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 Status
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments submitted on February 5th, 2025 have been entered into the file. Currently claims 1 and 14 are amended and claim 13 is cancelled, resulting in claims 1-12, 14-18 pending for examination.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s arguments submitted on February 5th, 2026 have been entered into the file.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-5, 7-12, 14, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (Korean Patent Publication No. 20170035565 A1) in view of Kim (W.O. 2017217646 A1) (machine translation relied upon), Masaya (Japanese Patent No. 3740323 B2) (hereafter “Masaya”) (machine translation relied upon), and Majid (Non-Patent Literature, “Analysis of Effective Pulse Current Charging Method for Lithium Ion Battery”).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches the battery cell (Paragraph 0001) comprises an electrode assembly including a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and a separator (Paragraph 0052) interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (Paragraph 0060), wherein the electrode assembly is accommodated in a battery case (Paragraph 0052).
Lee teaches a method of producing a lithium secondary battery (Abstract), comprising:
step (a) injecting an electrolyte (first electrolyte) into a battery cell (Paragraph 0065).
Lee teaches the manufacturing method including a primary activation process, a secondary activation process, and a pre-wetting process to improve the impregnation of the electrolyte in the battery (Paragraph 0037). Therefore, it follows that the primary activation process, a secondary activation process, and pre-wetting processes of Lee occur on the battery cell which contains the first electrolyte injected thereinto.
Lee teaches a step (i) in the method of manufacturing a secondary battery comprising an aging process (Paragraph 0017). Lee teaches the primary activation process is the process of aging in which the battery is left at a constant SOC (Paragraph 0028). Lee teaches the aging of step (i) being performed at room temperature for 1 to 10 days (Paragraph 0030), which overlaps with the conditions of pre-aging of the instant disclosure (Page 50, Lines 1-7).
The aging step (i) of Lee is equated with the instant pre-aging step (b) of the battery cell containing the first electrolyte injected thereinto to obtain a pre-aged battery cell, meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Lee teaches a step (ii) in the method of manufacturing a secondary battery including a pre-wetting process in which the cell is charged/discharged to 0 to 70% state of charge region (predetermined state of charge) in order to sufficiently impregnate the electrolyte in the cell (activate the battery cell) (Paragraph 0018).
The pre-wetting step (ii) of Lee is equated with the instant primary charging step (c) of the pre-aged battery cell, meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Lee teaches a step (iii) in the method of manufacturing a secondary battery including a degassing process which is performed in order to remove gas generated in the activation process (Paragraph 0048).
The degassing step (iii) of Lee is equated with the instant degassing step (d) of the primary charged battery cell to remove gas inside the battery cell to obtain a degassed battery cell, meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Lee teaches that as the SOC of the battery increases in the pre-wetting step (primary charging step), the SEI layer using the electrolyte and the additive is generated on the surface of the cathode (Paragraph 0022). Lee does not explicitly teach the electrolyte includes an additive for forming a solid electrolyte interface (SEI) film.
However, Kim discloses a method of operating a battery-system where a first electrolyte and a second electrolyte are injected into a battery case (Paragraphs 15-17). Kim teaches the first electrolyte including a lithium salt, non-aqueous solvent, and an electrode film (SEI) forming agent (additive for forming a solid electrolyte interface SEI film)) (Paragraph 41). Kim teaches the additive in the electrolyte in order to improve ion conductivity of the electrolyte (Paragraph 44).
Therefore, 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 electrolyte of Lee to incorporate the teachings of Kim in which an SEI film-forming additive is included. Doing so would advantageously result in improved ionic conductivity of the electrolyte, as recognized by Kim.
Lee is silent as to a step (e) of the method where a second electrolyte not including the additive for forming a SEI film is injected into the battery cell,
As described above, Kim discloses a method of operating a battery-system where a first electrolyte and a second electrolyte are injected into a battery case (Paragraphs 15-17). According to Kim, the first electrolyte includes a lithium salt, non-aqueous solvent, and an electrode film (SEI) forming agent (Paragraph 41), including vinylene carbonate (Paragraph 44), aligning with one of the additives disclosed in the instant invention (Page 14, Line 1). Unlike the first electrolyte solution, the second electrolyte solution of Kim does not include the electrode film forming agent (Paragraph 45). Kim teaches it is known in the art to exclude the SEI forming additive from the second injected electrolyte solution because if the second electrolyte contained such an additive, the solid electrolyte interface would be additionally formed, resulting in increased resistance of the secondary battery and deteriorated mobility of ions of through the electrode (Paragraph 72).
The second electrolyte is injected into the secondary battery of Kim when the capacity of the secondary battery cell is reduced (Paragraph 12). Kim teaches that as the charge-discharge cycle of the secondary battery cell is repeated, an increase in internal resistance due to depletion of the electrolyte occurs. Thus, Kim teaches the injection of a second electrolyte in order to replenish the depleted electrolyte present in the battery, resulting in suppression of increased resistance as well as improved ion mobility (Paragraph 19) which extend the usable period of the secondary battery cell (Paragraph 29).
Therefore, 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 producing a secondary battery of Lee to incorporate the teachings of Kim in which a second electrolyte not including the additive for forming a SEI film is injected. Lee is open to this modification, as Kim teaches a similar sequence of method steps as Lee, where the secondary battery is produced by injecting a first electrolyte with an SEI-forming additive into a battery case holding an electrode assembly, charging the battery assembly, then injecting a second electrolyte not containing the SEI-forming additive (Kim, Paragraphs 50-53). Further, the modification would advantageously result in improved mobility of ions, suppression of resistance, and prolonged battery lifetime, as recognized by Kim.
Lee is silent as to the second electrolyte being injected into the degassed battery cell.
In the method of Kim, the step (c) of producing the lithium secondary battery comprises injecting a second electrolyte not containing the film-forming additive as discussed above. Kim teaches the step (c) may further include a step (i) of drilling an opening in the battery case through which the secondary electrolyte is injected into the cell. Further, Kim teaches that one or more additional openings may be further punctured to exhaust gas present in the secondary cell (Paragraph 0058).
Kim is silent as to whether the exhaust of gas occurs before or after the second electrolyte is injected.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select the degassing step occurring before the second electrolyte is injected from the finite lists of possible combinations (2 options, before or after) for the sequence in which the second electrolyte injection and degassing steps occur to arrive at the method of the instant claim since the combination of components would have yielded predictable results as a secondary battery absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
Therefore, 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 producing a secondary battery of Lee to incorporate the teachings of Kim in which a second electrolyte not including the additive for forming a SEI film is injected after the battery cell is degassed. Lee is open to this modification, as Kim teaches a similar sequence of method steps as Lee, discussed above. Further, the resulting step of injecting the second electrolyte without an SEI film forming additive after degassing the battery cell would advantageously result in improved mobility of ions, suppression of resistance, and prolonged battery lifetime, as recognized by Kim.
Lee is silent as to the primary charging including a stepwise charging process performed by gradually increasing the magnitude of a charging current according to the SOC of the battery cell.
However, Masaya discloses a charging method for a secondary battery wherein during charging lithium ions are inserted into or desorbed from the negative electrode active material resulting in changes in the structure of the active material (Paragraph 0039). Masaya teaches the amount of electricity stored by the secondary battery is dependent on the state of charge of the battery (Paragraph 0043), where the charging method is varied depending on various inflection points of the power storage (charged) amount of the battery (Paragraph 0017). Masaya teaches the charging method gradually increases the charging current (Paragraph 0046), preferably in a stepwise manner with a pause during current increase (Paragraph 0024-0025), in order to gradually introduce changes to the active material due to electrochemical reactions (Paragraph 0046). This advantageously results in more uniform activation of the battery, improved charge/discharge efficiency, and life cycle of the battery (Paragraph 0046).
Therefore, 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 charging step in the method of producing a lithium secondary battery of Lee to incorporate the teachings of Masaya wherein the primary charging includes a stepwise charging process performed by gradually increasing the magnitude of a charging current according to the SOC of the battery cell. Doing so would advantageously result in more uniform activation of the battery, improved charge/discharge efficiency, and life cycle of the battery, as recognized by Masaya.
Lee is silent as to the primary charging including pulse charging and discharging in which charging and discharging are repeated at a predetermined C-rate after the stepwise charging process or between specific steps of the stepwise charging process.
Majid discloses a charging method in which batteries are charged with constant current for a period of time, followed by a pulsing current charge period (Abstract). Majid teaches pulse charging as a fast-charging method for a lithium ion battery which helps to maximize battery capacity (Page 2, Paragraph 3). In the experiments, Majid charges cells to half capacity by constant current charging, then allows the cells a rest period, followed by continuous charging and stopping at a 1C (predetermined) rate with different pulse widths for a predetermined number of cycles/time (Page 3, Paragraph 1). Through a series of tests, Majid found that the use of pulse charging method to accompany a constant charging technique resulted in the batteries achieving a higher state of charge than when they had been charged without a second pulse charging step (Page 4, Paragraph 2). Thus, Majid concluded the pulse charging step led to higher efficiency in transporting lithium ions and reduced cell capacity loss (Page 6, Paragraphs 1-2).
As discussed above in the rejection of claim 1, the constant current charging of Lee was modified by Masaya to incorporate a stepwise charging process. Lee teaches that the formation step S20 of the disclosed process charges the battery to reach a voltage corresponding to 55 to 95% of the full charge voltage (Paragraph 0054), which is similar to the charging step of Majid prior to the pulse charging, where the battery cells undergo constant current charging to half capacity. Further, the modification of Lee by Masaya includes a series of steps in the charging process, where constant period is applied over a period, before the charge is increased to a higher value where it is held constant for a period of time (Figure 3g). The final step in the charging method of Masaya, qc(3), shown below, may be considered a period of the charging method, tc3, in which the battery is being charged with constant current, ic3.
PNG
media_image1.png
597
507
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 3 of Masaya
Therefore, 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 primary charging step (c) of Lee modified by Masaya to incorporate the teachings of Majid so that after the battery is charged by a constant current ic3 in the final step of the stepwise charging process taught by Masaya, a pulse charging and discharging step is repeated at a predetermined C-rate. Doing so would advantageously result in higher efficiency in transporting lithium ions and reduced cell capacity loss, as recognized by Majid.
Regarding claim 2, modified Lee teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first electrolyte further comprises a first non-aqueous organic solvent and a first lithium salt (Paragraphs 0061-0062).
Regarding claim 3, modified Lee teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the first non-aqueous organic solvent is at least one selected from the group consisting of a cyclic carbonate (propylene carbonate, ethylene carbonate, butylene carbonate), a linear carbonate (dimethyl carbonate), an ester (methyl formate, methyl acetate, triester phosphate, methyl pyrophosphate, ethyl propionate), an ether (ether, tetrahydrofuran, 1,2-dimethoxyethane, 2-methyltetrahydrofuran) (Paragraph 0062).
Regarding claim 4, modified Lee teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the first lithium salt is at least one selected from the group consisting of LiPF6, LiAsF6, LiCF3SO3, LiN(CF3SO2)2, LiBF4, LiSbF6, LiAlCl4, LiSO3CF3, and LiClO4 (Paragraph 0046).
Regarding claim 5, modified Lee teaches the method of claim 1.
As discussed above, the modification of Lee by Kim resulted in the addition of an additive for forming a SEI film to the electrolyte. Kim teaches the additive is vinylene carbonate (VC) or propane sulfone (non-cyclic sulfone) (Paragraph 44), meeting the instant claimed limitations,
Regarding claim 7, modified Lee teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the second electrolyte includes a second non-aqueous solvent and a second lithium salt. As discussed above, the modification of Lee by Kim results in the injection of a second electrolyte not comprising an SEI film-forming additive to the battery case. Kim teaches that the second non-aqueous solvent and second lithium salt of the second electrolyte are the same as or different from the first non-aqueous solvent and first lithium salt included in the first electrolyte (Paragraph 47). Therefore, in the modification of Lee by Kim detailed above to incorporate the second electrolyte in the method of forming a secondary battery, it would be further obvious the second electrolyte would also incorporate these teachings.
Regarding claim 8, modified Lee teaches the method of claim 1.
Modified Lee is silent as to a weight ratio of the first electrolyte and the second electrolyte is 20:80 to 40:60.
However, in the modification of Lee by Kim discussed above to incorporate an injection step of a second electrolyte into the battery case, Kim teaches that the second electrolyte may be included in the secondary battery in an amount capable of replacing the depleted first electrolyte, specifically from 3% to 50% based on the total weight of the first electrolyte (Paragraph 53). Kim further teaches that when the content of the second electrolyte solution is less than 3% based on the total weight of the first electrolyte solution, the reduction in resistance desired cannot occur. Kim further teaches that when the amount of the second electrolyte solution exceeds 50% based on the total weight of the first electrolyte solution, it is difficult to increase the volume of the secondary battery cell (Paragraph 66).
Therefore, 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 weight ratio of the first electrolyte : second electrolyte of Lee to incorporate the teachings of Kim in which the content of the second electrolyte is provided at 3% to 50% based on the total weight of the first electrolyte. Doing so would advantageously result in the desired effects of reduction in resistance as well as increase in electrolytic volume, as recognized by Kim.
The content range of 3% to 50% of second electrolyte based on the total weight of the first electrolyte solution corresponds to the following weight ratios of first electrolyte to second electrolyte: 3:100 and 50:100. The range of weight ratio of first electrolyte : second electrolyte of modified Lee substantially overlaps the claimed ranges of weight ratio of first electrolyte : second electrolyte in the instant claim. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by modified Lee because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Regarding claim 9, modified Lee teaches the method of claim 1.
Lee is silent as to a charging current in the stepwise charging process is selected in a low current range of 0.01 to 0.5 C
However, Masaya teaches a method of charging a secondary battery in which the charging current value, ic, is 0.02 to 0.5 C (Paragraph 0055), which is a current range which lies within the range of the instant claim. Further, Masaya teaches in example 3, the battery being charged to 25% electricity storage at a current value of 0.05 C, then the current is increased to 0.1 C to charge the battery to 45% electricity storage, and finally the battery is charged to full charge when the current value was increased to 0.5 C (Paragraph 0138). Thus, Masaya exemplifies a charging current range throughout the entire process of charging that is within the current range of the instant claim. Masaya further teaches that when the current density at the initial stage is low, the electrochemical reactions occur slowly and the structural changes of the active materials are also slow, resulting in reduced irreversible capacity and improved life cycle (Paragraph 0063).
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 stepwise charging process of modified Lee discussed above to incorporate further teaching of Masaya in which the charging process incorporates charging currents from the low current range of 0.02 to 0.5 C throughout the entirely of the stepwise charging process, meeting the instant claimed limitation. Doing so would advantageously result in reduced irreversible capacity and improved life cycle, as recognized by Masaya.
Regarding claim 10, modified Lee teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the primary charging is a stepwise charging process.
Lee is silent as to a charging current in a first step of the stepwise charging process is selected in a low current range of 0.01 to 0.05 C.
However, as discussed above, Masaya teachings a charging method for a secondary battery. Masaya teaches the current value at the start of charging is preferably 0.02C to 0.5 C (Paragraph 0062), which lies within the instant claimed range of current in the stepwise charging process. Masaya teaches that when the current density at the initial stage is low, the electrochemical reactions occur slowly and the structural changes of the active materials are also slow, resulting in reduced irreversible capacity and improved life cycle (Paragraph 0063).
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 stepwise charging process of modified Lee discussed above to incorporate further teaching of Masaya in which the first step of the stepwise charging process is selected in the low current range of 0.02 to 0.5 C, meeting the instant claimed limitation. Doing so would advantageously result in reduced irreversible capacity and improved life cycle, as recognized by Masaya.
Regarding claim 11, modified Lee teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the predetermined SOC is 70% or less. Lee teaches in step (c) (step (ii) of Lee) the battery is charged to a state of charge within a range of more than 0% to less than 70% (Paragraph 0018), meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 12, modified Lee teaches the method of claim 1.
Lee is silent as to a charging pause for stabilizing a SEI film is included at least once between specific steps of the stepwise charging process.
However, in the modification of Lee by Masaya discussed above, the teachings of Masaya indicated by the stepwise charging process disclosed by Masaya preferably included a pause during current increase. Masaya teaches that a pause time, tr, is provided before increasing in steps of the provided current (Paragraph 0060; Figure 3g), thus meeting the instant claimed limitation.
The charging pause for stabilizing a SEI film defines the pause by what it does, rather than what it is. This is a functional limitation, and therefore was evaluated in conjunction with the remainder of claim 12. See MPEP 2173.05(g). Lee teaches the claimed step of pausing at least once between the specific steps of the stepwise charging process and therefore would be capable of performing in the manner claimed.
Regarding claim 14, modified Lee teaches the method of claim 1.
Lee is silent as to a charging pause for stabilizing a SEI film is included at least once between specific steps of the stepwise charging process, between the stepwise charging process and the pulse charging and discharging, or after the pulse charging and discharging.
However, in the modification of Lee by Masaya discussed above in the rejection of claim 1, Masaya teaches a charging process for a secondary battery which preferably provides a pause operating during the stepwise charging current increase (Paragraphs 0025, 0048), thus meeting the instant claimed limitations that a charging pause is included at least once between specific steps of the stepwise charging process.
The charging pause for stabilizing a SEI film defines the pause by what it does, rather than what it is. This is a functional limitation, and therefore was evaluated in conjunction with the remainder of claim 12. See MPEP 2173.05(g). Lee teaches the claimed step of pausing at least once between the specific steps of the stepwise charging process and therefore would be capable of performing in the manner claimed.
Regarding claim 16, modified Lee teaches a lithium secondary battery produced by the method according to claim 1 (Paragraph 0052).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Kim, Masaya, and Majid as applied to claims 1-5, 7-12, 14, 16 above, and further in view of Miyazaki (Chinese Patent No. 1825674).
Regarding claim 6, modified Lee teaches the method of claim 1, including injecting a first electrolyte comprising an additive for forming an SEI.
Lee is silent as to the additive for forming a SEI film is included in an amount of 0.1 to 10 wt% with respect to a total weight of the first electrolyte.
However, Miyazaki discloses a positive electrode active material used in a non-aqueous secondary battery (Abstract). Miyazaki teaches the non-aqueous electrolyte of the battery further comprising 0.5-5 mass% of vinylene carbonate (VC) additive (Page 7, Paragraph 4), one of the SEI-forming additives in the first injected electrolyte of the instant disclosure (Page 14, Line 1). Miyazaki further teaches the amount of VC present in the electrolyte is 0.5-5 mass%, preferably 1-3 mass%. Miyazaki teaches that when the VC in the electrolyte is less than 0.5 mass %, the effect of improving cycle characteristics is small, in addition. Miyazaki teaches that when the amount of VC present in the electrolyte exceeds 3 mass %, it will lead to reduction of high temperature and initial capacity as well as swelling of the battery.
Therefore, 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 quantity of additive in the first electrolyte in the method of producing a lithium secondary battery of Lee to incorporate the teachings of Miyazaki in which the additive for forming an SEI film is included in an amount between 1-3 mass% with respect to the total mass of the battery electrolyte. Doing so would advantageously result in improved cycle characteristics, initial capacity, and reduced swelling of the battery, as recognized by Miyazaki. According to the teachings of Miyazaki, an ordinary artisan would have been motivated to optimize quantity of SEI-forming additive since it has been held that where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
In the present invention one would have been motivated to optimize the quantity of additive for forming SEI film in the first electrolyte injection step to be from 1-3 mass% according to Miyazaki in order to improve cycle characteristics and reduce battery swelling, as recognized by Miyazaki.
Further, the range of vinylene carbonate additive in the electrolyte of Miyazaki substantially overlaps the claimed ranges of additive for forming an SEI film in the electrolyte in the instant claim. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Miyazaki because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Claims 15, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Kim, Masaya, and Majid as applied to claims 1-5, 7-12, 14, 16 above, and further in view of Jin (Korean Patent Publication No. 20040110331 A).
Regarding claim 15, modified Lee teaches the method of claim 1.
Lee teaches it is preferable that the aging process is performed at least once during the manufacturing of the battery cell (Paragraph 0030).
Lee is silent as to the method further comprising, after the step (e), aging the battery cell by maintaining the battery cell at room temperature and/or a high temperature for a predetermined time.
However, Jin discloses a post-processing method of a lithium secondary battery (Paragraph 0002). Jin teaches inputting a positive electrode, negative electrode, and separator in a battery case (Paragraph 0018), injecting an electrolyte solution (Paragraph 0019), aging the battery (stand at high temperature) (Paragraph 0020), pre-charging the battery (Paragraph 0021), degassing the battery (Paragraph 0022), and an additional electrolyte injection (Paragraph 0023).
Following the second electrolyte injection, Jin teaches the battery is subjected to high temperature aging, where it is left at 45ºC to 60ºC for 1-2 days (Paragraph 0025). Jin teaches this step in order to stabilize the SEI film and establish uniform thickness, resulting in reduced reduction of capacity and improved cell performance over its lifetime (Paragraph 0025).
Therefore, 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 Lee to incorporate the teachings of Jin in which after step (e) (injecting the second electrolyte into the degassed battery cell), the battery cell is aged at high temperature for a 1-2 days (predetermined time). Doing so would advantageously result in stability and uniformity of the SEI film leading to improved battery cell performance, as recognized by Jin.
Regarding claim 17, modified Lee teaches the method of claim 1.
Modified Lee is silent as to the method further comprising after the step (e), aging the battery cell by maintain the battery cell at a temperature of 45ºC to 60ºC for a half-day to 2 days
However, as discussed above in the rejection of claim 15, Jin teaches that following the second electrolyte injection, the battery is subjected to high temperature aging where it is left at 45ºC to 60ºC for 1-2 days (Paragraph 0025). Jin teaches this step in order to stabilize the SEI film and establish uniform thickness, resulting in reduced reduction of capacity and improved cell performance over its lifetime (Paragraph 0025).
Therefore, the result of the modification of Lee by Jin discussed above with respect to claim 15 meets the instant claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 18, modified Lee teaches the method of claim 1.
Modified Lee is silent as to the method further comprising after the step (e), aging the battery cell by maintain the battery cell at a temperature of 45ºC to 60ºC for 1 to 2 days
However, as discussed above in the rejection of claim 15, Jin teaches that following the second electrolyte injection, the battery is subjected to high temperature aging where it is left at 45ºC to 60ºC for 1-2 days (Paragraph 0025). Jin teaches this step in order to stabilize the SEI film and establish uniform thickness, resulting in reduced reduction of capacity and improved cell performance over its lifetime (Paragraph 0025).
Therefore, the result of the modification of Lee by Jin discussed above with respect to claim 15 meets the instant claimed limitations
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues in the remarks submitted February 5th, 2026 that the prior art does not disclose each and every claim feature, nor does it teach or suggest the claimed invention.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner submits a proper obviousness rejection was set forth in the Office action mailed November 6th, 2025 as the prior art renders obviousness and teaches each required component of the instant claims. Each specific component of claimed method is discussed and addressed in the rejection of claim 1 and the incorporated limitations of claim 14 into the amendments to claim 1 presented in the amendments filed February 5th, 2026.
Applicant argues in the remarks submitted February 5th, 2026 that it would not have been obvious to combine the cited prior art in a manner as suggested in the Office Action, because the cited references have differences in the technical fields. Applicant argues that the cited Kim reference relates to a remedial maintenance technology designed to extend the life of batteries while the claimed invention is a process design technology designed to suppress gases generated during the initial activation stage of the manufacturing process of a new battery.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments that Kim in nonanalogous art, the Examiner presents that it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
In this case, Kim is in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, specifically relating to lithium secondary batteries having reduced resistance (Instant Specification Page 5, Lines 12-14; Kim Paragraph 19). Further, Kim and the instant claimed invention both disclose a battery cell where an electrode assembly including a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and a first electrolyte with an SEI-forming additive is accommodated in the battery case (Kim Paragraphs 41, 75).
Further, the instant disclosure provides the positive electrode mixture layer including a conductive material and a binder polymer in additive to the positive electrode active material, which may be a lithium-containing transition metal oxide (Page 7, Lines 10-20). Kim discloses the positive electrode prepared from a mixture of positive electrode active material, conductive material, and a binder (Paragraph 76), wherein the positive electrode active material may be a lithium-containing transition metal oxide, including some lithium manganese oxides (Paragraph 78) which overlap with the positive electrode active materials of the instant specification.
Kim and the instant specification both disclose the positive electrode current collector may be copper, stainless steel, aluminum, nickel, titanium, calcined carbon, or stainless steel whose surface has been treated with carbon, nickel, titanium, or silver (Kim Paragraph 77; Instant disclosure, Page 8 Lines 5-15).
Kim and the instant specification both disclose the binder for the positive electrode active material layer may be polyvinylidene fluoride, polyvinyl alcohol, carboxymethylcellulose (CMC), starch, hydroxypropylcellulose, regenerated cellulose, polyvinylpyrrolidone, tetrafluoroethylene, polyethylene , Polypropylene, ethylene-propylene-diene terpolymer (EPDM), sulfonated EPDM, styrene butylene rubber, fluorine rubber (Kim Paragraph 80; Instant disclosure, Page 9 Lines 1-5).
Kim and the instant specification both disclose the conductive material for the positive electrode active material layer may be natural graphite and artificial graphite; Carbon black such as carbon black, acetylene black, Ketjen black, channel black, furnace black, and lamp black; Conductive fibers such as carbon fiber and metal fiber; Metal powders such as carbon fluoride, aluminum and nickel powder; Conductive whiskey such as zinc oxide and potassium titanate; Conductive metal oxides such as titanium oxide; Conductive materials such as polyphenylene derivatives (Kim Paragraph 79; Instant disclosure, Page 9 Lines 10-15).
Further, the instant disclosure and Kim both provide the negative electrode mixture layer including a conductive material and a binder polymer in additive to the negative electrode active material, and the list of suitable materials for the aforementioned components as taught by Kim and the instant disclosure overlap (Instant disclosure Pages 9-11; Kim Paragraphs 82-85).
Additionally, the instant disclosure and Kim share similar compositions for two distinct electrolyte solutions which are included in the battery case (Kim Paragraph 41; Instant disclosure Page 12, Lines 15-20). Kim and the instant disclosure share the following common materials in the first electrolyte solution suitable for use in organic solvents, lithium salts, and additive for forming an SEI film:
propylene carbonate, ethylene carbonate, butylene carbonate, dimethyl carbonate, diethyl carbonate (Kim Paragraph 43)
LiPF6, LiCF3SO3, LiBF4, LiSbF6, LiClO4 (Kim Paragraph 42)
vinylene carbonate, propane sultone (Kim Paragraph 44)
Thus, as outlined above, the overlapping subject matter of Kim and the instant disclosure, particularly as it related to the shared materials that comprise the various components of the battery case in order to obtain a battery with reduced resistance, establish the prior art as in the same field of endeavor as the instant invention.
Applicant argues in the remarks submitted February 5th, 2026 that there are differences in purpose between the claimed invention and the cited references. Applicant argues that the cited Kim reference is intended to extend the life of ages batteries while the claimed invention deals with a fresh cell state. Applicant further argues that the cited Kim reference is intended to replenish electrolyte when depleted and does not teach that degassing is performed after a first injection using a specific charging profile followed by a second injection.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents as that noted above, a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). The response to arguments above detailed how Kim is in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, thus the above arguments directed toward the difference in the particular problems facing the instant disclosure and the instant disclosure are moot, as Kim was established as analogous art.
Applicant argues in the remarks submitted February 5th, 2026 that the combining of the Lee and Kim references is considered hindsight analysis, as the Lee and Kim references have different purposes and charging/discharging times.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In this case, the ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Lee to incorporate the teachings of Kim with respect to an SEI film-forming additive as described above in order to achieve the benefit of improved ion conductivity of the electrolyte, as recognized by Kim (Paragraph 44). Kim clearly provides a teaching with proper motivation to make such a modification, which establishes obviousness required for the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection set forth above. The ordinary artisan would expect to see this benefit taught by Kim as a result of the modification and there are further no teachings in Kim or Lee that suggests that they cannot be combined or would result in Lee being unsuitable for the intended purpose, nor has applicant provided any evidence to the contrary.
Additionally, with respect to the argument pertaining to improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant argues in the remarks submitted February 5th, 2026 that the pulse charging of Majid introduces pulse charging to increase the fasting charging efficiency of the battery and shorten the charging time, while the pulse charge/discharge of the claimed invention is combined with step charging to form a denser and more uniform initial SEI film. Applicant points out that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to incorporate Majid’s high-speed charging technology into the initial activation process of a novel battery.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Lee to incorporate the teachings of Majid with respect to pulse charging and discharging as described above in order to achieve the benefit of higher efficiency in transporting lithium ions and reduced cell capacity loss, as recognized by Majid (Page 6, Paragraphs 1-2). Majid clearly provides a teaching with proper motivation to make such a modification, which establishes obviousness required for the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection set forth above. The ordinary artisan would expect to see this benefit taught by Majid as a result of the modification and there are further no teachings in Majid or Lee that suggests that these prior art references cannot be combined or would result in Lee being unsuitable for the intended purpose, nor has applicant provided any evidence to the contrary.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 OLIVIA A JONES whose telephone number is (571)272-1718. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30 AM - 4:30 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, Marla McConnell can be reached at (571) 270-7692. 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.
/O.A.J./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789