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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to Application Ser. No. 18/271,007 to Cha et al., assigned to LG Energy Solution, Ltd., Seoul, Korea, filed 07/05/2023, and published as U.S. PG Publication 20240387877A1 on 11/21/2024.
This application is a 35 U.S.C. § 371 National Stage entry of International Patent Application PCT/KR2022/021220 filed 12/23/2022. It claims priority from Korean Patent Application KR10-2021-0188409 filed 12/27/2021.
Status of the Claims
The status of the claims stand as follows:
Currently amended 1, 3-10
Original 2
Claims 1-10 are currently pending in this application. All pending claims are under full consideration.
Foreign Priority Benefit
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim to foreign priority benefit from Korean Patent Application KR10-2021-0188409 filed 12/27/2021. A certified copy of the priority document has been filed and is made of record.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/05/2023, 08/19/2024, 11/01/2024, 06/30/2025, 08/06/2025 have been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered by the examiner. Duly initialed and signed copies are attached herewith. Accordingly, information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered if signed and initialed by Examiner.
Drawings
The replacement sheet drawings filed on 07/05/2023 is acceptable for examination purposes.
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.
Claim 3 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation, “…locally applying the sound waves to a region where air bubbles are expected to form”. However, it is not explicitly known from the claim language where in the battery case is the region or regions where the air bubbles are expected to form. Further the language of “expected to be form” is rather subjective since different operators can possibly expect different regions where the bubbles are formed. This renders the claim language indefinite.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-4, 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang Fushuai (CN106505251; cited in IDS dated 08/19/2024; English language machine translation is used here; hereafter called CN’251 ) in view of Murphy et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2020/0106137A1).
Regarding claim 1 CN ‘251 discloses the disclosed invention belongs to the field of lithium-ion battery manufacturing technology (CN ‘251 paragraph 0002); thus disclosed a method of manufacturing a lithium ion battery. The method describes the battery cell stand in two stages after it has been injected with electrolyte (CN ‘251 paragraph 0031). This is equivalent to the method comprising assembling a battery cell by accommodating an electrode assembly inside a battery case and injecting an electrolyte into the battery case. CN ‘251 discloses an aging process is an important process after electrolyte injection into the battery cell (CN ‘251 paragraph 0006).
CN ‘251 discloses a sound wave generator is placed around the battery cell after liquid injection (CN ‘251 paragraph 0011) and in a first settling stage a sound wave generator is adjusted to emit sound waves to the battery cell (CN ‘251 paragraph 0012, 0031), the first settling stage is considered equivalent to the claimed pre-aging stage, which is carried by applying sound waves to the battery cell. CN ‘251 then discloses after the first settling the battery cells are left to cool to room temperature until aging process is complete (CN ‘251 paragraph 0013, 0031), equivalent to aging the battery cell.
CN ‘251 discloses the sound wave generator is symmetrically placed around the battery cell, and the symmetrical placement around the perimeter ensures all parts of the battery cell are in full contact with a sound waves (CN ‘251 paragraph 0038). CN ‘251, however, is silent about applying the sound wave to the battery cell using a speaker.
Murphy discloses that acoustic illumination may be utilized as an excitation force on a lithium ion battery (Murphy paragraph 0072), and the acoustic stimuli may include continuous wave signals, tone bursts, chirps, broadband noise, and/or impulses “broadcasted” by at least one speaker (Murphy paragraph 0072). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have used a speaker to apply the sound waves as taught by Murphy in the battery cell of CN ‘251 since such a modification is considered the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way (MPEP 2143 I C). Such a speaker may be utilizing direct transmission waves (Murphy paragraph 0065) equivalent to the directional speaker recited in claim 2.
Regarding claim 3 CN ‘251 discloses CN ‘251 discloses the sound wave generator is symmetrically placed around the battery cell, and the symmetrical placement around the perimeter ensures all parts of the battery cell are in full contact with sound waves (CN ‘251 paragraph 0038). This includes all regions where air bubbles are expected to form as recited in claim 3.
Regarding claim 4 CN ‘251 discloses the applying the sound wave by sweeping the frequency to arrive at the optimum frequency (CN ‘251paragraph 0036).
Regarding claim 6 CN ‘251 discloses the battery cells after being injected with the electrolyte are placed in a closed environment (CN ‘251 paragraph 0014, 0017), and sound wave generator is placed around the battery cell (CN ‘251 paragraph 0038); thus, the sound waves are applied in a state where the battery is sealed.
Regarding claim 7 CN ‘251 is silent that the sound waves are applied in a state wherein battery cell is not sealed. However, applying the wavs when the battery cell is not sealed would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill since the sound waves will still produce the desired pre-aging as CN ‘251 teaches that applying the waves when the battery in a sealed state enhances the aging effect better than when the battery in a non-closed environment (CN ‘251 paragraph 0038), but the pre-aging will still be possible in a non-closed environment.
Regarding claim 8 CN ’25 discloses the frequency of the sound waves can be between 20kHz and 500 GHz (CN ‘251 paragraph 0036). The claimed ranges of 20 Hz to 20000kHz (20kHz) overlaps in its upper end with the lower end of the disclosed range of 20kHz and 500 GHz (CN ‘251 paragraph 0036).
Regarding claim 9 CN ‘251 discloses in one embodiment the sound wave generator is activated to emit ultrasonic frequency (CN ‘251 paragraph 0045).
Regarding claim 10 the frequency of the sound waves can be between 20kHz and 500 GHz (CN ‘251 paragraph 0036). The claimed range ranges of 20 kHz to 100 kHz is included in the disclosed range 20kHz and 500 GHz (CN ‘251 paragraph 0036).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang Fushuai (CN106505251; called CN ‘251) in view of Murphy et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2020/0106137A1) as applied above to claim 1, and further in view of Arise et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2018/0254460).
The discussion of CN ‘251 and Murphy as applied to claim 1 above is fully incorporated here and is relied upon for the limitation of the claim in this section.
Regarding claim 5 CN ‘251 is silent about activating charging after the pre-aging of the battery cell. Arise discloses a method of producing a secondary battery (Arise paragraph 0136), and disclose a battery having low resistance after an aging charge and discharge (Arise paragraph 0033) wherein the battery is charged after an aging process in which the battery is subjected to a degassing operation (Arise paragraph 0033), considered equivalent to the first settling the battery cells (CN ‘251 paragraph 0013, 0031), equivalent to pre-aging the battery cell.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to have subjected the battery of CN ‘251 after the first settling (CN ‘251 paragraph 0012, 0031), equivalent to the pre-aging, to an activation charging to evaluate the status of the battery cell. This is considered the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way (MPEP 2143 I C).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR M KEKIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5918. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00 pm,.
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, NIKI BAKHTIARI can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
/OMAR M KEKIA/Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722