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 .
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.
(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 1-2 and 6-7 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Fulop (US 20120263986 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Fulop discloses a lithium secondary battery (title, [Lithium rechargeable cell]) comprising an electrode assembly including a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and a separator positioned between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (para. 0055 and para. 0122), wherein the negative electrode includes a negative electrode current collector and a negative electrode mixture layer, the negative electrode mixture layer being formed between the negative electrode current collector and the separator (para. 0021 [the second working electrode comprising a second electroactive layer on a second current collector]), and wherein a detection probe containing a metal oxide (para. 0119-0122, reference electrode is made from lithium titanate oxide) has a potential plateau of 1.3 V to 1.8 V (para. 0132, [an LTO reference electrode has a 1.56V positive of lithium]) is provided on a side surface of the negative electrode mixture layer (para. 0122, Example 2 - Sample B, [is then placed adjacent to the edge of the bottom anode layer]) and wherein the detection probe contains a metal oxide charged to a state of charge (SoC) of 40% to 60% (para. 0117, 50% state of charge).
Regarding claim 2, Fulop discloses the lithium secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the detection probe has a wire structure including a core wire (para. 0117, [copper wire 536]) that includes a conductive metal (para. 0117, [lithium metal 534 was then rolled onto the exposed end of the copper wire]) and a metal oxide layer (para. 0119-0122, Lithium titanate oxide is used for the reference electrode and follows the structure of Example 1) that surrounds the core wire.
Regarding claim 6, Fulop discloses the lithium secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the metal oxide includes an oxide containing one or more metals selected from the group consisting of titanium (para. 0119-0122, Lithium titanate oxide is used for the reference electrode)
Regarding claim 7, The lithium secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the metal oxide includes a lithium titanate compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 below: [Chemical Formula 1] LiaTibMcOd wherein, M is Sn, Cr, Y, Nb, Mg, Zn, Ni, V, Na, K, Ca, Co, Ta, Mo, Zr, Al, Cu, Mn, or Bi, a is an integer satisfying 0.4<a<5, b is an integer satisfying 0.5<b<5.5,c is an integer satisfying 0<c<0.9, and d is an integer satisfying 1.5<d<12.5 (para. 0119, the reference electrode used is Li4Ti5O12).
Regarding claim 12, Fulop discloses the lithium secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the positive electrode mixture layer of the positive electrode and the negative electrode mixture layer of the negative electrode has a misalignment (Fig. 1 shows that the negative electrode layer [122] and the positive electrode layer [124] are misaligned. Item 122 extends beyond item 124]), and wherein the detection probe is located at the side surface of the negative electrode mixture layer at the misalignment (item 134 is located at the side surface of item 122 – negative electrode layer).
Regarding claim 13, Fulop discloses the lithium secondary battery of claim 12, wherein the detection probe overlaps the positive electrode mixture layer at the misalignment (Fig. 1 shows the overlap between the probe – item 122 and the positive layer – item 124).
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.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fulop (US 20120263986 A1) and further in view of Henrici (US 20150064525 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Fulop teaches the lithium secondary battery of claim 1. Fulop does not teach wherein the detection probe has an average diameter of 10 to 200 microns.
Henrici, in the same field of endeavor, reference electrodes for a battery cell, teaches wherein the detection probe has an average diameter of 10 to 200 microns (para. 031, [less than 50 micrometers]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have constructed Fulop’s reference electrode to have a diameter of less than 50 microns, as taught by Henrici, in order to be dimensioned so that a current density distribution is not significantly modified during operation of the battery cell, as taught by Henrici (para. 0031).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fulop (US 20120263986 A1) in view of Henrici (US 20150064525 A1) and Horie (US 20230223550 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Fulop teaches the lithium secondary battery of claim 1.
Fulop does not teach wherein an average diameter of the detection probe is smaller than an average thickness of the negative electrode mixture layer.
Henrici, in the same field of endeavor, reference electrodes for a battery cell, teaches wherein the detection probe has an average diameter of 10 to 200 microns (para. 031, [less than 50 micrometers]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have constructed Fulop’s reference electrode to have a diameter of less than 50 microns, as taught by Henrici, in order to be dimensioned so that a current density distribution is not significantly modified during operation of the battery cell, as taught by Henrici (para. 0031).
Horie, in the same field of endeavor, electrochemical cells, teaches a unit cell and an electronic component for detecting the state inside of the cell unit (abstract). Horie also teaches the average thickness of the negative electrode mixture layer is preferably 150 to 600 microns (para. 0058).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have constructed Fulop’s negative electrode to be 150 to 600 microns thick, as taught by Horie, in order to account for battery performance, as taught by Horie (para. 0058).
Modified Fulop teaches wherein an average diameter of the detection probe (Henrici, para. 031, [less than 50 micrometers]) is smaller than an average thickness of the negative electrode mixture layer (Horie, [150-600 microns]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fulop (US 20120263986 A1) and further in view of Wijayawardhana (US 20130323542 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Fulop teaches the lithium secondary battery of claim 1.
Fulop does not teach wherein the detection probe is disposed to be spaced 0.1 to 2,000 microns from the side surface of the negative electrode mixture layer.
Wijayawardhana teaches wherein the detection probe is disposed to be spaced 0.1 to 2,000 microns from the side surface of the negative electrode mixture layer (para. 0073, distance between the reference electrode and the adjacent electrode should at least be [0.3 mm, preferably at least 0.7 mm, more preferably at least or larger than 1 mm, even more preferably at least 1.5 mm]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have spaced Fulop’s reference electrode at least 0.3 to 1.5 mm from the adjacent electrode, as taught by Wijayawardhana, in order to maintain a proper distance to detect changes in lithium concentration, as taught by Wijayawardhana (para. 0073, [during normal battery usage it is unlikely that the lithium concentration changes in the separator region beyond 1 mm from the perimeter of the anode and cathode]).
Other Pertinent Art
US 20140375325 A1
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/25/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding the argument that Fulop is deficient in teaching the state of charge limitation of the Li reference electrode:
Fulop teaches that “a stable constant potential can be used as the reference electrode … and lithium titanium oxide is an exemplary reference electrode material … and can provide a constant 1.55V potential” in para. 0069.
Since Fulop teaches a lithium titanium oxide detection probe similar to the instant specification and also teaches a detection probe of a specific potential plateau, similar to the instant specification, then it would be reasonable for the detection probe to be charged at a state of charge above 0% and under 100%, which includes the SOC range of 40% to 60%.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VERITA E GRANNUM whose telephone number is (571)270-1150. The examiner can normally be reached 10-5 EST / 7-2 PST.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303) 297-4684. 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.
/V.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1721 /ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights