DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The following is in reply to the applicants submission (e.g. amendment, remarks, etc.) filed on May 19, 2026.
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Claims 10 through 15 continue to remain as being withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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. Rejoinder of these claims is not possible at this time, based on the prior art below as applied to at least Claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 “wherein the pressure is not applied to the region, such that the lithium metal is precipitated only on the region” (lines 12-14). It is clear that within the charging and discharging step, “pressure” (line 8) is applied to the “region” (line 9). However, the phrase following the charging and discharging step (at lines 12-14) appears to contradict this, which raises a great deal of confusion as to whether or not pressure is applied to the “region”, as this renders the claim as indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 18 and 19, as best understood, 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 the teachings of U.S. 2018/0316051 to Lee et al (hereinafter “Lee”) and 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 (e.g. 5, Fig. 1) that includes:
an electrode assembly (e.g. 15) 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 a region (e.g. 17a, Fig. 4) of the negative electrode relative to the separator (e.g. ¶ [0031]); and
wherein the pressure is not applied to the region [after removal of pressing members 50, 55], such that the lithium metal is precipitated only on the region (e.g. 17a).
It is noted that the pressing members (e.g. 50, 55, in Fig. 2) are not part of the final structure of the battery cell (e.g. in Fig. 4), but are merely used to apply pressure for the application of lithium metal (e.g. ¶ [0024]). Subsequent to this pressing, the pressing members are removed to complete the final structure (e.g. in Fig. 4).
Claim 3: JP’553 discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the charge and discharge is performed under a temperature of -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 an edge portion [horizontal top or bottom surface] 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 [top or bottom surface] 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 5, wherein the pressure is only applied to an edge portion (e.g. top or bottom surface) of the battery cell (e.g. Fig. 2).
Claim 19: JP’553 discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the pressure is only applied to the central portion [top or bottom surface] of the battery cell (e.g. Fig. 2).
JP’553 does not appear to teach the relationship that the “region” is between the negative electrode and the separator. Or at least, JP’553 does not show a cross-sectional view where there is a “region between the negative electrode and the separator”. JP’553 also does not appear to mention constant-current (CC)-charging until a first voltage is reached, constant voltage (CV)-charging having reached the first voltage until current cutoff, and constant current (CC)-discharging the CV-charged battery cell.
Lee teaches manufacturing an art-recognized equivalent battery cell (in Fig. 1J) that shows a cross-sectional view of an electrode assembly comprising a laminate that includes a negative electrode (e.g. 22), a positive electrode (e.g. 21), and a separator (e.g. 24c). The negative electrode includes forming (e.g. depositing) a lithium metal on a region (top surface) of the negative electrode that is between the negative electrode itself and the separator (e.g. in Fig. 1J, ¶¶ [0159], [0258]).
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 arrangement of the electrode assembly of JP’533 by forming the negative electrode, positive electrode, and separator, in the arrangement taught by Lee, to produce an art-recognized equivalent battery cell and electrode assembly having the same purpose. Such a modification to JP’533 would include a region (surface) only where lithium metal is precipitated on the negative electrode such that the region is between the negative electrode and the separator, when pressure is not applied (as part of the final structure).
Kano teaches that a battery cell can be subjected to CC-charging until a first voltage is reached, CV-charging having reached the first 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.
Regarding Claim 8, the modified JP’553 method further discloses a constant current (CC) of charging the battery cell until a first voltage is reached and a CC of discharging the battery cell.
JP’553 does not appear to mention any specific C-rate.
Lee further discloses a method of making a battery cell that includes lithium where a CV occurs having reached a first 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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP’553 in view of Lee and 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 Lee and Kano, disclose 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 Lee and 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 Lee and Kano, disclose 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicants arguments filed as part of their recent submission have been fully considered, but have not been deemed to be found as persuasive.
In terms of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) from the previous office action2, these rejections have been withdrawn in light of the amendment to Claim 1. However, there is a new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as previously noted above.
In terms of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the applicants arguments on pages 9 and 10 of their submission are directed to the prior are being deficient with respect to the limitations of “wherein the pressure…only on the region” (lines 12-14 of Claim 1). The examiner disagrees at least for the following reasons.
First, the limitations of this wherein clause do not specify at what point in the method as to when “pressure is not applied to the region”. Upon further consideration, this is considered to be a very broad negative limitation where in this case, pressure is certainly not applied when the pressure members are removed in JP’533 as part of forming the final structure. As noted above, the pressure members are not part of the final structure of the battery cell. The modification of JP’533 is based in part on the electrode assembly arrangement taught by Lee. Such a modification precipitates lithium metal only on the region (top surface of the negative electrode) that is between the negative electrode and the separator, after which no pressure is applied. In other words, JP’533 discloses that lithium metal is precipitated only a region (e.g. 17a) of the negative electrode and Lee teaches that this region can be between the negative electrode and the separator.
Second, in terms of the CC-charging, CV-charging, and CC-discharging (at lines 18-21 of Claim 1) being related to the applied pressure, the examiner notes that none of these steps recite any relationship with pressure and thus, do no relate to when pressure is applied or not applied. In other words, the teachings of JP’533, Lee and Kano, of CC-charging, CV-charging, and CC-discharging, can be applied to the battery cell at any point during the manufacturing method, with or without applied pressure.
It appears that further limitations are needed to clarify when pressure is applied, or not applied, to the region, and/or how the CC-charging, CV-charging, and CC-discharging are each related to this pressure, in order to overcome the prior art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Regarding Claim 21, the closed prior art is JP’533 as JP’533 does teach a temperature of -10⁰ C (e.g. ¶ [0028]). However, JP’533 does not teach a temperature range of -5 to 0⁰ C, or does not teach that an SOC of the battery cell corresponds to 20 to 30%.
Therefore, 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a) Non-Patent Literature ScienceDirect Publication to Chu et al, entitled "Non-destructive fast charging algorithm of lithium-ion batteries based on the control-oriented electrochemical model", discloses a relationship of lithium metal in an electrode assembly, as well as CC-charging and CV-charging (e.g. Figs. 8, 9, see entire document).
Applicants amendment filed as part of their submission, has 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 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, THOMAS J. HONG can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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 3729
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 Non-Final action, mailed on February 20, 2026.
Prosecution Insights