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 .
Status of the Claims
The amendment/remarks submitted 12/02/2025 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 1 and 7-15 are pending. Claims 2-4 are cancelled. Claims 14-15 are withdrawn. Claims 1 and 7 are amended. Claims 1 and 7-13 are examined herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2017/0125854 A1 (“Phan”).
Regarding claim 1, Phan discloses a method of activating a lithium secondary battery (Abstract; Fig. 1). The method comprises charging (300) to a state of charge of 100%. The battery is then stored (400) in an open circuit for a period of at least 48 hours. The battery is then discharged (500) to a state of charge of 0%, followed by storage (600) in an open circuit at room temperature. The volume of gas generated during the storage (400) is then measured (700). If the volume is above a threshold, for example above 0.5 ml/g of LNMO-based material, the gas is removed (800) in order to ensure uniform contact between the two electrodes. The cell is then charged (300) once again until it reaches a state of charge of 100%, before being stored (400) once again in an open circuit ([0039]). The process can be repeated in this way as long as the volume of gas generated is above the threshold ([0040]). On the other hand, if, during the measuring step (700), the volume of gas generated is below the threshold, a final removal (900) of gas followed by charging (1000) of the cell until it reaches a state of charge of 100% are carried out ([0041]). Steps (300) to (1000), wherein steps (300) to (800) are repeated, are interpreted as reading on the claimed activation step. The gas removal steps (800) and (900) are therefore performed during the activation step.
This process is illustrated in the following chart.
PNG
media_image1.png
350
613
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In the example in Figs. 2 and 3, the measurement in step (700) is performed three times and upon the third measurement, the cell is determined to be ready to use ([0060]-[0069]). Therefore, the process follows the above diagram.
The lithium secondary battery comprises an electrode assembly comprising a positive electrode and an electrolyte ([0043]-[0047], [0053]-[0055]). The positive electrode comprises a mixture layer comprising a LNMO-based cathode material (“positive electrode active material”), carbon fibers, and a binder (either the carbon fibers or binder correspond to the “positive electrode additive”).
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.
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0125854 A1 (“Phan”) in view of KR 10-2016-0038593 A (“Jeon” – machine translation cited herein).
Regarding claim 7, Phan discloses the method of claim 1. Phan is silent regarding during the third to fourth activation steps, charging of the lithium secondary battery is performed at a rate of more than 0.5 C.
Jeon discloses a method for manufacturing a lithium secondary battery (Abstract). Jeon further discloses that the gas removal efficiency is better when the C-rate at the end of the initial charging process is greater than the C-rate at the start. The starting C-rate of the initial charge may be 0.1C to 0.3C, and the ending C-rate may be 1C to 2C ([0041]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the C-rate of Jeon, including the ending C-rate of 1C to 2C, to improve the gas removal efficiency.
Claim 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0125854 A1 (“Phan”) in view of US 2019/0074538 (“Lee”).
Regarding claim 8, Phan discloses the method of claim 1. Phan does not expressly disclose the activation step further comprises pressurizing the lithium secondary battery.
Lee discloses a method of preparing a lithium secondary battery which includes performing formation on the lithium secondary battery by charging and discharging the lithium secondary battery and degassing (Abstract). Lee discloses formation is performed by charging to a state of charge (SOC) of 65% to 80% while applying a pressure of 0.5 kgf/cm2 to 5 kgf/cm2 at 60°C to 80°C ([0041]). The formation step is a step of forming an SEI on the surface of the negative electrode ([0097]). In a case in which the pressure is less than 0.5 kgf/cm2, since the pressure does not sufficiently push gas that is generated at high temperature, uniformity of the protective layer formed on the surface of the electrode may be reduced due to the gas generation. Furthermore, in a case in which the pressure is greater than 5 kgf/cm2, since the electrolyte solution to be remained in the battery is excessively discharged due to the excessive pressure, it may adversely affect long-term lifetime ([0101]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the pressurization of Lee to sufficiently push gas that is generated at high temperature while not adversely affecting long-term lifetime.
Claims 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0125854 A1 (“Phan”).
Regarding claim 9, Phan discloses the method of claim 1. Phan discloses the storage step (part of the activation step) is carried out at a temperature of between 15°C and 45°C ([0030]). The temperature would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because the temperature disclosed by Phan overlaps the temperature as claimed. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). Furthermore, “[t]he normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 13, Phan discloses the method of claim 1. Phan discloses the storage step is carried out at a temperature of between 15°C and 45°C ([0030]). In the final iteration of the process (in which the determination in step (700) is lower than the threshold), this storage occurs after the claimed activation (Fig. 1). This corresponds to the claimed aging. The temperature would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because the temperature disclosed by Phan overlaps the temperature as claimed. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). Furthermore, “[t]he normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0125854 A1 (“Phan”) in view of US 2016/0351905 A1 (“Kawamura”).
Regarding claims 10-12, Phan discloses the method of claim 1. Phan does not expressly disclose the positive electrode additive is a lithium cobalt oxide represented by the claimed Chemical Formula 1.
Kawamura discloses a positive electrode contains the active material composed of a lithium transition metal oxide and a positive electrode additive composed of an oxide that contains Li and at least two elements other than Li and oxygen and has an antifluorite structure (Abstract). Examples of the additive include Li6Co0.7Zn0.1O4, Li6Co0.7Zn0.3O4, Li6Co0.7Al0.1O4, and Li6Co0.7Al0.3O4 ([0047]-[0050]). These compounds correspond to the claimed Chemical Formula 1 when M1 is Zn or Al, p=6, and q=0.1 or 0.3. The additive provides a higher charge capacity and suppresses gas generation ([0013], [0056]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the additive taught by Kawamura to provide a higher charge capacity while suppressing gas generation.
Further regarding claim 12, Kawamura discloses the content of the positive electrode additive is within the range of preferably from 0.1% by mass to 10% by mass inclusive. When the amount of the oxide having the antifluorite structure and added as the positive electrode additive is increased, the charge capacity increases. However, at the same time, the discharge capacity decreases, and a reduction in initial efficiency occurs. If the amount of the positive electrode additive is increased, the irreversible capacity increases, and the effect of the addition cannot be obtained ([0021]). For these reasons, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the amount of the additive.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 7, filed 12/02/2025, with respect to the objection to claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to claims 1-13 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 7, filed 12/02/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 5 under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 5 under 35 USC 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see pp. 7-8, filed 12/02/2025, with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response, please consider the following remarks. Phan discloses the claimed first through fourth activation steps with intervening degassing. See the illustration below.
PNG
media_image1.png
350
613
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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., degassing steps performed at specific levels of SOC) 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’s arguments, see pg. 8-10, filed 12/02/2025, with respect to the rejection over Kim and Wang have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-13 over Kim and Wang has been withdrawn.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert Scott Carrico whose telephone number is (571)270-5504. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:15AM-6PM ET.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 571-272-1330. 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.
Robert Scott Carrico
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1727
/Robert S Carrico/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727