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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With regards to claim 1, the claim recites an initial charging of “a manufactured secondary battery” in line 2, “a degassing stage” in line 4 and “a high-temperature aging process” in line 5. The claim then recites in step (a) “a high-temperature aging process”. It is unclear whether the high-temperature aging process of (a) is the same or different than the previously established high-temperature aging process of line 5. For the purposes of examination they will be interpreted as first and second high-temperature aging processes.
Claims 2-12 depend upon claim 1 and are therefore also rejected.
With regards to claim 2, the claim further defines “the high-temperature aging process of the degassing stage” rendering the claim indefinite. It is not clear whether claim 2 is limiting the degassing and high-temperature aging of lines 4 and 5 in claim 1 or the degassing and high-temperature aging of step (a) in claim 1. For the purposes of examination it will be interpreted as limiting the degassing and high-temperature aging of lines 4 and 5.
Further claim 2, along with claims 7-12, refers to “the secondary battery” rendering the claim indefinite as it is not clear whether it is referencing “a manufactured secondary battery at a selected SOC” of line 2 in claim 1 or “one or more types of secondary batteries with different initial charge SOC’s” in step (a) of claim 1. For the purposes of examination it will be interpreted as limiting the manufactured secondary battery at a selected state of charge in line 2 of claim 1.
With regards to claims 5-7, the claim refers to “the degassing stage” rendering the claim indefinite as it is not clear whether this refers to the degassing stage of line 4 or step (a). For the purposes of examination it will be interpreted to limit the degassing stage of line 4.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, and 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al. (Pub No 2018/0164384 A1) in view of Miura et al. (Pub No 2019/0363409 A1).
With regards to claim 1, Kwon teaches a method of activating a secondary battery by injecting an electrolyte into the battery and allowing it to disburse and impregnate the assembly (¶ 0033, primary aging step). After the primary aging step the battery is given an initial charge (¶ 0034) which forms the SEI layer in the secondary battery. Kwon teaches explicitly that the initial charge is to a “predetermined SOC” but does not go into detail about the method of determination. After the initial charge to a predetermined SOC the battery is aged again at a temperature of 60 degrees Celsius (¶ 0035) and degassed (¶ 0037) using various degassing techniques known in the art. This is collectively the activation of a battery which is also acknowledged by applicant’s in that the conventional process is known to be pre-aging, primary charging, main aging and release of the gas trap phenomenon (pg. 2 of applicant’s specification, last ¶ of the background section). Kwon does not explicitly teach the empirical method claimed for selecting the predetermined SOC used to charge the battery.
However, Kwon is explicit that known result effective variables in the activation of a battery include the C-rate or charge rate of the battery, the initial SOC, the temperature at which aging occurs and time period for aging (¶ 0034-0036). Kwon teaches that empirical tests on batteries are also known in which you can take two batteries of similar design and subject them to different conditions with controlled variables in order to test the effect of another variable and measure the result including measuring the discharge capacity of the battery (see examples 1 and 2 and comparative examples 1 and 2 which establish how to test batteries under different constraints to see the effects of a given variable).
In a similar field of endeavor Miura teaches a similar activation method in which high-temperature aging of the cell is conducted (Abstract). Miura teaches that the particular time and temperature of the high-temperature aging has an effect on the SEI formation process (¶ 0057-0059) and teaches a wide workable range from 30 minutes to 200 hours. Miura teaches explicitly the classic empirical method of testing different cells under different conditions in order to test the effects of a variable (¶ 0057). Miura also teaches measuring capacity retention (¶ 0076, a function of the discharge capacity).
Routine experimentation of result effective variables is prima facie obvious as discussed in MPEP 2144.05 and, if not commonly known under the scientific method, the prior art provides factual evidence that in the battery art it is known to test cells under different conditions of result-effective variables to determine those effects. As Kwon is silent as to the method in which the SOC is predetermined it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have tested other batteries and varying different result effective variables to determine the SOC that produces the desired result including different initial SOC as this is precisely the variable that Kwon teaches to be “predetermined”. This necessary leads one of ordinary skill to test various SOCs in order to make such a predetermination. That the claim selects for the highest discharge capacity does not render the claim non-obvious as discharge capacity is a known measurement of the performance of a battery as discussed in Miura leading to a logical factor in evaluating the results of the experimentation.
With regards to claim 2, Kwon teaches that the charging during the high-temperature aging process can use various C-rates (¶ 0035) but does not explicitly teach using 0.15-0.25C, nor does Kwon explicitly teach that the time is a summation of a heat-up time at the C-rate to reach “98% of a maximum temperature” and a hold-up time for maintaining 98-100% of the maximum temperature of the battery; however, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 the particular time of the aging process is a result effective variable and barring a showing of unexpected results it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the claimed time through routine experimentation. Regarding the C-rate Kwon explicitly teaches varying the C-rate. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality.
With regards to claim 3, Kwon teaches using an SOC of 30% or less that has been predetermined, and as outlined above the purpose of routine experimentation is to test the particular variable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have utilized SOC between 1-15% in the course of such routine experimentation barring a showing of unexpected results as it is within the workable range of Kwon of equal to or less than 30%.
With regards to claim 5, Kwon teaches a room-temperature aging step as well for a period of 24-72 hours (¶ 0036).
With regards to claims 6 and 7, Kwon teaches degassing at an SOC of 70% (¶ 0034) to allow for easier degassing.
With regards to claim 9, Kwon teaches that prior to initial charging the battery is recently assembled and has not been charged (¶ 0033-0034, presuming an SOC of 0%).
With regards to claim 10, Kwon teaches that the purpose of activation is to form an SEI film at the negative electrode plate (¶ 0034).
With regards to claim 11, Kwon teaches that the battery comprises a structure of an electrode assembly and electrolyte stored in a battery case (¶ 0033).
With regards to claim 12, Kwon teaches a pouch type battery (¶ 0032) as well as can-type cases that are either cylindrical or prismatic (¶ 0031).
Claim(s) 4 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al. (Pub No 2018/0164384 A1) in view of Miura et al. (Pub No 2019/0363409 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Akagawa et al. (WO 2014/189082 A1, translation provided for citation).
With regards to claims 4 and 8, Kwon in view of Miura as applied to claims 1 and 7 above renders obvious an experimentation method of testing various cells under different SOC to determine optimum SOC for initial activation including utilizing discharge capacity as a measurement of performance of a battery; however, neither Kwon nor Miura discuss discharging to an SOC level of 20% or less.
In a similar field of endeavor, Akagawa teaches that after forming the battery and injecting the electrolyte the battery is activated with a similar charging, aging and degassing step (pg 15-17) after which the charged battery or even 90% SOC comparative examples are tested for discharge capacity by discharging to 0% SOC (bottom of pg 17-top of pg 18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to measure discharge capacity by discharging a charged or 90% SOC battery to 0% SOC to measure the discharge capacity of the battery to determine results of the experimentation as suggested by Akagawa.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GALEN H HAUTH whose telephone number is (571)270-5516. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 AM to 6 PM EST.
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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at 571-272-2450. 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.
/GALEN H HAUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights