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 .
Applicants’ Preliminary Amendment, filed on December 9, 2022, has been made of record and entered. In this amendment, a substitute specification has been filed to include a cross-reference to related applications and to correct informalities and translation errors, and claims 1-12 have been amended to conform to U. S. Patent Application claim format.
No claims have been canceled or added; claims 1-12 are presently pending in this application.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Applicants’ Priority Document was filed on December 9, 2022.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 6-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugihara et al. (KR 2019 0062280, Applicants’ submitted art; English translation provided and relied upon).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Sugihara et al. teach the preparation of a non-aqueous secondary electrolyte battery (“gel polymer electrolyte battery”), wherein a cell is prepared by housing an electrode group and an electrolyte inside a case (“pre-aging step…accommodating a stack cell in a battery housing”), the cell is subjected to an initial charging under a first pressure (e.g., at atmospheric pressure, 1.03 kgf/cm2) and a temperature of 0°C or higher and 15°C or lower, followed by subjecting the cell to a first discharging (“carrying out charge/discharge”), processing the cell under a second pressure (e.g., 0.2 MPa or more and 2 MPa or less, or 2.039 kgf/cm2 or more and 20.39 kgf/cm2 or less), wherein the second pressure is higher than the first pressure. See paragraphs [0038]-[0050], [0062], [0092]-[0113], and [0135]-[0160] of Sugihara et al., especially paragraph [0152], which teaches injection of the electrolyte into the housing.
Regarding claim 6, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to determine through routine experimentation the optimal time for applying the first pressure, such as that recited in claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, it is considered that because Sugihara et al. teach a method comparable to that instantly claimed, regarding the steps of subjecting the cell to an initial charging at a first pressure, followed by subjecting the cell to a first discharging, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to reasonably expect the pressure at the first discharging to be the same as that of the initial charging, absent the showing of convincing evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 8, paragraphs [0096] and [0106] of Sugihara et al. teach that the current rate of the initial charge may be 0.1 C or more and 1 C or less, and that the current rate of the initial discharge may be 0.1 C or more and 1 C or less. Additionally, in Table 1 of Sugihara et al., Examples 1-11 depict embodiments in which the initial discharge efficiency ranges from 87% to 97%. From these teachings, the skilled artisan would readily envision a charging percentage capacity comparable to that recited in claim 8, absent the showing of convincing evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 9, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to reasonably expect the temperature of the second pressure to be comparable to the temperature of the first pressure (“temperature equal to…that of step (S2)”).
Regarding claim 10, it is considered that because Sugihara et al. teach a method comparable to that instantly claimed, regarding the performance of first and second pressuring steps, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to perform the second pressuring step at a temperature higher than that of the temperature of the first pressuring step, and to determine said temperature through routine experimentation and optimization.
Regarding claim 12, Sugihara et al. teach, in Figure 5 and paragraph [0047], that the aforementioned housing may be equipped with a gas discharge valve. From this teaching, the skilled artisan would readily envision that, if said discharge valve is present, the opening of the discharge valve would effect a degassing of the housing.
Sugihara et al. do not explicitly teach or suggest Applicants’ claimed step of, after the formation step of carrying out a charge/discharge step, an aging step of allowing the product of the formation step to stand for a predetermined amount of time, as recited in claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicants’ invention to determine through routine experimentation the optimal time or duration between (a) subjecting the cell to the initial charging at a first pressure, followed by subjecting the cell to discharging and (b) processing the cell under a second pressure, in an endeavor to obtain a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery exhibiting optimal properties., e.g. exhibiting optimal battery resistance and cycle capacity retention rates.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugihara et al. (KR 2019 0062280, Applicants’ submitted art; English translation provided and relied upon as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shin et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0365933).
Sugihara et al. is relied upon for its teachings with respect to claim 1, as stated above.
Additionally regarding claim 3, Sugihara et al. teach that the aforementioned electrolyte comprises a solvent and a supporting salt; exemplary solvents include cyclic carbonates and chain carbonates, and exemplary supporting salts include LiPF6 and LiBF4. See paragraphs [0088]-[0090] of Sugihara et al.
Sugihara et al. do not teach or suggest the presence of a crosslinkable polymer and/or oligomer and a crosslinking initiator in the electrolyte precursor, as recited in claims 3 and 4. Shin et al. also do not teach or suggest the limitations of claim 5 regarding the step of gelling the electrolyte precursor at a temperature at which crosslinking of the polymer and/or oligomer is accomplished.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Shin et al. teach a method of preparing a pouch type secondary battery, wherein a pouch type preliminary secondary battery is prepared by accommodating an electrode assembly in an inner space of a pouch type case, followed by injecting a composition for a gel polymer electrolyte into the pouch type preliminary secondary battery, applying ultrasonic vibration to the pouch type preliminary secondary battery while pressurizing the pouch type preliminary secondary battery, performing formation of the pouch type preliminary secondary battery, curing the composition for a gel polymer electrolyte, and degassing, wherein the ultrasonic member is maintained at a temperature of 30° C. to 80° C., and wherein the pressurizing of the pouch type preliminary secondary battery may be performed while applying a pressure of 0.1 kgf/cm2 to 3,000 kgf/cm2 per area of the pouch type preliminary secondary battery. See paragraphs [0043]-[0052] of Shin et al.
Shin et al. further teach that the composition for the gel polymer electrolyte may comprise a lithium salt, an organic solvent, a polymerizable monomer, a polymerization initiator, and an additive. Examples of the lithium salt include LiBF4 and LiPF6, examples of the organic solvent include carbonate-based solvents including cyclic carbonate-based solvents or linear carbonate-based solvents. Further, examples of the polymerizable monomer include a multifunctional acrylate-based compound containing at least one acrylate group in the molecule, a multifunctional methacrylate-based compound containing at least one methacrylate group, or compounds having a polymerizable func-tional group selected from the group consisting of a vinyl group, an epoxy group, an ether group, an ally! group, an oxyalkylene group, and a (meth)acrylic group so that the polymerizable monomers may be polymerized with each other to form a polymer (“crosslinkable polymer comprises…an acrylic polymer having a crosslinkable functional group"), and exemplary polymerization initiators include ultraviolet polymerization initiators, photopolymerization initiators, and thermal polymerization initiators. See paragraphs [0086]-[0117] of Shin et al.
Because both Sugihara et al. and Shin et al. teach electrolytes comprising the same solvent and salt, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the preparation of Sugihara et al. by incorporating therein a crosslinkable polymer and a crosslinking initiator in the electrolyte, as suggested by Shin et al., in an endeavor to (a) improve the effect of gel formation to secure sufficient mechanical strength of the gel polymer electrolyte, and to prevent disadvantages such as an increase in resistance due to the excessive amount of oli-gomer and limitations in movement of lithium ions (decrease in ionic conductivity), and (b) to control the polymerization rate in the polymer electrolyte, thereby preventing any adverse effects of battery performance. See paragraphs [0114] and [0118] of Shin et al.
Regarding claim 5, Shin et al. teach that curing (gelating) of the composition for a gel polymer electrolyte may be performed after the formation via thermal curing at a temperature ranging from 30°C to 70°C, and further teach that the polymerizable monomers may be cross-linked with each other by the curing (gelating) to form a polymer network in the form of a gel, and the electrolyte salt dissociated from the composition for a gel polymer electrolyte may be uniformly impregnated in the polymer network. See paragraphs [0145]-[0149] of Shin et al.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicants’ invention to modify the preparation of Sugihara et al. by incorporating therein the step of curing (gelating) the electrolyte at a temperature ranging from 30°C to 70°C, as suggested by Shin et al., to improve a gel conversion rate and prevent performance degradation of the secondary battery caused by the presence of unreacted oligomer remaining in the battery. See paragraph [0148] of Shin et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 11, in table 1 of Sugihara et al., the initial charge is shown to occur at temperatures of 10°C and 25°C, which is outside the temperature range of 30-70°C, as recited in claim 11.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See, for example, Watarai et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0359197).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICIA L HAILEY whose telephone number is (571)272-1369. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
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, Ching-Yiu (Coris) Fung, can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/Patricia L. Hailey/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 December 26, 2025