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 .
Drawings
Figures 2 and 5 should be designated by a legend such as --Related Art-- or --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated as according to ¶[15]. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because units are missing in Figs. 6 and 7. Provide units (e.g., % or otherwise) for the numbers not ending with C.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: “A Charging Control Method for A Lithium-Ion Battery with A Graphite and Silicon Monoxide Negative Electrode”.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida et al. (Japanese Patent JP-2019129603-A).
With respect to independent claims 1 and 3-4, Yoshida teaches a control apparatus and a control method for controlling a charging device that is connected to a secondary battery having a negative electrode which is a mixture of graphite and silicon monoxide and supplies a current to the secondary battery (Fig. 1; ¶ [12]; a control section 3 for controlling a current value control unit 74 that is connected to a secondary battery 2 having a negative electrode 21 which is a mixture of graphite and silicon monoxide (see ¶[12]) and supplied a current to the secondary battery).
Yoshida teaches wherein when a calculated SOC (State of Charge) of the secondary battery is less than a percentage, a magnitude of the current supplied to the secondary battery by the charging device is controlled to a first value (Fig. 2; in region 101 (i.e., < 20%), a magnitude of the current supplied to the secondary battery 2 is controlled to a first value R1).
Yoshida teaches a computer-readable non-transitory storage medium which includes a program causing a computer to control the charging device (Fig. 1; the non-volatile storage units 5/6 store a predetermined program executed by operation unit 7 to control the current value control unit 74).
Yoshida teaches when the calculated SOC of the secondary battery is equal to or more than the percentage, the magnitude of the current supplied to the secondary battery by the charging device is controlled to a second value that is larger than the first value (Fig. 2; in region 103 (i.e., > 20%), the magnitude of the current supplied to the secondary battery 2 is controlled to a second value (i.e., R1 < second value ≤ R2) that is larger than the first value (i.e., R1)).
Yoshida discloses the claimed invention except for the SOC for current control determination being 15%. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to determine that 15% is the SOC value for current control determination, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The benefit of this system being that it provides a system that can both improve battery energy density and shorten charging time (see ¶[05] of Yoshida).
With respect to claim 2, Yoshida teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Yoshida teaches wherein when a magnitude of a current that charges a rating capacity of the secondary battery in one hour is set to 1C, the first value is equal to or less than C/x, and the second value is equal to or more than yC (Fig. 2; the first value is ≤ R1 and the second value is ≤ R2 where R1 < R2. It understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that 1C is the rating capacity for a secondary battery to charge in one hour. Furthermore, it is understood by one of ordinary skill that the rating capacity may be calculated from a known current value).
Yoshida discloses the claimed invention except for the first value being equal to or less than C/3 and the second value is equal to or more than 2C. Yoshida teaches in Claim 5 and in Table 1 that the I1-R1 limit can be 0.2C and less than 1C. Furthermore, Yoshida teaches in Table 1 that the I3-R2 limit is above 2C. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to determine that the rating capacity values are C/3 and 2C, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The benefit of this system being that it provides a system that can both improve battery energy density and shorten charging time (see ¶[05] of Yoshida).
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following prior art identified by the applicant in the IDS are relevant to the application as follows:
Nagai et al. (USPGPN 20210152010 corresponding to Japanese Patent JP-2021082426) teaches a lithium-ion battery charging method that varies the charging current by state of charge with a lower current at low and high SOC windows and a higher current at mid SOC windows.
Iwama et al. (USPGPN 20170047613 corresponding to WIPO Patent WO-2015163017-A1) teaches a lithium-ion battery design that improves energy density and cycle life by using a carbon-silicon anode.
Kikuchi et al. (Japanese Patent JP-2020126753-A) teaches charging control methods for lithium-ion batteries with carbon-silicon anodes by demonstrating current flow models for each material.
Nomura et al. (Japanese Patent JP-2018166108-A) teaches a lithium-ion battery charging method that varies the charging current by state of charge with a higher current at low and high SOC windows and a lower current at mid SOC windows.
Sasaki et al. (Japanese Patent JP-2015012680-A) teaches a charge control method for a lithium-ion battery in which the SOC is kept below a reference level during non-use periods.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Frank A Silva whose telephone number is (703)756-1698. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 09:30 am -06:30 pm ET.
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, Drew Dunn can be reached at 571-272-2312. 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.
/FRANK ALEXIS SILVA/Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/JOHN T TRISCHLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859