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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/4/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Pittman and Fasching references still anticipate at least claim 1 as amended. The Yu reference is not longer used and so the arguments presented toward Yu (the main thrust of the Remarks) are moot.
Applicant asserts at the bottom of page 9 and top of page 10 of the Remarks that Pittman relates to reconditioning batteries and would thus not form an SEI. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The formation of an SEI is inherent to operating a battery and is not a static element that never changes. Simply charging and discharging a battery would form and affect an SEI.
Applicant asserts in paragraph 2 on page 10 that Fasching does not form an SEI layer. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Fasching explicitly discloses forming an SEI layer by charging the battery in a discharged state (paragraph 204).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 3-7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pittman (US 5,998,968).
Regarding claim 1, Pittman discloses a method comprising: supplying charge pulses for charging a secondary battery; and supplying discharge pulses for discharging the secondary battery between the charge pulses while supplying the charge pulses, wherein the charge pulses and the discharge pulses are alternately supplied from an activation start time point of the secondary battery (column 7, line 66 to column 8, line 15). The Office takes the position that the first supply of charge pulses (considered the activation) would inherently form a SEI as the SEI is a byproduct of charging and discharging the battery.
Regarding claim 3, Pittman discloses that the charge pulses have a charging current of 1 to 3 times a rated current of the secondary battery (column 21, lines 23-27).
Regarding claim 4, Pittman discloses that the charge pulses have a charge holding time of 20 ms to 100 ms (column 5, lines 51-53).
Regarding claim 5, Pittman discloses that the discharge pulses have a discharging current of 0.2 to 0.5 times a rated current of the secondary battery (column 1, lines 43-51).
Regarding claim 6, Pittman discloses the discharge pulses have a discharge holding time of 5 ms to 30 ms (column 7, lines 25-28).
Regarding claim 7, Pittman discloses that the charge pulses have a charge holding time of 1.5 to 5 times a discharge holding time of the discharge pulses (claim 72).
Regarding claim 9, Pittman discloses the discharge pulses each have a discharge amount of 0.04 to 0.16 times a charge amount of each of the charge pulses (claim 72).
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fasching (US 2022/0190619 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Fasching discloses a method comprising: supplying charge pulses for charging a secondary battery; and supplying discharge pulses for discharging the secondary battery between the charge pulses while supplying the charge pulses, wherein the charge pulses and the discharge pulses are alternately supplied from an activation start time point of the secondary battery (paragraph 172). Fasching discloses forming an SEI layer by charging the battery in a discharged state (paragraph 204). The activation time is defined as this point in the process.
Regarding claim 8, Fasching discloses that a charge holding time of the charge pulses is negatively correlated to charging current vs. rated current (C) of the secondary battery (paragraph 200). The Office considers this sufficient evidence to meet the limitation of claim 8 which is considered a property of the battery. See MPEP 2112 I.
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 IMRAN AKRAM whose telephone number is (571)270-3241. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-5p.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/IMRAN AKRAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights