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 with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 11/04/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the groups do not lack the same special technical feature. This is not found persuasive because what Applicant argues is a special technical feature, or that the process is specially adapted for manufacture of the product, does not make a contribution over the prior art. A “special technical feature,” is considered with respect to novelty and inventive step, and as currently recited the feature does not provide a contribution or novelty in light of the prior art.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (US 20160254572) in view of Hyo-Jin (KR 20170101582 A)
Regarding claim 1, Yu teaches a method for manufacturing a secondary battery, the method comprising: accommodating an electrode assembly, in which electrodes and separators are alternately stacked, in a can type battery case (P68-69; Fig. 1-2); primarily injecting an electrolyte through an injection hole (P71-73.141);
performing a formation process in a state in which the injection hole is opened, or first charging step (P71-73.99.101.143); secondarily injecting the electrolyte through the injection hole after performing the formation process, and closing the injection hole (P114-117.148).
Yu is silent in teaching applying a pressure while performing the formation process; however, Hyo-jin, in a similar field of endeavor, also teaches a method of forming a secondary battery (P18. 64).
Hyo-Jin teaches applying pressure while performing a formation process based on gas generation, swelling, and other parameters, in order to further efficiently remove gas generated during charging step to improve capacity and output (P13.18).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to applying pressure to the battery case of Yu while performing a formation process to efficiently remove gas and improve capacity and output, as taught by Hyo-Jin.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a method of enhancing a particular class of devices (methods, or products) has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a "base" device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143 C
Furthermore, with respect to the above combination of overall element, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, modified Yu teaches the electrode assembly is a stack type electrode assembly in which at least portions of the electrodes and the separators are laminated (P66.68).
Regarding claim 3, modified Yu in view of Hyo-Jin teaches the applying of the pressure while performing the formation process comprises: applying a primary pressure as a first pressure while performing a primary formation process; and applying a secondary pressure as a second pressure that is greater than the first pressure while performing a secondary formation process (P18.29.31-35.89-91; Fig. 5 (ex.2)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including non-preferred embodiments. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or non-preferred embodiments. MPEP 2123
Regarding claim 4, modified Yu in view of Hyo-Jin teaches the pressure should be varied in a range between 0.5 kgf/cm2 to 12 kgf/cm2 wherein the first pressure is a low pressure (P33-35) and includes an example where a first pressure is 0 kgf/cm2 to 2 kgf/cm2 (P91), overlapping the claimed range 0.5 kgf/cm2 to 1 kgf/cm2, and wherein the second pressure is 5 kgf/cm2 (P91), falling within the claimed range of 4.5 kgf/cm2 to 10 kgf/cm2.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05- I A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including non-preferred embodiments. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or non-preferred embodiments. MPEP 2123
Regarding claim 5, modified Yu in view of Hyo-Jin teaches in the performing of the primary formation process, a charging rate is 16% or less (P91), falling within the claimed range of 23% or less. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05- I A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including non-preferred embodiments. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or non-preferred embodiments. MPEP 2123
Regarding claim 6, modified Yu in view of Hyo-Jin teaches in the performing of the secondary formation process, a charging rate is 60% (P91), falling within the claimed range of 70% or less. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05- I A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including non-preferred embodiments. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or non-preferred embodiments. MPEP 2123
Regarding claim 7, modified Yu in view of Hyo-Jin teaches in the applying of the pressure while performing the formation process, the battery case may be heated to further account for the generation of gas (P36-38).
Regarding claim 8, modified Yu in view of Hyo-Jin teaches the battery case may be heated at a temperature ranging from 45oC to 60oC (P37), overlapping the claimed range of 55oC to 60oC. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05- I
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Yu in view of Hyo-Jin as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Mitsuhashi et al. (US 20140322579).
Regarding claim 9, modified Yu is silent in teaching performing aging after the primarily injecting of the electrolyte and before the applying of the pressure while performing the formation process; however, Mitsuhashi, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a method of manufacturing a battery (P44-45.66).
Mitsuhashi teaches performing aging after the primarily injecting of the electrolyte and before the formation process to allow the injected electrolyte to impregnate the electrode assembly (P20.80).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to perform aging after the primarily injecting of the electrolyte in modified Yu and before the applying of the pressure while performing the formation process to allow the injected electrolyte to impregnate the assembly, as taught by Mitsuhashi.
Regarding claim 10, modified Yu in view of Mitsuhashi teaches the performing of the aging, a temperature for the aging is 25°C (P103), falling within the range of 20°C to 30°C.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Yu in view of Hyo-Jin as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Tsukui et al. (US 20160254523).
Regarding claim 11, modified Yu teaches during the second injection the hole is still open, and is closed after the second injection and when the hole is open it allows gas to be discharged to prevent adverse performance (P101.113-114.148). Modified Yu in view of Hyo-Jin teaches the importance of removing gas and including a gas discharge process after activation processes for improved battery characteristics (P42-47)
Modified Yu is silent in teaching in the secondarily injecting of the electrolyte, a gas remaining in the battery case is discharged to the outside; however, Tsukui related to a method of manufacturing a battery, teaches discharging a gas remaining in the battery case when injecting a battery with electrolyte to increase impregnation of the electrolyte into the battery, to remove internal pressure inside the cell, and increase production efficiency (P247.258.270.299; Fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to discharge a gas remaining in the battery case during the second injection step of modified Yu to improve impregnation and remove the gas generated.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amanda Rosenbaum whose telephone number is (571)272-8218. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am-5 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, Nicholas A. Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/Amanda Rosenbaum/Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/OSEI K AMPONSAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752