DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 10, 2025 has been entered.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 10 through 15 remain as being withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 April 9, 2025.
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.
Claims 1 through 6, 8, 9, 16 through 19 and 21, are 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.
In Claim 1, it is unclear what is meant by the phrase of “constant current (CC)…a voltage” (line 16). For example, “until a voltage” of what? The phrase of “until a voltage” is incomplete, which raises confusion and renders the claim as indefinite.
In Claim 21, it is unclear what is meant by the phrase of “wherein the lithium…is not applied” (lines 3-4). If Claim 18 states that pressure is only applied to the first portion of the battery cell, then how can pressure then be applied to the second portion at all, yet only to the second portion. Claim 21 contradicts Claim 18, which raises a great deal of confusion as to why pressure is even applied at all in Claim 21.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Patent Publication, JP 2019-192553 (hereinafter “JP’553”)1 in view of U.S. Publication 2019/0372170 to Kano et al (hereinafter “Kano”).
Claim 1: JP’553 discloses a method for manufacturing a degenerate cell, the method comprising:
preparing a battery cell that includes:
an electrode assembly (e.g. 16) accommodated in a battery case (e.g. 11), the electrode assembly comprising a laminate that includes a negative electrode (e.g. 17), a positive electrode (e.g. 16), and a separator (e.g. 17, Fig. 3), and
an electrode lead (e.g. 21 or 23) drawn out to an outside of the battery case; and
charging and discharging the battery cell under temperature, pressure (e.g. Pb), and charge and discharge pattern conditions to precipitate lithium metal on at least the negative electrode (e.g. ¶ [0031]);
wherein the pressure is applied to a first portion2 of the battery cell, and the lithium precipitates in a second portion of the battery cell where the pressure is not applied.
PNG
media_image1.png
611
567
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 3: JP’553 discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the charge and discharge is performed under a temperature -10°C (e.g. ¶ [0028]).
Claim 5: JP’553 discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the charging and discharging of the battery cell includes applying the pressure to a vertical top edge portion of the battery cell from which the electrode lead is drawn out (e.g. ¶ [0025]).
Claim 6: JP’553 discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the charging and discharging of the battery cell includes applying the pressure to a central portion of the battery cell (e.g. Fig. 2, ¶ [0025]).
Claim 9: JP’553 discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the charging and discharging of the battery cell includes performing a charge and discharge pattern 5000 times (e.g. ¶ [0028]).
Claim 18: JP’553 discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the pressure is only applied to a first [horizontal] portion of the battery cell.
Claim 19: JP’553 discloses the method of claim 18, wherein the first portion of the battery cell corresponds to a [vertical left] edge portion of the battery cell (e.g. Fig. 2) from which the electrode lead is drawn out (annotated Fig. 2).
JP’553 does not teach that the second portion of the battery cell is located in a region specifically between the negative electrode and the separator, where lithium metal is precipitated in the region. JP’553 also does not appear to mention constant-current (CC)-charging with a voltage, constant voltage (CV)-charging having reached the voltage until current cutoff, and constant current (CC)-discharging the CV-charged battery cell.
Kano teaches a method of making a battery cell (e.g. Fig. 3) that includes a negative electrode (e.g. 32, Fig. 5) and a separator (e.g. 13). A region (e.g. space 35) is specifically created between the negative electrode and the separator with protrusions (e.g. 33a, 33b) to allow lithium metal to precipitate in this region during charging and under pressure, for the benefit of reducing any deterioration of the charge-discharge efficiency of the battery cell (e.g. ¶ [0081]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the have modified the battery cell of JP’553 by including a region between the negative electrode and separator that would allow lithium metal to precipitate in this region, as taught by Kano, the provide the benefit of reducing any deterioration of the charge-discharge efficiency of the battery cell.
Kano further teaches that the battery cell can be subjected to CC-charging with a voltage, CV-charging having reached the voltage until current cutoff, and CC-discharging the CV-charged battery cell, to evaluate cycle characteristics of the battery cell (e.g. ¶¶ [0116] to [0118]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of JP’553 by CC-charging, CV-charging, and CC-discharging, in the manner taught by Kano, to positively evaluate cycle characteristics of the battery cell.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP’553 in view of Kano, as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication 2019/0296397 to Lim et al (hereinafter “Lim”).
JP’553, as modified by Kano, discloses the claimed manufacturing method as relied upon above in Claim 1, further including an initial state of charge (SOC). The modified JP’553 method does not state any percentage value of the SOC.
Lim suggests that in manufacturing battery cells, an SOC should be set to 50% to allow measurement of thickness (e.g. ¶ [0117]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of JP’553 by setting the SOC to 50% to allow measurement of thickness of the battery cell.
Claims 4, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP’553 in view of Kano, as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication 2020/0127264 to Kim et al (hereinafter “Kim”).
JP’553, as modified by Kano, discloses the claimed manufacturing method as relied upon above in Claim 1, further including a pressure. The modified JP’553 method does not state any value of the pressure.
Kim suggests that in manufacturing battery cells, the pressure applied can be 200 kgf/cm2 to assist in the making of the electrode assembly (e.g. ¶¶ [0133], [0134]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pressure of JP’553 by using the value that Kim suggests, to manufacturing an art-recognized equivalent electrode assembly for a battery cell.
Regarding Claims 16 and 17, whether or not the pressure range is 120 to 180 kgf/cm2 or 120 to 160 kgf/cm2, each of these ranges are considered to be an effective variable within level of one of ordinary skill in the art of manufacturing degenerative cells. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the pressure range of JP’553 in view of Kim, by providing such a range of 120 to 160 or 120 to 180 kgf/cm2, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Also see, MPEP § 2144.05.II.A.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP’553 in view of Kano, as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication 2018/0316051 to Lee et al (hereinafter “Lee”).
JP’553, as modified by Kano, discloses the claimed manufacturing method as relied upon above in Claim 1, further including a constant current (CC) of charging the battery cell until a voltage and a CC of discharging the battery cell.
JP’553 does not appear to mention any specific C-rate.
Lee discloses a method of making a battery cell that includes lithium where a CV occurs having reached a voltage until a cutoff current (e.g. ¶ [0386]), and a C-rate of discharging of 0.5C (e.g. ¶ [0387]). The benefit of such a method provides improved cell performance (e.g. ¶ [0006]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of JP’553 by utilizing the CV and C-rate taught by Lee, to manufacture the battery cell with improved performance.
Response to Arguments
Applicants arguments filed as part of the submission on December 10, 2025 have been fully considered, but have not been deemed to be found as persuasive.
Applicants assert that the prior art does not teach “wherein the pressure is applied…in a second portion of the battery cell where the pressure is not applied” (lines 11-12 of Claim 1) as “the second portion of the battery cell includes the region between the negative electrode and the separator” (lines 13-14 of Claim 1).
As expressed in the above rejection of Claim 1, these features are taught by Kano. Kano is analogous to JP’553 as both teach art-recognized equivalent battery cells that include an electrode assembly with a negative electrode, positive electrode and a separator. Moreover, Kano teaches the aspects of CC-charging, CV-charging, and CC-discharging. Applicants are reminded that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, JP’553 was combined with Kano based on the teachings and motivations (benefits) of Kano itself.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to A. DEXTER TUGBANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4570. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00 am to 5:00 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, JESSICA HAN can be reached at (571) 272-2078. 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.
/A. DEXTER TUGBANG/ Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2896
1 The interpretation of JP’553 was taken from a Machine Translation, in English, a copy of which was provided in the previous office action.
2 For elements emphasized (in italics), see annotated Figure 2 of JP’553.