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 .
Response to Arguments
The following is in response to the applicant’s remarks filed 04/13/26.
The applicant submits that the amendments overcome the previous rejection.
The examiner agrees, and the previous rejection is withdrawn. A new basis for rejection appears below.
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 and 5 – 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 by Watanabe, JP6119137B2 (cited in IDS filed 03/27/23), and Lee II, KR100357953B1 (in IDS filed 8/27/26).
Regarding claim 1, Watanabe teaches a battery cell (20) manufacturing method for a battery cell [pg. 5 para. 3] having a battery can (case (30))[fig. 3] accommodating an electrode assembly (power generation elements (26))[fig. 5] and an electrolyte [pg. 15 para. 2] therein, the battery can (30) having an opening at a first side (side (25a))[fig. 1],
the method comprising:
disposing the battery can (30) within an exhaust chamber (11)[fig. 5],
adjusting the exhaust chamber to an inert atmosphere (inert gas in the container)[pg. 16 para. 2];
performing a pre-charge on the electrode assembly (initial charging)[pg. 5 para. 3]; and
discharging exhaust gas generated due to the pre-charge through the exhaust chamber (exhaust gas formed during initial charging)[pg. 6 para. 6].
Watanabe does not teach coupling an exhaust chamber to the opening so as to seal the opening.
Lee II teaches a battery cell (16) manufacturing method for a battery cell [fig. 1][pg. 3 para. 3] wherein the method comprises coupling an exhaust chamber to the opening so as to seal the opening (gas chamber (21) comprising gas chamber cover (22) which seals the battery accommodating portion (23))[fig. 2][pg. 4 para. 3] wherein the exhaust chamber (21) is configured to discharge gas [pg. 4 para. 5]. Further, Lee teaches that the exhaust chamber coupled to the opening improves gas discharge efficiency and battery lifespan [pg. 4 para. 6]. Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the coupled gas chamber of Lee into the method of Watanabe to improve battery lifespan and gas discharge efficiency.
Regarding claim 5, combined Watanabe teaches the battery cell manufacturing method of claim 1.
Further, Watanabe teaches adjusting the exhaust chamber includes injecting inert gas to the exhaust chamber (inert gas in the container)[pg. 16 para. 2].
Regarding claim 6, combined Watanabe teaches the battery cell manufacturing method of claim 5.
Further, Watanabe teaches wherein the inert gas is nitrogen gas (inert gas in the container is nitrogen)[pg. 16 para. 2];
Regarding claim 7, combined Watanabe teaches the battery cell manufacturing method of claim 1.
Further, Watanabe teaches wherein the exhaust chamber includes an inlet part configured to inject inert gas and an exhaust part configured to discharge the exhaust gas (ducts (12a)(12b)(12c) for injecting and discharging gas)[fig. 3]
Claims 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe, JP6119137B2 and Lee II, KR100357953B1 as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 4, combined Watanabe teaches the battery cell manufacturing method of claim 1.
Further, Watanabe teaches wherein, in adjusting the exhaust chamber, an oxygen concentration within the exhaust chamber is adjusted (inert gas in the container)[pg. 16 para. 2].
Watanabe does not explicitly teach an oxygen concentration within the exhaust chamber is adjusted to 4 vol % or less.
One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the use of an inert gas/atmosphere during manufacturing as taught by Wantanabe above removes/reduces (approaching 0%) non-inert gas such as oxygen resulting in an overlapping range with the instant claimed invention. Then, arriving at the claimed range is considered to be within the skill of an ordinary artisan as a matter of routine optimization wherein inert gas ensures a manufacturing environment with minimal potential for oxidation.
Regarding claim 8, combined Watanabe teaches the battery cell manufacturing method of claim 7.
Further, Watanabe teaches wherein, in adjusting the exhaust chamber, inert gas is injected through the inlet part (inert gas in the container)[pg. 16 para. 2];
Watanabe does not explicitly teach an oxygen concentration within the exhaust chamber is adjusted to 4 vol % or less.
However, Watanabe teaches that an inert atmosphere is create during battery manufacturing wherein it is known in the art that the presence of non-inert gases such as oxygen during manufacturing can cause unintended reactions to occur. Then, arriving at the claimed range is considered to be within the skill of an ordinary artisan as a matter of routine optimization.
Claims 2, 3, 14, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe, JP6119137B2 and Lee II, KR100357953B1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee, KR20200020173A (cited in IDS filed 03/27/23).
Regarding claim 2, combined Watanabe teaches the battery cell manufacturing method of claim 1, wherein the electrode assembly includes a first electrode, a separation membrane, and a second electrode (cathode, anode, separator)[pg. 5 para. 2][pg. 8 para. 6], which are stacked and wound (stacked assembly (26))[fig. 5], wherein the battery cell further includes an electrode terminal electrically connected with the second electrode (electrodes connected to tabs (27a)(27b))[fig. 1]
Watanabe does not teach wherein the first electrode and the battery can are electrically connected.
Lee teaches a battery cell [pg. 5 para. 1 – 3] wherein the first electrode and the battery can are electrically connected (second electrode (112) is electrically connected to the can (120) through lead (160))[fig. 3]. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate electrically coupling an electrode to the can reduces the number of terminal components needed thereby simplifying the construction. Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the electrode connection of Lee into the battery of Watanabe to simplifying construction.
Regarding claim 3, combined Watanabe teaches the battery cell manufacturing method of claim 2.
Further, Watanabe teaches wherein the first electrode is a negative electrode and the second electrode is a positive electrode (anode, cathode)[pg. 5 para. 2].
Regarding claim 14, combined Watanabe teaches the battery cell manufacturing method of claim 2.
Further, Watanabe teaches wherein the method includes disposing of the battery can within the exhaust chamber (disposing the battery can (30) within an exhaust chamber (11))[fig. 5], wherein at least one of the first electrode or the second electrode includes a current collector and an electrode active material layer provided on the current collector [pg. 8 para. 5].
Further, Lee teaches a battery cell [pg. 5 para. 1 – 3] wherein the first electrode is electrically connected with a bottom of the battery can (second electrode (112) is electrically connected to the can (120) through lead (160))[fig. 3] the current collector includes an uncoated portion (inherent feature of collectors connected to terminals) that does not include the electrode active material layer, wherein the battery cell further includes a current collector plate (180) electrically connected with the uncoated portion of the second electrode (first electrode (111) collector)[fig. 3].
Regarding claim 15, combined Watanabe teaches the battery cell manufacturing method of claim 14.
Further, Lee teaches wherein the current collector plate (180) electrically connected with the uncoated portion of the second electrode further includes a lead tab (150) electrically connected with the electrode terminal (130)[fig. 3].
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe, JP6119137B2 and Lee II, KR100357953B1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Arai, JP2015088324A (cited in IDS filed 04/23/24).
Regarding claim 9, combined Watanabe teaches the battery cell manufacturing method of claim 1.
Watanabe does not teach further comprising injecting inert gas into the exhaust chamber before coupling the battery can to the exhaust chamber.
Arai teaches a battery cell manufacturing method [pg. 3 para. 1] wherein the method includes coupling the exhaust chamber (vent portion (4)) to the opening (vent hole (5))[fig. 5] further comprising injecting inert gas into the exhaust chamber before disposing the battery can within the exhaust chamber or coupling the exhaust chamber to the opening (chamber is filled with inert gas before charging)[0024][0025]. Both Arai and Watanabe teach creating an inert atmosphere for battery manufacturing. Without explicit criticality, the claimed feature is considered to be within the skill of an ordinary artisan as an obvious change of sequence [MPEP 2144.04 IV C].
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe, JP6119137B2 and Lee II, KR100357953B1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee, KR20200020173A.
Regarding claim 10, combined Watanabe teaches the battery cell manufacturing method of claim 1.
Watanabe does not each wherein the battery can further include an electrode terminal riveted through a through-hole in a bottom of the battery can and a gasket provided between the electrode terminal and an outer diameter of the through-hole.
Lee teaches a battery cell [pg. 5 para. 1 – 3] wherein the first electrode and the battery can are electrically connected (second electrode (112) is electrically connected to the can (120) through lead (160))[fig. 3], and wherein the battery can further include an electrode terminal riveted through a through-hole in a bottom of the battery can (rivet terminal (130)) and a gasket (gasket (140)) provided between the electrode terminal and an outer diameter of the through-hole (terminal hole (124))[fig. 3]. Further, insulating a first rivet terminal from the can and then electrically coupling a second electrode to the can reduces the number of terminal components needed thereby simplifying the construction. Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the electrode connection of Lee into the battery of Watanabe to simplifying construction.
Regarding claim 11, combined Watanabe teaches the battery cell manufacturing method of claim 10.
Further, Lee teaches wherein the electrode terminal includes (rivet terminal (130)): a body portion (131) inserted into the through-hole (124); an outer flange portion (133) extended along an outer surface of the bottom of the battery can (120) from a circumference of a first side of the body portion exposed through the outer surface of the bottom of the battery can (exposed outside the can (120))[fig. 3];
an inner flange portion (132) extended toward an inner surface of the bottom of the battery can from a circumference of a second side of the body portion exposed through the inner surface of the bottom of the battery can (exposed inside of can (120))[fig. 3]; and a flat portion provided inside the inner flange portion (inner flange (132) is flat)[fig. 3].
Claims 12, 13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe, JP6119137B2, Lee II, KR100357953B1, and Lee, KR20200020173A, as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Tsukui, US20160087304A1.
Regarding claim 12, combined Watanabe teaches the battery cell manufacturing method of claim 10.
Further, Lee teaches wherein the battery cell includes a negative electrode terminal provided by the bottom of the battery can (negative electrode (112) connected to can (120)), wherein the riveted electrode terminal is a positive electrode terminal (positive electrode (111) connected to rivet terminal)[fig. 3], and
Combined Watanabe does not teach wherein performing the pre-charge includes connecting a first charging terminal to the negative electrode terminal and connecting a second charging terminal to the positive electrode terminal.
Tsukui teaches a battery cell manufacturing method [0001] wherein performing the pre-charge includes connecting a first charging terminal to the negative electrode terminal and connecting a second charging terminal to the positive electrode terminal (external terminals (50) are connected to power source device terminals to perform initial charging)[0060]. Further, charging terminals for a charging device for charging a battery cell are necessarily present when performing charging of a battery cell. Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the charging terminals of Tsukui into the initial charging step of Watanabe as a necessary feature required for charging.
Regarding claim 13, combined Watanabe teaches the battery cell manufacturing method of claim 12.
Further, Tsukui teaches wherein the negative electrode terminal and the positive electrode terminal are provided at a bottom surface of the battery can (terminals (50) formed on the same side)[fig. 1].
Regarding claim 18, combined Watanabe teaches the battery cell manufacturing method of claim 12.
Further, Tsukui teaches wherein the second charging terminal includes a (+) charging pin and the first charging terminal includes a (−) charging pin (inherently has a + and – to perform charging)
Claim 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe, JP6119137B2, Lee II, KR100357953B1, and Lee, KR20200020173A as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Tsukui, US20160087304A1.
Regarding claim 16, combined Watanabe teaches the battery cell manufacturing method of claim 14.
Further, Lee teaches wherein the battery cell includes a negative electrode terminal electrically connected with the first electrode at a first end of the battery cell (negative electrode (112) connected to can (120))[fig. 3] and wherein the electrode terminal connected to the second electrode is a positive electrode terminal at a second end of the battery cell opposite the first end of the battery cell (positive electrode (111) connected to rivet terminal)[fig. 3].
Combined Watanabe does not teach wherein performing the pre-charge includes connecting a first charging terminal to the negative electrode terminal and connecting a second charging terminal to the positive electrode terminal.
Tsukui teaches a battery cell manufacturing method [0001] wherein performing the pre-charge includes connecting a first charging terminal to the negative electrode terminal and connecting a second charging terminal to the positive electrode terminal (external terminals (50) are connected to power source device terminals to perform initial charging)[0060]. Further, charging terminals for a charging device for charging a battery cell are inherently present when performing charging of a battery cell. Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the charging terminals of Tsukui into the initial charging step of Watanabe as a necessary feature required for charging.
Regarding claim 17, combined Watanabe teaches the battery cell manufacturing method of claim 16.
Further, Lee teaches wherein the negative electrode terminal is located at the bottom of the battery can (negative electrode (112) connected to can (120))[fig. 3], and the positive electrode terminal is located at a top of the electrode assembly facing the bottom of the battery can (positive electrode (111) connected to rivet terminal)[fig. 3].
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 PATRICK M GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-1340. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at (571)270-5256. 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.
/PATRICK MARSHALL GREENE/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/STEWART A FRASER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724
