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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 54 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 54 recites the limitation “the an electrode active material layer” which includes two articles: “the an”.
Claim 54 recites the limitation “allows of silicon” which appears should recited ‘alloys’ instead.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 11-14, 17-18, 35-49, 52-53 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.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the switch capacitor" in line 5-6, in line 6 and in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Further, dependent claims 12-14, 17-18, 42-49, 52-53 are rendered indefinite due to their dependency on indefinite claim 11 above.
Claim 35 recites the limitation “the formation cluster comprises the control system…”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because the structure being claimed is unclear. Specifically, claim 1 recites a “control system” and a “battery connector…the battery connector being operative coupled with the control system”; claim 34 recites the “formation cluster comprising: the battery connector”; and claim 35 recites the “the formation cluster comprises the control system”. It is unclear whether the control system and battery connector are a subset of the device, a subset of the formation cluster, or both.
Claim 37 recites the limitation “the formation cluster comprises a communication interface for communicatively coupling the formation cluster with the control system…”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how the formation cluster is coupled to a control system, despite the control system being a part of the formation cluster.
Claim 38 recites the limitation “the formation cluster comprises a communication interface for communicatively coupling the formation cluster with the control system…”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how the formation cluster is coupled to a control system, despite the control system being a part of the formation cluster.
Further, dependent claims 36-41 are rendered indefinite due to their dependency on any of the indefinite claims above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5-6, 9-11, 14, 17-18, 34-36, 39-54 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howard et al. (US 2010/0015528A1) in view of Norimatsu et al. (US 2011/0316489A1).
Regarding claim 1, Howard discloses a device for initial formation of a battery (an auxiliary electrode configured for selective electrical connection to one of the positive and negative electrodes and configured to allow doping and undoping of lithium ions, see Title, Abstract, Fig. 1-15), the device comprising:
a capacitor (capacitor [0094]);
a control system operatively coupled with the switched capacitor circuit, the control system comprising including a processor and a memory (control circuit [0040]);
a battery connector configured to electrically connect with the battery at least in part by the battery connector being configured to connect with an electrode busbar of the battery and with a counter-electrode busbar of the battery, the battery comprising bilayers, the battery connector being configured to connect with an auxiliary electrode comprising lithium, the auxiliary electrode being removed from the battery after the initial formation, each bilayer of the bilayers comprising an electrode structure separated by a separator structure from a counter-electrode structure, the electrode structure comprising an electrode current collector coupled with an electrode active material layer, the counter-electrode structure comprising a counter-electrode current collector coupled with a counter-electrode active material layer, the battery connector being operatively coupled with the control system (capacitor coupled to battery [0094]); and
a pre-lithiation connector configured to electrically connect with the auxiliary electrode, the pre-lithiation connector being operatively coupled with the switched capacitor circuit (capacitor coupled to battery [0094]; auxiliary electrode configured to allow doping and undoping of lithium ions, see Title, Abstract),
the memory of the control system physically storing instructions that, when executed, direct the switched capacitor circuit to selectively conduct a current through the auxiliary electrode such that (a) lithium ions are generated from the lithium, and (b) the lithium ions diffuse to the electrode active material layer of the battery, the switched capacitor circuit being configured to selectively conduct the current through the auxiliary electrode such that (a) the lithium ions are generated from the lithium, and (b) the lithium ions diffuse to the electrode active material layer of the battery (capacitor coupled to battery [0094]; auxiliary electrode configured to allow doping and undoping of lithium ions, see Title, Abstract).
However, Howard does not disclose a switched capacitor circuit.
Norimatsu discloses a power supply device comprising a capacitor connected with a battery, two switching circuits connected in series with the capacitor and a resistor (see Title, Abstract, [0036]-[0037]). Norimatsu further discloses suppressing battery deterioration and reducing size of the power supply device, and the capacitor can be charged up to be a usable state in a short time ([0022]).
Howard and Norimatsu are analogous art because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely power supply devices.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the capacitor of Howard to further include switching circuits and a resistor because Norimatsu teaches suppressing battery deterioration and reducing the size of the power supply device.
Further regarding claim 1 reciting “…for initial formation of a battery”, statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention which do not result in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art do not limit the claim and do not distinguish over the prior art apparatus (or process). See, e.g., In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). If a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and cases cited therein, as it has been held that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable. In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also MPEP § 2111.02, §2112.02 and 2114-2115. In this instance, the apparatus of the prior art is considered capable of being used with a battery.
Further regarding claim 1 reciting “the battery connector being configured to connect with an auxiliary electrode comprising lithium, the auxiliary electrode being removed from the battery after the initial formation”, product-by-process limitations are not given patentable weight since the method does not provide additional structure to the product claim (see MPEP 2113 and 2114).
Further regarding claim 1 reciting intended use limitations “configured to electrically connect with the battery at least in part by the battery connector being configured to connect with an electrode busbar of the battery and with a counter-electrode busbar of the battery, the battery comprising bilayers, the battery connector being configured to connect with an auxiliary electrode comprising lithium, the auxiliary electrode being removed from the battery after the initial formation, each bilayer of the bilayers comprising an electrode structure separated by a separator structure from a counter-electrode structure, the electrode structure comprising an electrode current collector coupled with an electrode active material layer, the counter-electrode structure comprising a counter-electrode current collector coupled with a counter-electrode active material layer” or “configured to electrically connect with the auxiliary electrode”, a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115. The recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable. In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115. In this case, the apparatus of the prior art is considered capable of performing the intended function.
Regarding claim 5, modified Howard discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Norimatsu further discloses the switched capacitor circuit comprises a first switch, a second switch, a storage capacitor, and a discharge resistor, wherein the control system is configured to direct the switched capacitor to (a) close the first switch and (b) open the second switch, in order to (i) conduct the current through the auxiliary electrode and (ii) store energy in the storage capacitor; and wherein, after conducting the current through the auxiliary electrode to discharge the energy stored in the storage capacitor through the discharge resistor, the control system is configured to direct the switched capacitor circuit to open the first switch and to close the second switch (see Title, Abstract, [0036]-[0037]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Howard discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Howard further discloses the control system is configured to be powered by the battery when the battery is operatively coupled with the battery connector (control circuit [0040]).
Further regarding claim 6 reciting intended use limitation “configured to be powered by the battery when the battery is operatively coupled with the battery connector”, a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115. The recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable. In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115. In this case, the apparatus of the prior art is considered capable of performing the intended function.
Regarding claim 9, modified Howard discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Howard further discloses the control system is configured to direct the switched capacitor circuit to selectively conduct the current through the auxiliary electrode to diffuse the lithium ions to the electrode active material layer of the battery (control circuit instructs switch to close to electrically connect auxiliary electrode to negative electrode or open to electrically disconnect [0040], doping or undoping of lithium ions, see Abstract).
Regarding claim 10, modified Howard discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Howard further discloses the control system is configured to receive instructions that, when executed, direct the switched capacitor circuit to selectively conduct the current through the auxiliary electrode to diffuse the lithium ions to each electrode active material layer of the battery (control circuit instructs switch to close to electrically connect auxiliary electrode to negative electrode or open to electrically disconnect [0040], doping or undoping of lithium ions, see Abstract).
Regarding claim 34, modified Howard discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Howard further discloses the device comprises a formation cluster, the formation cluster comprising: the battery connector configured for connecting with the battery; a charging module operatively coupled with the battery connector and configured to charge the battery operatively coupled with the battery connector; and a discharging module operatively coupled with the battery connector and configured to charge the battery operatively coupled with the battery connector (an auxiliary electrode configured for selective electrical connection to one of the positive and negative electrodes and configured to allow doping and undoping of lithium ions, see Title, Abstract, Fig. 1-15).
Further regarding claim 34 reciting limitations directed to a battery (e.g., “configured for connecting with the battery”), a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115. The recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable. In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115. In this case, the apparatus of the prior art is considered capable of performing the intended function.
Regarding claim 35, modified Howard discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Howard further discloses the formation cluster comprises the control system configured to (a) charge the battery operatively coupled with the battery connector using the charging module and (b) discharge the battery using the discharging module (charging and discharging, see Abstract, [0049]).
Regarding claim 36, modified Howard discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Howard further discloses the control system is a hierarchical control system comprising at least two, or at least three, hierarchical control levels (control [0040]).
Regarding claim 39, modified Howard discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Howard further discloses the control system is configured to control the charging module and to control the discharging module (charging and discharging, see Abstract, [0049]).
Regarding claim 40, modified Howard discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Howard further discloses the formation cluster comprises at least one sensor configured to monitor a condition of the formation cluster, the at least one sensor comprising a temperature sensor, a voltage sensor, or a current sensor (voltmeter [0040]).
Regarding claim 41, modified Howard discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Howard further discloses the formation cluster comprises a power connector configured for connection with a power source, the power connection being coupled with the charging module, with the device, and with the discharging module (external connection [0039], [0046], [0092]).
Regarding claim 54, modified Howard discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Howard further discloses the an electrode active material layer comprises elemental silicon, single crystalline silicon, allows of silicon, silicon-carbon composites, silicon graphite blends, oxide of silicon, porous silicon, intermetallic silicon alloys, nitride of silicon, silicon nanowire, or mixtures thereof ([0058]).
Further regarding claim 54 reciting intended use limitations directed to a battery (and its components) “the an electrode active material layer comprises…”, a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115. The recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable. In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115. In this case, the apparatus of the prior art is considered capable of performing the intended function.
Regarding claim 11, Howard discloses a device for initial formation of a battery (auxiliary electrode configured for selective electrical connection to one of the positive and negative electrodes and configured to allow doping and undoping of lithium ions, see Title, Abstract, Fig. 1-15), the device comprising:
a control system comprising a processor, a memory, and terminals (control circuit [0040]); and
a capacitor operatively coupled with the control system, the capacitor being configured to operatively couple the battery such that the switch capacitor is operatively coupled with an electrode busbar and with a counter-electrode busbar of the battery, the battery comprising bilayers, each bilayer of the bilayers comprising an electrode structure separated by a separator structure from a counter-electrode structure, the electrode structure comprising an electrode current collector and an electrode active material layer, and the counter-electrode structure comprising a counter-electrode current collector and a counter-electrode active material layer, the capacitor being operatively coupled with an auxiliary electrode containing lithium, the auxiliary electrode being removed from the battery following the initial formation (capacitor [0094]), the capacitor comprising:
a first current path from the electrode busbar to the auxiliary electrode, and
the memory of the control system storing instructions that program the control system to control the switch to selectively conduct the current through the auxiliary electrode to (a) generate lithium ions from the lithium, and (b) to diffuse the lithium ions to the electrode active material layer of the battery (capacitor coupled to battery [0094]; auxiliary electrode configured to allow doping and undoping of lithium ions, see Title, Abstract).
However, Howard does not disclose a switched capacitor circuit, the first current path including a storage capacitor to store energy when a current is conducted through the first current path, and a first switch operable to selectively close or open the first current path; and a second current path including the storage capacitor, a discharge resistor, and a second switch to conduct the current from the storage capacitor to the discharge resistor when the first current path is open, the second switch operable to selectively close or open the second current path, the first switch and the second switch being operatively coupled to one or more of the terminals of the control system.
Norimatsu discloses a power supply device comprising a capacitor connected with a battery, two switching circuits connected in series with the capacitor and a resistor (see Title, Abstract, [0036]-[0037]). Norimatsu further discloses suppressing battery deterioration and reducing size of the power supply device, and the capacitor can be charged up to be a usable state in a short time ([0022]).
Howard and Norimatsu are analogous art because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely power supply devices.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the capacitor of Howard to further include switching circuits and a resistor because Norimatsu teaches suppressing battery deterioration and reducing the size of the power supply device.
Further regarding claim 11 reciting “for initial formation of a battery”, statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention which do not result in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art do not limit the claim and do not distinguish over the prior art apparatus (or process). See, e.g., In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). If a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and cases cited therein, as it has been held that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable. In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also MPEP § 2111.02, §2112.02 and 2114-2115. In this instance, the apparatus of the prior art is considered capable of being used with a battery.
Further regarding claim 11 reciting “the capacitor being operatively coupled with an auxiliary electrode containing lithium, the auxiliary electrode being removed from the battery following the initial formation”, product-by-process limitations are not given patentable weight since the method does not provide additional structure to the product claim (see MPEP 2113 and 2114).
Further regarding claim 11 reciting intended use limitations configured to operatively couple the battery such that the switch capacitor is operatively coupled with an electrode busbar and with a counter-electrode busbar of the battery, the battery comprising bilayers, each bilayer of the bilayers comprising an electrode structure separated by a separator structure from a counter-electrode structure, the electrode structure comprising an electrode current collector and an electrode active material layer, and the counter-electrode structure comprising a counter-electrode current collector and a counter-electrode active material layer”, a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115. The recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable. In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115. In this case, the apparatus of the prior art is considered capable of performing the intended function.
Regarding claim 14, modified Howard discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Howard further discloses the control system is powered by the battery operatively coupled with the battery connector (control circuit [0040]).
Further regarding claim 14 reciting intended use limitations is powered by the battery operatively coupled with the battery connector”, a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115. The recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable. In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115. In this case, the apparatus of the prior art is considered capable of performing the intended function.
Regarding claim 17, modified Howard discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Howard further discloses the control system is programmed to operate the switched capacitor circuit to selectively conduct the current through the auxiliary electrode to diffuse lithium to the each electrode active material layer of the battery (control circuit instructs switch to close to electrically connect auxiliary electrode to negative electrode or open to electrically disconnect [0040], doping or undoping of lithium ions, see Abstract).
Regarding claim 18, modified Howard discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Howard further discloses the control system is programmed to receive instructions for operation of the switched capacitor circuit to selectively conduct the current through the auxiliary electrode to diffuse the lithium ions to the electrode active material layer of the battery (control circuit instructs switch to close to electrically connect auxiliary electrode to negative electrode or open to electrically disconnect [0040], doping or undoping of lithium ions, see Abstract).
Regarding claim 42, modified Howard discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Further regarding the limitation “the device is operatively coupled with a battery connector of a formation cluster, the formation cluster comprising: (a) the battery connector configured for connecting to the battery, (b) a charging module operatively coupled with the battery connector and configured to charge the battery operatively coupled with the battery connector, and (c) a discharging module operatively coupled with the battery connector and configured to charge the battery operatively coupled with the battery connector”, the apparatus of modified Howard is considered capable of connecting to a formation cluster and, thus, the claim is considered to be met.
Regarding claim 43, modified Howard discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Further regarding the limitation “the control system is configured to (a) charge the battery operatively coupled with the battery connector at least in part by using the charging module and (b) discharge the battery using the discharging module”, the apparatus of modified Howard is considered capable of connecting to a formation cluster and, thus, the claim is considered to be met.
Regarding claim 44, modified Howard discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Further regarding the limitation “the control system is a hierarchical control system comprising at least two, or at least three, hierarchical control levels”, the apparatus of modified Howard is considered capable of connecting to a formation cluster and, thus, the claim is considered to be met.
Regarding claim 45, modified Howard discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Further regarding the limitation “the formation cluster comprises a communication interface for communicatively coupling the formation cluster with a central controller, the communication interface comprising a wired communication interface for connection to a wired communication network”, the apparatus of modified Howard is considered capable of connecting to a formation cluster and, thus, the claim is considered to be met.
Regarding claim 46, modified Howard discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Further regarding the limitation “the formation cluster comprises a communication interface for communicatively coupling the formation cluster with a central controller, the communication interface comprising a wireless communication interface for connection to a wireless communication network”, the apparatus of modified Howard is considered capable of connecting to a formation cluster and, thus, the claim is considered to be met.
Regarding claim 47, modified Howard discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Further regarding the limitation “the control system is further configured to control the charging module and to control the discharging module”, the apparatus of modified Howard is considered capable of connecting to a formation cluster and, thus, the claim is considered to be met.
Regarding claim 48, modified Howard discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Further regarding the limitation “the formation cluster comprises at least one sensor configured to monitor a condition of the formation cluster, the at least one sensor comprising a temperature sensor, a voltage sensor, or a current sensor”, the apparatus of modified Howard is considered capable of connecting to a formation cluster and, thus, the claim is considered to be met.
Regarding claim 49, modified Howard discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Further regarding the limitation “the formation cluster comprises a power connector configured for connection with a power source, the power connection being coupled with the charging module, with the pre-lithiation module, and with the discharging module”, the apparatus of modified Howard is considered capable of connecting to a formation cluster and, thus, the claim is considered to be met.
Regarding claim 50, modified Howard discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Further regarding claim 50 reciting “the battery comprises a constraint comprising perforations configured to facilitate distribution or flow of an electrolyte solution” which claims antecedent basis to “…for a battery” recited in the preamble, statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention which do not result in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art do not limit the claim and do not distinguish over the prior art apparatus (or process). See, e.g., In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). If a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and cases cited therein, as it has been held that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable. In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997). A recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115. In this instance, the apparatus of the prior art is considered capable of being used with a battery.
Regarding claim 51, modified Howard discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Further regarding claim 51 reciting “the constraint comprises an elemental metal, a metal alloy, a polymer, a composite, or a ceramic” which claims antecedent basis to “…for a battery” recited in the preamble, statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention which do not result in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art do not limit the claim and do not distinguish over the prior art apparatus (or process). See, e.g., In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). If a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and cases cited therein, as it has been held that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable. In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997). A recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See also MPEP § 2111.02, §2112.02 and 2114-2115. In this instance, the apparatus of the prior art is considered capable of being used with a battery.
Regarding claim 52, modified Howard discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Further regarding claim 52 reciting “the battery comprises a constraint comprising perforations configured to facilitate distribution or flow of an electrolyte solution” which claims antecedent basis to “…for a battery” recited in the preamble, statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention which do not result in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art do not limit the claim and do not distinguish over the prior art apparatus (or process). See, e.g., In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). If a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and cases cited therein, as it has been held that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable. In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997). A recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See also MPEP § 2111.02, §2112.02 and 2114-2115. In this instance, the apparatus of the prior art is considered capable of being used with a battery.
Regarding claim 53, modified Howard discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Further regarding claim 53 reciting “the battery comprises a constraint comprising perforations configured to facilitate distribution or flow of an electrolyte solution” which claims antecedent basis to “the battery comprises a constraint comprising perforations configured to facilitate distribution or flow of an electrolyte solution” which claims antecedent basis to “…for a battery” recited in the preamble, statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention which do not result in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art do not limit the claim and do not distinguish over the prior art apparatus (or process). See, e.g., In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). If a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and cases cited therein, as it has been held that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable. In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997). A recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See also MPEP § 2111.02, §2112.02 and 2114-2115. In this instance, the apparatus of the prior art is considered capable of being used with a battery.
Claim(s) 2-4, 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howard et al. (US 2010/0015528A1) in view of Norimatsu et al. (US 2011/0316489A1), as applied to claims 1, 5-6, 9-11, 14, 17-18, 34-36, 39-54 above, and further in view of Sakamoto et al. (US 2021/0226193A1).
Regarding claim 2, modified Howard discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Howard does not further disclose the instructions, when executed, direct the switched capacitor circuit to selectively conduct the current through the auxiliary electrode at least in part using pulses of charge.
Sakamoto discloses using a series of pulse cycles comprising (i) applying an on-current for a given pulse width, and (ii) applying an off-current for an amount of time based on a duty cycle and the pulse width, and wherein step (d) further comprises varying at least one of: (i) the pulse width, wherein a metal anode such as lithium is formed electrochemically with improved uniformity (see Title, Abstract, [0010], [0106]).
Howard and Sakamoto are analogous art because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely lithium batteries.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Howard by using a series of pulse cycles to apply current because Sakamoto teaches improved characteristics.
Regarding claim 3, modified Howard discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Sakamoto further discloses the instructions, when executed, direct the switched capacitor circuit to use control signal pulses to selectively conduct the current through the auxiliary electrode, the control signal pulses having a fixed pulse width, and a frequency of the control signal pulses being variable at least in part by the control system (series of pulse cycles comprising (i) applying an on-current for a given pulse width, and (ii) applying an off-current for an amount of time based on a duty cycle and the pulse width, and wherein step (d) further comprises varying at least one of: (i) the pulse width, wherein a metal anode such as lithium is formed electrochemically with improved uniformity, see Title, Abstract, [0010], [0106]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Howard discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Sakamoto further discloses the instructions, when executed, direct use of control signal pulses to selectively conduct the current through the auxiliary electrode, the control signal pulses having a variable pulse width and a dixed frequency of the control signal pulses (series of pulse cycles comprising (i) applying an on-current for a given pulse width, and (ii) applying an off-current for an amount of time based on a duty cycle and the pulse width, and wherein step (d) further comprises varying at least one of: (i) the pulse width, wherein a metal anode such as lithium is formed electrochemically with improved uniformity, see Title, Abstract, [0010], [0106]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Howard discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Howard does not further disclose the instructions program the control system to control the first switch and the second switch with control signal pulses to selectively conduct the current through the auxiliary electrode using pulses of charge, wherein the control signal pulses have a fixed pulse width and a frequency of the control signal pulses is variable by the control system.
Sakamoto discloses using a series of pulse cycles comprising (i) applying an on-current for a given pulse width, and (ii) applying an off-current for an amount of time based on a duty cycle and the pulse width, and wherein step (d) further comprises varying at least one of: (i) the pulse width, wherein a metal anode such as lithium is formed electrochemically with improved uniformity (see Title, Abstract, [0010], [0106]).
Howard and Sakamoto are analogous art because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely lithium batteries.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Howard by using a series of pulse cycles to apply current because Sakamoto teaches improved characteristics.
Regarding claim 13, modified Howard discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Sakamoto further discloses the instructions program the control system to control the first switch and the second switch using control signal pulses, wherein the control signal pulses have a variable pulse width and a frequency of the control signal pulses is fixed (series of pulse cycles comprising (i) applying an on-current for a given pulse width, and (ii) applying an off-current for an amount of time based on a duty cycle and the pulse width, and wherein step (d) further comprises varying at least one of: (i) the pulse width, wherein a metal anode such as lithium is formed electrochemically with improved uniformity, see Title, Abstract, [0010], [0106]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue Howard and Norimatsu fail to teach or suggest a new limitation in claims 1 and 11 reciting a “device for initial formation of a battery, the device…configured to connect with an auxiliary electrode comprising lithium, the auxiliary electrode being removed from the battery following the initial formation” (see Remarks filed 2/13/2026). However, this is not found to be persuasive because statements in the preamble (i.e., “device for initial formation of a battery”) reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention which do not result in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art do not limit the claim and do not distinguish over the prior art apparatus (or process). See, e.g., In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). If a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and cases cited therein, as it has been held that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable. In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also MPEP § 2111.02, §2112.02 and 2114-2115.
Further, the limitation “the battery connector being configured to connect with an auxiliary electrode comprising lithium, the auxiliary electrode being removed from the battery after the initial formation” is a product-by-process limitation, which are not given patentable weight since the method does not provide additional structure to the product claim (see MPEP 2113 and 2114).
With respect to applicant’s arguments directed to Sakamoto not curing the argued deficiencies of the combination of Howard and Norimatsu (see Remarks filed 2/13/2026), said reference is not relied upon to teach or suggest said argued deficiencies.
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 JAMES LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7937. 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, NICOLE BUIE-HATCHER can be reached at (571)270-3879. 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.
/James Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 3/20/2026