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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-10 and 18-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group 1: product and Group 2: machine for manufacturing, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 06/26/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group 2: method of manufacture in the reply filed on 6/26/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “all the claims 1-19 are sufficiently related that a thorough search for the subject matter of any one Group of claims would compass a search for the subject matter of the remaining claim. This is not found persuasive because applicant does not present an argument to the burden presented by submitting multiple inventions as defined under 35 U.S.C. 101 whereby each invention presented has their own set of dependent claims. Examination of the instant claims as filed would result in three inventions being evaluated separate and distinctly from each other whereby the burden presented to the examiner is too high.
When briefly looking at claim 1, we can see that SF=0= (T2-T1)/(T1*100) is met for a battery sitting on a shelf whereby the thickness in Time=0s and Time=60s of sitting on shelf not being operated would lead measurements of T1=T1 and therefore (T1-T1)/(T1*100)=0/(T1*100)=0 which is true and meets the metrics of the claims, but not the invention as defined by the method. Not only is there a search burden, but the drafted scope reading on a battery sitting on a shelf presents a burden on examination since the product as originally presented is a typical battery sitting on a shelf compared to a specific method. Presenting art that meets claim 1 product would not meet the method claim; as applicant further defines the scope of the product, the scope is predictable to diverge since the starting scope of the claims are vastly different.
Applicant is reminded that because “with traverse” has been elected for the method claims, the product or machine of manufacture claims will not be rejoined should the method be found allowable. At no time in the future of these claims will the product or machine of manufacture be examined. Should the claims not be canceled upon the identification of allowable subject matter for any method claims, delays are predictable to occur since rejoinder of the product or machine of manufacture will not be acceptable.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim(s) 12-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tukawaki et al (PGPUB 2003/0207169) and further in view of Suguru et la (WO 2020/017099).
Claim 12: Tukawaki teaches a method of manufacturing a sealed battery [Abstract]. The battery element (2) inherently comprises an anode, cathode, and separator therebetween, wherein the electrode assembly is provided within a casing, applicant’s pouch (1) [Fig 1; 0028-0032]. A pressure is applied to the pouch [0036]. Electrolyte is injected into the battery while a pressure is applied [0036-0037]. The battery is sealed after injection in order to be removed from the electrolyte injection machine, whereby additional leak detection steps are performed by the prior art, not claimed, on the sealed battery [0041-0058]. A predetermined amount of electrolyte is added to the chamber 11 prior to injection [Fig 2].
Instant claim recites a swell factor capable of being equal to 0 needs to be observed by the battery. No time constraints and no location constraints are given. Examiner interprets the Thickness T1 location to be on a sidewall of battery in a first corner and Thickness T2 location to be on a sidewall of battery in a second corner whereby T1 and T2 are equal to each other and would not change due to swelling of the battery electrode material and thus always be equal to zero, absent mechanical impact that causes a dent or crippling of the corner or other such mechanically deforming environmental impacts. With these locations, the swell factor is always satisfied throughout all time and operation of the battery. T1=T2 and therefore (T1-T1)/(T1*100) = 0/(T1*100) = 0.
PNG
media_image1.png
382
536
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Tukawaki teaches the refilling of electrolyte for a lithium battery, but is silent to teach applicant’s usage of a lithium-sulfur battery.
Suguru teaches a lithium-sulfur battery with a positive electrode, negative electrode, and separator therebetween [Abstract]. When forming, a predetermined amount of electrolyte is added to the system [Pg 8 Ln 34-36]. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have been motivated to modify the battery being refilled of Tukawaki with a lithium sulfur battery as taught by Suguru in order to improve the scope of utilization of the invention and to engage with batteries that have advantageous discharge characteristics [Pg 13 Ln 12-33].
Claim 13-16: Instant claim recites a determination step without substantially utilizing the determination step and therefore fails to produce a different product and thus not further limiting the claim scope. Based upon the T1 and T2 locations determined above, the swell factor is met in the conditions recited and the specific calculation to check if the thicknesses of these ranges have changed is immaterial. Tukawaki teaches an assembly which meets the swell factor claimed and does not need to calculate the swell factor to have the swell factor met. Since the instant claim does not further utilize the information produced by the determination step, the claims are met by the method steps taught by Tukawaki.
Claim 17: Tukawaki teaches the pressure valve (18) and pressure applied on the electrolyte work in combination with a pressure applied to the wall surface of the battery case to be equal [0039-0040] and exemplify an exhausting operation performed under a pressure of 1.07-1.33kPa and liquid electrolyte injection under an injection force of 0.08-0.20 MPa [0041], which is under the claimed 100atm.
It should be noted that prior art that perform an injection at ambient temperature and pressure would still meet the instant claimed range since inherently atmospheric pressure of 1atm is applied.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN J YANCHUK whose telephone number is (571)270-7343. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10a-8p.
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, Nick Smith can be reached at 571-272-8760. 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.
/STEPHEN J YANCHUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights