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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 10-17, in the reply filed on 11/20/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-9 and 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 11/20/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 10-11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xu (US 2015/0060290 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Xu discloses a method for preconditioning a battery cell ([0065]-[0075], FIG. 10) comprising: before charging the battery cell at a rate above 1C (maximum rate of first charge is C/2, [0067]), where C corresponds to a charging current that charges the battery cell from 0% state of charge (SOC) to 100% SOC in one hour ([0024]), and before charging the battery cell at a temperature below 10 degrees Celsius (first charge at 45 degrees C, [0066]-[0067]): charging the battery cell at a temperature within a predetermined temperature range (45 degrees C, [0066]-[0067]); discharging the battery cell at a temperature within the predetermined temperature range (45 degrees C, [0066],[0069]); and repeating the charging and discharging at a temperature within the predetermined temperature range a predetermined number of times (three total times, [0067]-[0075]), wherein the predetermined temperature range has a lower threshold of forty degrees Celsius (45 degrees C, [0066]).
Regarding claim 11, Xu discloses wherein the predetermined temperature range has an upper threshold of fifty degrees Celsius (45 degrees C, [0066]).
Regarding claim 15, Xu discloses wherein the method is performed during battery cell formation (dynamic formation protocol, [0065]).
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.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (US 2015/0060290 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Krasovitsky (US 2018/0301749 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Xu does not disclose wherein the predetermined number of times is five or more.
Krasovitsky teaches a method for preconditioning a battery cell ([0005]), comprising: before charging the battery cell at a rate above 1C (first cycle at C/30, [0042]), where C corresponds to a charging current that charges the battery cell from 0% state of charge (SOC) to 100% SOC in one hour ([0030]): charging the battery cell ([0042]); discharging the battery cell ([0042]); and repeating the charging and discharging predetermined number of times, wherein the predetermined number of times is five ([0042]).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to have modified the method of Xu by increasing the predetermined number of times to five because Krasovitsky teaches that doing so improves cell lifetime without limiting cell capacity ([0042]).
Regarding claim 13, Xu in view of Krasovitsky teaches wherein the predetermined number of times does not exceed 10 (Krasovitsky: 5, [0042]).
Regarding claim 14, Xu does not disclose wherein the predetermined number of times is between 5 and 10, inclusive.
Krasovitsky teaches a method for preconditioning a battery cell ([0005]), comprising: before charging the battery cell at a rate above 1C (first cycle at C/30, [0042]), where C corresponds to a charging current that charges the battery cell from 0% state of charge (SOC) to 100% SOC in one hour ([0030]): charging the battery cell ([0042]); discharging the battery cell ([0042]); and repeating the charging and discharging predetermined number of times, wherein the predetermined number of times is between 5 and 10, inclusive (5 times, [0042]).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to have modified the method of Xu by increasing the predetermined number of times to between 5 and 10, inclusive, because Krasovitsky teaches that performing 5 charge/discharge cycles during the method improves cell lifetime without limiting cell capacity ([0042]).
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (US 2015/0060290 A1), as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 16, Xu does not disclose wherein the battery cell comprises one of a plurality of electrically connected battery cells configured as a multi-cell battery in the embodiment of FIG. 10 and [0065]-[0075]. However, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to have applied the method of Xu to a battery cell that comprises one of a plurality of electrically connected battery cells configured as a multi-cell battery because Xu teaches that the method can be applied to batteries having multiple electrically connected cells ([0018]-[0019]).
Regarding claim 17, Xu teaches wherein the method is performed after the plurality of cells are electrically connected (balancing steps must be included during the formation process including multiple cells, [0019]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE C. DISNEY whose telephone number is (703)756-1076. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30 MT.
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, Tiffany Legette-Thompson can be reached at (571) 270-7078. 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.
/C.C.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights