (50) and the nonaqueous electrolyte (par. 64), the battery case (15) including an injection hole (45) (equivalent to a liquid injection hole) configured to be sealed with a sealing plug (48) (equivalent to a sealing member) (par. 64, fig. 2),
the positive electrode (64) comprising lithium-manganese mixed oxides (e.g., LiMn2O4), and/or ternary lithium-containing mixed oxides such as lithium-nickel-cobalt-manganese mixed oxides (e.g., LiNi1/3Co1/3Mn1/3O2) (equivalent to a lithium-transition metal composite oxide that comprises manganese) (par. 50),
the method comprising:
placing the wound electrode assembly (50) and the nonaqueous electrolyte in the battery case (15) to construct a battery assembly (70) (par 63-70, S30 and S40 in fig. 3);
performing initial charging on the battery assembly (70), wherein the battery assembly (70) is charged to the cutoff voltage (e.g., from 3.7 V to 4.1 V) (equivalent to the initial charging is performed until a battery voltage of the secondary battery assembly is reaches 3.1 V to 3.7 V) (par. 72, S50 in fig. 3); and
after the battery assembly (70) has been charged, discharging the battery assembly (70) to a predetermined voltage (e.g., from 3 V to 3.2 V) (equivalent to after the performing of the initial charging, discharging the secondary battery assembly, which has the battery voltage of 3.1 V to 3.7 V by the initial charging, until the battery voltage of the secondary battery assembly reaches 3.2 V or lower) (par. 72, S50 in fig. 3).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Onizuka. fails to explicitly disclose the liquid injection hold is open to release gas produced during the initial charging. However, Tejima et al. teach a rechargeable battery with a liquid injection hole (14). During initial charging, gas generated inside the case is discharged to the outside of the casing to lower the pressure buildup inside the case (26, fig.6). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the injection hole (45) of Onizuka to release the gas generated during initial charging of the secondary battery because Tejima et al. teach the release of the gas via the liquid injection hole can reduce the gas pressure inside the battery casing (par. 26).
Regarding to claim 3: Onizuka discloses the wound electrode body of the battery as shown in Figure 2. Onizuka does not explicitly disclose the length of the negative electrode active material layer. It is the position of the examiner that the dimension of the negative electrode can be modified depending on the geometrical requirements of the battery and the disclosure provides no evidence of criticality with regard to the relative length of the wound electrode. In Gardner V. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding to claim 7: Onizuka discloses the battery case (15) comprises an case body (30) (equivalent to an exterior body) (par. 64, fig. 2) that comprises an opening and a bottom part opposite to the opening, and a lid (25) (equivalent to a sealing plate) (par. 64, fig. 2) that seals the opening, and the wound electrode assembly (50) is arranged in the case body (30) (fig. 2), wherein a winding axis of the wound electrode assembly (50) is parallel to the bottom part (fig. 2).
Regarding to claims 8 and 9: Onizuka does not teach the battery case houses a plurality of electrode bodies therein. However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use multiple wound battery assemblies with multiple tabs in a battery to increase the power output of the battery of Hosobushi. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
Claims 2, 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onizuka (US 20150207173 A1) in view of Tejima et al. (JP 2012049039 A) as applied in claim 1 above, and further in view of Sadakane (US 20220052381 A1).
Regarding to claim 2: Onizuka discloses the charging and discharging is preferably repeated several times before the battery assembly (70) becomes a working battery (par. 72). In example 1, a 10-minute rest is followed by the preliminary discharging step (par. 80). Onizuka and Tejima et al. fail to explicitly disclose maintaining the secondary battery assembly at the battery voltage of 3.2 V or lower for at least 12 hours after the discharging of the secondary battery assembly. However, Sadakane discloses a lithium secondary battery (abstract). The battery comprises a positive electrode active material comprising a lithium-containing transition metal oxide (par. 48). The examples of the lithium-containing transition metal oxide include LiaMnO2 and LiaMn2O4, wherein 0≤a≤1.2 (equivalent to a lithium-transition metal composite oxide that comprises manganese) (par. 49). Sadakane further discloses when charge and discharge are cyclically repeated, it is preferable to provide a rest period for capacity recovery in the discharged battery. The rest time is, for example, 20 h to 300 h (equivalent to maintaining the secondary battery assembly at the battery voltage of 3.2 V or lower for at least 12 hours) (par. 22). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the rest time of 20 h to 300 h of Sadakane after discharging the battery assembly (70) of Onizuka because Sadakane teaches the rest time can make the capacity recovery effect stable (par. 22). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding to claim 4: Onizuka discloses the charging and discharging is preferably repeated several times before the battery assembly (70) becomes a working battery (par. 72). The battery assembly (70) is charged to the cutoff voltage (e.g., from 3.7 V to 4.1 V) after preliminary charging/discharging (equivalent to performing second charging on the secondary battery assembly, wherein the second charging is performed until the battery voltage of the secondary battery assembly reaches 3.1 V to 3.7 V (par. 72, S50 in fig. 3).
Claims 5, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onizuka (US 20150207173 A1) in view of Tejima et al. (JP 2012049039 A) and Sadakane (US 20220052381 A1) as applied in claim 4, and further in view of Cui et al. (US 8801810 B1).
Regarding to claim 5: Onizuka in view of Tejima et al. and Sadakane discloses a method of manufacturing a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery as described in paragraph 4 above. Onizuka, Tejima et al., and Sadakane fail to explicitly disclose retaining the secondary battery assembly at 15°C to 30°C for 6 hours to 72 hours after the performing of the second charging on the secondary battery assembly. However, Cui et al. discloses methods of preparing a lithium ion cell (abstract). The method comprises holding the cell at the charging state for at least about 8 hours or at least about 16 hours (col. 17, lines 35-50) after performing of the second charging on the cell (col. 18, lines 39-49, fig. 10). The resting may be performed at a temperate of less than about 25° C. (co. 21, lines 10-11). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the resting at the temperate of less than about 25° C for at least about 8 or 16 hours of Cui et al. after the second charging of Onizuka because Cui et al. teaches holding the lithium ion cell in a partially charged state improves its Coulombic efficiency during subsequent cycling (col. 1, lines 46-48). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding to claim 15: Onizuka discloses the preliminary charging step is performed at a temperature of 25°C (par. 80).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onizuka (US 20150207173 A1) in view of Tejima et al. (JP 2012049039 A) and Sadakane (US 20220052381 A1) as applied in claim 2, and further in view of Hosobuchi et al. (JP 2004311103).
Regarding to claim 6: Onizuka in view of Tejima et al. and Sadakane discloses a method of manufacturing a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery as described in paragraph 4 above. Onizuka, Tejima et al., and Sadakane fail to explicitly disclose the secondary battery assembly is restrained in a thickness direction of the wound electrode body. However, Hosobuchi et al. disclose a method for manufacturing non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (pg. 1). The method comprises a fixing plate being opposed to a surface of the secondary battery that is perpendicular to the thickness direction (pg. 8, 9, fig. 1). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the fixing plate of Hosobuchi et al. to restrain the battery assembly (70) of Onizuka in a thickness direction because Hosobuchi et al. teaches the fixing plate can suppress deformation of the secondary battery (pg. 9).
Claims 10, 11, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onizuka (US 20150207173 A1) in view of Tejima et al. (JP 2012049039 A) as applied in claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamamoto et al. (JP 2020145104 A).
Regarding to claim 10: Onizuka in view of Tejima et al. discloses a method of manufacturing a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery as described in paragraph 3. However, Onizuka and Tejima et al. do not disclose that the initial charging is performed until the battery has a state of charge from 15% to 30%. Yamamoto et al. teach an initial charging process of a lithium secondary battery including a first state of charge (SOC) of 30% or less to suppress an increase in direct current resistance when the battery is repeatedly used. See para. 6 and 7. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to initially charge the battery of Onizuka to 30% of less because Yamamoto et al. teach the initial charging of 30% or less can reduce the direct current resistance of the battery when repeatedly used.
Regarding to claim 11: Onizuka discloses the preliminary charging step is performed at a temperature of 25°C (par. 80).
Regarding to claim 12: Onizuka discloses the charging and discharging is preferably repeated several times before the battery assembly (70) becomes a working battery (par. 72). The battery assembly (70) is charged to the cutoff voltage (e.g., from 3.7 V to 4.1 V) after preliminary charging/discharging (equivalent to performing second charging on the secondary battery assembly, wherein the second charging is performed until the battery voltage of the secondary battery assembly reaches 3.1 V to 3.7 V (par. 72, S50 in fig. 3). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onizuka (US 20150207173 A1) in view of Tejima et al. (JP 2012049039 A), Sadakane (US 20220052381 A1), and of Cui et al. (US 8801810 B1) as applied in claim 5, and further in view of Hosobuchi et al. (JP 2004311103).
Regarding to claim 13: Onizuka in view of Tejima et al., Sadakane, and Cui et al. discloses a method of manufacturing a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery as described in paragraph 5 above. Onizuka, Tejima et al., Sadakane, and Cui et al. fail to explicitly disclose the secondary battery assembly is restrained in a thickness direction of the wound electrode body. However, Hosobuchi et al. disclose a method for manufacturing non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (pg. 1). The method comprises a fixing plate being opposed to a surface of the secondary battery that is perpendicular to the thickness direction (pg. 8, 9, fig. 1). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the fixing plate of Hosobuchi et al. to restrain the battery assembly (70) of Onizuka in a thickness direction because Hosobuchi et al. teaches the fixing plate can suppress deformation of the secondary battery (pg. 9).
Claims 14, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onizuka (US 20150207173 A1) in view of Tejima et al. (JP 2012049039 A), Sadakane (US 20220052381 A1), and of Cui et al. (US 8801810 B1) as applied in claim 5, and further in view of Yamamoto et al. (JP 2020145104 A).
Regarding to claim 14: Onizuka in view of Tejima et al., Sadakane, and Cui et al. discloses a method of manufacturing a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery as described in paragraph 5 above. Onizuka, Tejima et al., Sadakane, and Cui et al. fail to explicitly disclose the initial charging is performed until the battery has a state of charge from 15% to 30%. Yamamoto et al. teach an initial charging process of a lithium secondary battery including a first state of charge (SOC) of 30% or less to suppress an increase in direct current resistance when the battery is repeatedly used. See para. 6 and 7. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to initially charge the battery of Onizuka to 30% of less because Yamamoto et al. teach the initial charging of 30% or less can reduce the direct current resistance of the battery when repeatedly used.
Regarding to claim 16: Onizuka in view of Tejima et al., Sadakane, and Cui et al. discloses a method of manufacturing a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery as described in paragraph 5 above. Onizuka discloses the preliminary charging step is performed at a temperature of 25°C (par. 80).
Onizuka, Tejima et al., Sadakane, and Cui et al. fail to explicitly disclose the initial charging is performed until the battery has a state of charge from 15% to 30%. Yamamoto et al. teach an initial charging process of a lithium secondary battery including a first state of charge (SOC) of 30% or less to suppress an increase in direct current resistance when the battery is repeatedly used. See para. 6 and 7. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to initially charge the battery of Onizuka to 30% of less because Yamamoto et al. teach the initial charging of 30% or less can reduce the direct current resistance of the battery when repeatedly used.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onizuka (US 20150207173 A1) in view of Tejima et al. (JP 2012049039 A), Sadakane (US 20220052381 A1), and of Cui et al. (US 8801810 B1) as applied in claim 5, and further in view of Yamamoto et al. (JP 2020145104 A) and Hosobuchi et al. (JP 2004311103).
Regarding to claim 17: Onizuka in view of Tejima et al., Sadakane, and Cui et al. discloses a method of manufacturing a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery as described in paragraph 5 above. Onizuka discloses the preliminary charging step is performed at a temperature of 25°C (par. 80).
Onizuka, Tejima et al., Sadakane, and Cui et al fail to explicitly disclose the secondary battery assembly is restrained in a thickness direction of the wound electrode body. However, Hosobuchi et al. disclose a method for manufacturing non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (pg. 1). The method comprises a fixing plate being opposed to a surface of the secondary battery that is perpendicular to the thickness direction (pg. 8, 9, fig. 1). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the fixing plate of Hosobuchi et al. to restrain the battery assembly (70) of Onizuka in a thickness direction because Hosobuchi et al. teaches the fixing plate can suppress deformation of the secondary battery (pg. 9).
Onizuka, Tejima et al., Sadakane, Cui et al., and Hosobuchi et al. fail to explicitly disclose the initial charging is performed until the battery has a state of charge from 15% to 30%. Yamamoto et al. teach an initial charging process of a lithium secondary battery including a first state of charge (SOC) of 30% or less to suppress an increase in direct current resistance when the battery is repeatedly used. See para. 6 and 7. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to initially charge the battery of Onizuka to 30% of less because Yamamoto et al. teach the initial charging of 30% or less can reduce the direct current resistance of the battery when repeatedly used.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onizuka (US 20150207173 A1) in view of Tejima et al. (JP 2012049039 A), Sadakane (US 20220052381 A1), Cui et al. (US 8801810 B1), Yamamoto et al. (JP 2020145104 A), and Hosobuchi et al. (JP 2004311103) as applied in claim 17, and further in view of Ebisuzaki et al. (US 20180241027 A1).
Regarding to claim 17: Onizuka in view of Tejima et al., Sadakane, Cui et al., Yamamoto et al., and Hosobuchi et al. discloses a method of manufacturing a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery as described in paragraph 10 above. Onizuka, Tejima et al., Sadakane, Cui et al., Yamamoto et al., and Hosobuchi et al. fail to explicitly disclose aging the secondary battery by placing the secondary battery in an environment having a temperature higher than 30°C and less than or equal to 80° C while the battery voltage of the secondary battery assembly is maintained. However, Ebisuzaki et al. disclose a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery (abstract). Ebisuzaki et al. further disclose it is preferable that a method of manufacturing the nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery includes a step of performing high-temperature aging on the nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery (par. 65). It is preferable that at least one of the following conditions is satisfied as conditions of the high-temperature aging: Temperature: 75° C. to 85° C, Number of days for aging: 20 days to 30 days, and Battery voltage: 3.92 V to 4.03 V (par. 79-82). The aging may be performed at a battery voltage lower than the above-described high-temperature aging condition (par. 86). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the high temperature aging of Ebisuzaki et al. into the method of manufacturing a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery because Ebisuzaki et al. teach to the aging step can prevent the nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery from being overcharged (par. 4).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant's principal arguments are Hosobuchi, Tejima, and Yamamoto do not teach the newly amended claim 1.
In response to Applicant's arguments:
Applicant's arguments are moot because they do not refer to the newly cited Onizuka in view of Tejima references as stated in Paragraph 3 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PIN JAN WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7057. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached on 571-272-1295. 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.
/PIN JAN WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1717
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717