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 § 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.
Claims 1, 3, and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al., KR 10-2019-0134179 (hereinafter Lee ‘179) in view of Ahn et al., KR 10-2018-0082759 A (hereinafter “Ahn”) and Lee et al., US 2022/0043068 A1 (hereinafter “Lee ‘068”). NPL DOT/FAA/TC-16/37, “Summary of FAA Studies Related to the Hazards Produced by Lithium Cells in Thermal Runaway in Aircraft Cargo Departments,” published June 2016 by the United States Federal Aviation Administration (hereinafter “DOT/FAA/TC-16/37”) is relied upon as an evidentiary reference.
Regarding claim 1, Lee ‘179 discloses a method of activating a secondary battery (i.e., preparation step S30, which may include a process of aging, forming, and degassing) [¶ 0073], the method comprising:
providing a secondary battery (i.e., monocell 1) [¶ 0063] comprising an electrode assembly (i.e., positive electrode, separator, and negative electrode) [Id.] and an electrolyte solution (i.e., electrolyte including an organic solvent and a lithium salt mixed in the organic solvent) [¶ 0065] in a battery case (i.e., case) [¶ 0043];
pre-aging the secondary battery at room temperature to provide a pre-aged secondary battery (i.e., the monocell 1 is first aged at room temperature for one day) [¶ 0073];
initially charging the pre-aged secondary battery to provide an initially charged secondary battery (i.e., formation process at room temperature) [¶ 0073];
aging the initially charged secondary battery at room temperature to provide a room-temperature-aged secondary battery (i.e., secondarily aged again at room temperature for one day) [¶ 0073];
fully charging the room-temperature-aged secondary battery to a voltage of 4.4 V or more to provide a fully-charged secondary battery (i.e., charging step; “fully charged to 4.45 V”) [¶¶ 0075, 0107]; and
degassing the charged secondary battery to remove gas inside the fully charged secondary battery (i.e., settling step S50 in which the vent portion of the battery is opened to vacuum) [¶ 0077];
Lee ‘179 discloses that the formation step is not particularly limited [¶ 0073] but is, however, silent regarding the fully charging step including a process of consecutively CC-charging the secondary battery and CC-discharging the secondary battery but remains open to any applicable methods known in the art [see ¶ 0073]. Thus, one of skill in the art would have turned to Ahn for the details of these processes. Ahn discloses a method of manufacturing and activating a battery cell [abstract] comprising steps of pre-aging (i.e., aging process S121) [¶ 0092], performing charging/discharging (i.e., S131) [¶ 0092], aging (i.e., S132) [¶ 0092], and a degassing step, which may be performed after charging, after charging and discharging, or after aging [¶ 0054]. Specifically, Ahn discloses that the charge/discharge step S131 occurs at constant current [see ¶¶ 0047-0048]. Ahn and Lee ‘179 are analogous art because both are drawn to methods of manufacturing a battery cell comprising key steps of aging, degassing, and charging a battery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have employed the CC-charge and CC-discharge steps of Ahn as the fully charging step of Lee, as suggested by Lee (see above).
modified Lee ‘179 teaches all limitations of claim 1 but is silent regarding the shipping charge of the battery.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lee ‘068 discloses a method for manufacturing a battery comprising pre-aging, formation, aging, degassing, and a shipment charging process [¶ 0035]. Lee ‘068 further discloses a shipment charging process that includes charging a battery cell before shipment under a preset voltage condition [¶ 0036]. Lee ‘068, Lee ‘179, and Asano are analogous art because all are drawn to methods of manufacturing a Li-ion battery comprising steps of pre-aging, formation, aging, and degassing. It therefore would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to provide a shipment charging step to the method of modified Lee ‘179. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to do this because reducing the SoC prior to shipping is well-known in the art to enhance transport safety and reduce severity of thermal runaway events. See, for example, NPL reference DOT/FAA/TC-16/37 at pp. ix-x.
Regarding claim 3, modified Lee ‘179 teaches all limitations of claim 1. Lee ‘179 is silent regarding the OCV testing of the battery.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lee ‘068 discloses a method for manufacturing a battery comprising pre-aging, formation, aging, degassing, and a shipment charging process [¶ 0035]. Lee ‘068 further discloses testing the battery cells for low-voltage failures via an open circuit voltage (OCV) test [¶ 0087]. Lee ‘179 and Lee ‘068 are analogous art because both are drawn to methods involved in the manufacturing of Li-ion secondary batteries. It therefore would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to provide the OCV testing procedure of Lee ‘068 during the aging process of the battery manufacturing method of Lee ‘179. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to include an OCV test as such a test quickly and accurately determines the presence of defects, as discussed by Lee ‘068 [¶ 0087]. The exact ordering of these steps is a matter of choice and would be so recognized by a skilled artisan [In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946); see MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(C)].
Regarding claim 11, modified Lee ‘179 discloses all limitations of claim 1. As discussed in the rejection of claim 8, above, it would have been obvious to provide a shipping charging step in the method of Lee ‘179. It would have been further obvious to the skilled artisan to place such a step after the degassing step [In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946); see MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(C)].
Regarding claim 12, modified Lee ‘179 discloses all limitations of claim 11. As discussed in the rejection of claim 8, above, Lee ‘068 further discloses that the shipping charging step, which includes a process of charging the secondary battery to reach a preset shipping voltage [¶ 0036] occurs at the end of the manufacturing process [¶ 0035], after the charge/discharge formation and aging processes [¶ 0035].
Regarding claim 13, modified Lee ‘179 discloses all limitations of claim 11. Lee ‘068 further discloses an aging step and a shipping charging step [¶ 0035]. The ordering of these steps is an obvious modification [In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946); see MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(C)].
Regarding claim 14, modified Lee ‘179 discloses all limitations of claim 11. Lee ‘068 further discloses that the shipping-charging step includes checking a charging capacity of the secondary battery (i.e., preset properties inspection test…for example, cell charge/discharge capacity…) [¶ 0036].
Regarding claim 15, modified Lee ‘179 discloses the activation method of claim 1. Lee further discloses a method of manufacturing a secondary battery including the activation step [¶ 0061].
Claims 2, 5, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al., KR 10-2019-0134179 in view of Ahn et al., KR 10-2018-0082759 A, and Lee 068 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Asano et al., US 2023/0327180 A1 (hereinafter “Asano”).
Regarding claim 2, modified Lee ‘179 discloses the method of claim 1. Lee ‘179 discloses that the formation step is not particularly limited [¶ 0073] but is silent regarding a specific initial charge level of 55 to 90% for the first initial charging step.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Asano teaches a method of manufacturing a Li-ion secondary battery [abstract] comprising initial charging and aging steps [¶ 0023]. Asano further teaches that, in the initial charge step, the battery reaches a state of charge (hereinafter “SoC”) of 60 to 100%, preferably 80 to 100% [¶ 0072]. Asano and Lee ‘179 are analogous art because both are drawn to methods of manufacturing Li-ion batteries with an aging step including aging and charging (formation) sub-steps. It therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (hereinafter “skilled artisan”) as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery SoC of Lee ‘179 as taught by Asano via routine experimentation with the state of charge in the initial charge step within the range disclosed by Asano in order to optimize the SoC for the manufacturing method. Therefore, the skilled artisan would have arrived at the claimed state of charge when performing routine experimentation with the state of charge in the initial charge step of Lee '179 in the range disclosed by Asano in order to optimize the SoC for the manufacturing method. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 5, modified Lee ‘179 teaches all limitations of claim 1. Asano further discloses a preferred rate of CC-charging of 0.1 to 10 C. It therefore would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify the charge rate of modified Lee ‘179 via routine experimentation with the charge rate in the CC-charging process within the range disclosed by Asano in order to optimize the rate of charge for the manufacturing method. Therefore, the skilled artisan would have arrived at the rate of charge when performing routine experimentation with the charge rate in the CC-charging process within the range disclosed by Asano in order to optimize the rate of CC-charging for the manufacturing method. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 7, modified Lee ‘179 teaches all limitations of claim 1. It therefore would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify the method of modified Lee ‘179 via routine experimentation with the level of discharge during the CC-discharging step within the range disclosed by Asano in order to optimize the level of discharge for the manufacturing method. Therefore, the skilled artisan would have arrived at a level of discharge when performing routine experimentation with the level of discharge during the CC-discharging step within the range disclosed by Asano in order to optimize the level of discharge for the manufacturing method. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 10, modified Lee ‘179 teaches all limitations of the method of claim 1. It would have been further obvious to a skilled artisan to provide another charging step after aging the battery and before fully charging the secondary battery. [In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946); see MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(C)].
Response to Arguments
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “performing CC discharge right after CC charge without CV charge in the full charging process”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues Lee 179 is directed to a method for measuring internal gas generation in a battery.
The examiner notes that Lee 179 teaches a monocell preparation step that may include aging, forming and degassing the monocell (para 73), which are known standard battery activation steps. The fact that Lee 179 subsequently uses these activated batteries for testing purposes does not mean there are no activation steps.
Applicant then argues that there is no reason to modify Lee to further add recharging the battery. The examiner disagrees. Lee 179 teaches the activation steps when it teaches the aging, formation, charging, and degassing steps (Lee, para 73). As explained in the office action, after degassing the battery, it would have been within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to reduce the charge to a safer shipping charge before transport, as this is well-known for safety reasons.
Additionally, as stated in the MPEP, the reason to modify the reference
may suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different
problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or
result discovered by applicant. See MPEP 2144 (IV). In our case, Lee 179 teaches activation steps such as degassing (paras 73 and 77) and having batteries at full charge after degassing (para 107). As stated above, one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to reduce the charge for safe handling.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN J JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1177. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 6:30 AM - 3 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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at 571-272-2450. 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.
JONATHAN JOHNSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1734
/JONATHAN JOHNSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights