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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/03/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 10 recites a step of “determining if the secondary battery is defective”. The step of determining if the secondary battery is defective, as described in the instant specification [0079-0080], appears to be a step which, under broadest reasonable interpretation, may be done mentally, and is therefore an abstract idea. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (e.g. observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions), then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Accordingly, Claim 10 recites the abstract idea of “determining if the secondary battery is defective”.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim does not recite any further steps taken after “determining if the secondary battery is defective” and therefore no particular application is recited.
Although the claim also recites what qualifies as a defective secondary battery (i.e. “wherein the secondary battery is defective if a capacity thereof when charged and discharged with a C-rate of C/3 is less than 97% than the capacity thereof when the secondary battery is charged and discharged with a C-rate of 0.1C”), these elements are understood to be well-known, routine, and conventional within the prior art as evidenced by Furuta et al. (JP-2014082063-A; see also NPL provided 05/22/2025 for citations; see also rejections of Claims 10 and 11, below), and therefore do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Additionally, such limitations amount to data gathering, and therefore do not amount to integration of the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 10 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and therefore Claim 10 does not provide an inventive concept. Even if the collecting of charge/discharge data (as recited in Claim 11) were interpreted to be a part of the determination step of Claim 10, such a step is mere data gathering and does not provide a particular application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, Claim 10 is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 11, although the claim recites limitations which further specify obtaining measurements to determine if the secondary battery is defective, the steps of collecting charge/discharge data amount to mere data gathering and do not provide a particular application. See MPEP 2103.05(g). Claim 11 therefore fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and further fails to include additional elements which are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, Claim 11 is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (WO-2019132449-A1; see English equivalent US-20200083525-A1 for citations) as evidenced by Hong et al. (Chem. Mater. 2008, 20, 5-7; see NPL provided 05/22/2025 for citations) in view of Kim et al. (KR-20190062209-A; see English equivalent US-20210083290-A1 for citations) and in further view of Amiruddin et al. (US-20110236751-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Lee discloses a method for activating a lithium secondary battery [0064, 0081, 0084-0088], comprising:
charging a secondary battery (i.e. “charged to 4.25 V”; [0088]), wherein
the secondary battery includes a positive electrode having a sacrificial positive electrode material (irreversible compensating additive [0055-0056, 0084]).
The sacrificial positive electrode material is Li2NiO2 in Examples 1-4 (Table 1), which reads on a material represented by Formula 1 (i.e. x=0 in Formula 1).
Although Lee does not explicitly disclose that the sacrificial positive electrode material has an orthorhombic structure, Lee discloses the use of Li2NiO2 (Examples 1-4, Table 1), which is the same material as that disclosed in the instant application [instant application: 0005, 0094]. Since a crystal system is understood to be an inherent property of a material, the Li2NiO2 material disclosed in the prior art is understood to inherently have an orthorhombic structure as evidenced by the instant application (instant application [0005]: “Li2NiO2 has an orthorhombic structure”) and as further evidenced by Hong (see Hong: Fig. 3). See MPEP 2112.01 (I-II).
Lee further discloses that the secondary battery includes a negative electrode [0086], a separator interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode [0087], and an electrolyte solution [0087].
Lee discloses that after the secondary battery is charged (i.e. “charged to 4.25 V” [0088]), it is then held at that voltage for a predetermined period of time (“10 hours” [0088]), which reads on charging and “then holding the secondary battery for a predetermined period of time”.
Although Lee discloses charging the lithium secondary battery to 4.25 V for 10 hours [0088], which is outside the claimed voltage range of “3.5 V to 4.0 V”, Lee discloses that the preparation of the lithium secondary battery is not particularly limited [0081]. Notably, as discussed above, Lee discloses the use of Li2NiO2 as a sacrificial positive electrode material which undergoes an irreversible chemical reaction to release lithium ions during an initial charge [0055, 0059].
Kim teaches a similar lithium secondary battery comprising a cathode additive which undergoes an irreversible reaction during an initial charge of the secondary battery [0003, 0039, 0050, 0125]. The cathode additive is a lithium nickel oxide material [0016-0022] that has an orthorhombic structure prior to an initial charge [0115]. Kim teaches that the cathode additive may irreversibly discharge lithium ions at the initial charge voltage of a battery, for example, 2.5 V to 4.25 V [0039, 0112].
Since both Lee and Kim teach the use of a lithium nickel oxide material in a positive electrode which undergoes an irreversible change during an initial charge, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the initial charging voltage of the battery of Lee to be within the range of 2.5 V to 4.25 V taught by Kim, with a reasonable expectation that such a range of voltages would result in a successful initial charge.
The range of 2.5 V to 4.25 V rendered obvious by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of 3.5 V to 4.0 V. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the overlapping portion of the range with a reasonable expectation that such an initial charging voltage would result in a successful secondary battery (MPEP 2144.05, I).
Although Lee discloses holding the charged secondary battery for 10 hours [0088], which is longer than the claimed range of 30 minutes to 5 hours, the Examiner notes that the 10 hours disclosed by Lee is close enough to the claimed range that one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have expected substantially the same result when holding the secondary battery for 5 hours as when holding the secondary battery for 10 hours, as evidenced by the instant specification [instant specification: 0058], thereby rendering the claimed range obvious (MPEP 2144.05, I). Specifically, the Examiner notes that the disclosed holding period of 10 hours encompasses the claimed range of 30 minutes to 5 hours, and is therefore understood to successfully enable the conversion of Li2NiO2 to LiNiO2. Moreover, there is currently no evidence on record to suggest criticality to the upper limit of the claimed range.
Additionally, Amiruddin teaches a lithium ion battery [Abstract, 0053-0056] which undergoes irreversible changes during an initial charging step at a voltage of no more than 4.3 V [0031, 0073-0074]. During the initial charge, the battery can be held at this voltage for at least 30 minute to about 12 hours [0074]. In a specific example, the battery is charged and held for 4 hours [0104].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have held the charged battery of modified Lee for 4 hours, which is within the claimed time range of 30 minutes to 5 hours, with a reasonable expectation that such a length of time would result in a successful battery capable of allowing an initial irreversible change to occur while decreasing the time necessary to activate the lithium secondary battery.
Although modified Lee does not explicitly teach that “after the step of charging and the step of holding, the sacrificial positive electrode material is a single phase having a trigonal structure”, Lee discloses that Li2NiO2 converts to LiNiO2 after the first charging [0059], and Hong evidences that LiNiO2 has a trigonal structure (Pg. 6: Fig. 3), and that orthorhombic Li2NiO2 phase changes to trigonal LiNiO2 during the first charging process (Pg. 6: Right column, Par. 1).
Furthermore, since the method disclosed in the prior art is substantially similar to the method disclosed in the instant application (as laid out above), the sacrificial positive electrode material is understood to inherently transform to a single phase having a trigonal structure after the charging and holding of the secondary battery as evidenced by the instant specification [instant specification: 0057-0058, 0061, 0088, 0098, 00102, 00104]. See MPEP 2112.01 (I); MPEP 2112.02 (I).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Lee renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Lee further discloses that in the step of charging, the secondary battery is charged with a C-rate of 0.1 C [0088], which is within the claimed range 0.025 C to 0.2 C.
Regarding Claims 5 and 7, modified Lee renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above, including that during the holding of the secondary battery the crystal structure of the sacrificial positive electrode material changes from the orthorhombic structure to the trigonal structure (see rejection of Claim 1, above) as required by Claim 5 and that after the charging and the holding, the sacrificial positive electrode material has the trigonal structure and is represented by LiNiO2 as required by Claim 7 (i.e. x=0 in Formula 2) [Lee: 0059]; (Hong: Pg. 6: Right column, Par. 1; Fig. 3); [instant specification: 0057-0058, 0061, 0088, 0098, 00102, 00104]. See also MPEP 2112.01 (I); MPEP 2112.02 (I).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Lee renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Lee discloses that, prior to the charging of the secondary battery, the secondary battery is pre-aged at room temperature (“allowed to stand at room temperature for 2 days” [0088]).
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (WO-2019132449-A1; see English equivalent US-20200083525-A1 for citations) as evidenced by Hong et al. (Chem. Mater. 2008, 20, 5-7; see NPL provided 05/22/2025 for citations) in view of Kim et al. (KR-20190062209-A; see English equivalent US-20210083290-A1 for citations) and in further view of Amiruddin et al. (US-20110236751-A1) as applied to Claim 1, above, and in view of Furuta et al. (JP-2014082063-A; see also NPL provided 05/22/2025 for citations) and in further view of Park et al. (KR-20150049479-A; see also NPL provided 05/22/2025 for citations).
Regarding Claim 9 modified Lee renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Lee discloses that, after the charging and the holding of the secondary battery, the secondary battery is further aged at room temperature (“aged at room temperature for 2 days”; [0088]).
Although Lee does not teach that the activation method of the secondary battery includes a high temperature aging step, Lee does disclose that the preparation of the secondary battery is not particularly limited [0081].
Furuta teaches an activation method for a secondary battery [0007, 0020, 0025]. The method includes an initial charging step at room temperature [0025, 0027] followed by aging at a higher temperature [0025, 0028-0029] which, advantageously, promotes diffusion of lithium ions and equalizes high potential, thereby shortening the aging time while improving productivity and performance of the secondary battery [0004-0007, 0028, 0057].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have included a high temperature aging step after the room temperature aging step with a reasonable expectation that the inclusion of a high temperature aging step, wherein the room temperature-aged secondary battery is further aged at a high temperature, would result in a successful secondary battery with a shortened aging time and improved productivity and performance.
Although modified Lee does not teach that activation method includes a degassing step, Park teaches that gas can be generated during the aging of a secondary battery and, advantageously, Park teaches that the gas can be removed via a degassing step, thereby reducing swelling of the battery [0020, 0027-0028].
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to have included a degassing step after the high temperature aging step, with a reasonable expectation that the addition of a degassing step, wherein the high temperature-aged secondary battery is degassed to remove gas, would result in a successful secondary battery wherein gases formed during the aging of the secondary battery are removed, thereby reducing swelling.
Regarding Claims 10-11, modified Lee renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Although modified Lee does not explicitly disclose a step of “determining if the secondary battery is defective”, Furuta teaches that the activation process of a lithium secondary battery can include a micro-short circuit detection step wherein the voltage drop of the secondary battery during a low-temperature aging process is measured and compared with a predetermined threshold value to detect the presence or absence of micro-short circuit [0061]. Advantageously, this makes it possible to accurately determine the presence or absence of a micro-short circuit in a short period of time [0002, 0004, 0062].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have included a micro-short circuit detection step (reads on “determining if the secondary battery is defective”) in the activation method of modified Lee with a reasonable expectation that the inclusion of such a step would result in a successful method capable of accurately determining the absence or presence of micro-short circuits. Although the step of detecting a micro-short circuit rendered obvious by the prior art does not explicitly teach the limitation “wherein the secondary battery is defective if a capacity thereof when charged and discharged with a C-rate of C/3 is less than 97% than the capacity thereof when the secondary battery is charged and discharged with a C-rate of 0.1 C” as required by Claim 10, this limitation is a contingent limitation. “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.” (MPEP 2111.04, II). Here, the broadest reasonable interpretation of Claim 10 is that the claim requires “determining if the secondary battery is defective”. The contingent limitation (i.e. “wherein the secondary battery is defective if…”) is only required if the secondary battery is determined to be defective. Since the prior art renders obvious a step of determining if the secondary battery is defective (i.e. comprises a micro-short circuit), the prior art broadly and reasonably renders obvious that a portion of the secondary batteries tested are found not to be defective, thereby fully meeting the limitations of Claim 10.
Although modified Lee does not expressly teach “determining if the secondary battery is defective further comprises: charging the secondary battery from 2.5 V to 4.2 V with a C-rate of 0.1 C to 0.5 C; then discharging the secondary battery from 4.2 V to 2.5 V; and using the charging and discharging data to determine if the secondary battery is defective” as required by Claim 11, modified Lee does teach that the change in voltage is measured and compared to a threshold value in order to detect the presence or absence of micro-short circuits [Futura: 0061], that the sacrificial positive electrode material may operate within a voltage range of 2.5 V to 4.25 V [Kim: 0039, 0112], and that the battery may be successfully charged and discharged at various C-rates [Lee: 0088; Kim: 0118-0119; Amiruddin: 0099].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected appropriate charging voltages, charging rates and an appropriate threshold value for determining if the battery is defective, including charging the secondary battery from 2.5 V to 4.2 V with a C-rate of 0.1 C to 0.5 C; then discharging the secondary battery from 4.2 V to 2.5 V; and using the charging and discharging data to determine if the secondary battery is defective as required by Claim 11. One of ordinary skill in the art would have further found it obvious to have selected a battery to be defective if a capacity thereof when the secondary battery is charged and discharged with a C-rate of C/3 is less than 97% than the capacity thereof when the secondary battery is charged and discharged with a C-rate of 0.1 C as required by Claim 10, thereby rendering obvious the contingent limitation of Claim 10. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation that such a selection would enable the successful detection of defective batteries.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant has argued that the primary reference Lee has a missing element, and does not teach that the secondary battery is held at a voltage of 3.5 V to 4.0 V (Remarks, Pg. 7). Applicant appears to equate Lee’s teaching that the battery is left to stand for 2 days as the holding step, and has argued that Lee is completely silent to holding the secondary battery at any voltage, let alone a voltage within the claimed range (Remarks, Pg. 7).
The Examiner has carefully considered this argument, but respectfully does not find it persuasive. The Examiner notes that the step of standing for 2 days is not relied upon to render obvious the step of charging and the step of holding. Instead, as laid out in the rejection of Claim 1, Lee discloses a step of charging “to 4.25 V at 0.1 C for 10 hours” [0088], and it is this process which is relied upon to read on the steps of charging and holding. Although Lee does not teach charging at the claimed range of 3.5 V to 4.0 V, Kim is relied upon to render obvious charging at a lower voltage (see rejection of Claim 1, above). Since Applicant has not pointed out a specific error in the rejection of Lee in view of Kim, the rejection is maintained. Additionally, the Examiner notes that there is currently no evidence on record to suggest criticality to the claimed range of 3.5 V to 4.0 V.
Applicant has argued that there is no motivation to combine the prior art Lee with Amiruddin (Remarks, Pg. 8). Applicant has argued that the cathode of Lee comprises an irreversible additive, while Amiruddin is directed to lithium secondary batteries which do not include a sacrificial positive electrode material (Remarks, Pg. 8). Applicant has argued that the prior arts have completely different compounds and that the positive electrode active material art is highly unpredictable, and thereby submits that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would not have been motivated to combine Lee with Amiruddin (Remarks, Pg. 8).
The Examiner has carefully considered this argument, but respectfully does not find it persuasive. The Examiner notes that Lee discloses that the preparation method of the lithium secondary battery is not particularly limited [Lee: 0081], and Amiruddin broadly discloses that during an initial charging step, a voltage can be held for a period of time to enable a formation step during which “irreversible changes to the battery presumably take place” [Amiruddin: 0031]. Since Lee discloses that Li2NiO2 (i.e. an irreversible additive) is changed to LiNiO2 during at the first charging [0059], the teachings of Amiruddin regarding the period of time required to enable an irreversible change to occur are broadly applicable to Lee. Regarding the argument that the positive electrode active material art is highly unpredictable, the Examiner notes that there is currently no evidence on record to support such an assertion. Arguments presented by applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See MPEP 2145 (I).
Applicant has argued that there is no reasonable expectation of success that the claimed trigonal structure would be present in the irreversible compensating additive of modified Lee, since Lee does not teach or suggest that the secondary battery is held at a voltage of 3.5 V to 4.0 V (Remarks, Pg. 10). Applicant points to the Comparative Example, wherein the secondary battery is not held at all, and notes that because Example 1 has the claimed step of holding, a three-step structure change does not occur (Remarks, Pg. 10).
The Examiner has carefully considered this argument, but respectfully does not find it persuasive. As previously addressed, Lee does disclose a step of charging and holding (see above; [0088]), and therefore the Examiner maintains that one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success that the irreversible compensating additive would be present as a trigonal structure (see also rejection of Claim 1, above). Additionally, the Examiner notes that Applicant’s evidence (i.e. Example 1 and Comparative Example 1) appear to further evidence that it is only the holding step which is critical, since the Comparative Example evidences that not including a holding step results in a three-step structure change. Since Lee discloses a holding step [0088], based on the current evidence of record, the irreversible compensating additive of Lee would necessarily and inherently possess a trigonal structure after holding. See MPEP 2112.01 (I); MPEP 2112.02 (I).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DREW C NEWMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9873. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1292. 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.
/D.C.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 7/10/2026
Prosecution Insights