DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This is in response to an amendment/response filed on 7/20/2026
Hereon, claims 1-8 are currently pending; claims 1-8 are rejected.
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 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) 1,4,7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori,(USNO.2012/0091966) in combination with XU et al, (XU), (USNO.2020/0127320)
As for claim 1, Mori discloses and shows in Figs. 10-11 a battery system, comprising: a lithium secondary battery; and a charging device (via ref’s charge supply section) which charges the lithium secondary battery; wherein the lithium secondary battery includes: a positive electrode; and a negative electrode; wherein the charging device includes: a power supply unit (via ref’s ac adaptor) which supplies power for charging to the lithium secondary battery; and a charge control unit (via ref’s MPU) which controls the power supply unit so as to, after precharge to charge up to a predetermined precharge capacity (Fig. 11:solid line) by a predetermined precharge current (Fig.11:dotted line), perform normal charge performing charging up to a normal capacity larger than the precharge capacity by a predetermined normal charge current higher than the precharge current; and wherein the precharge is performed before each of the repeated normal charges (par.[0137-0145]).
Mori discloses all limitations, but differs from the claimed invention because he does not explicitly disclose a negative electrode not having a negative electrode active material.
XU discloses a negative electrode not having a negative electrode active material (par.[0039])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have modified the teachings of by Mori using a negative electrode not having a negative electrode active material for advantages such as providing the ability to improve electrical conductivity (par.[0039]) , as taught by XU.
As for claim 4, Mori in combination with XU discloses the negative electrode is a copper foil.
As for claim 7, Mori discloses and shows in Figs. 10-11 a charging device (via ref’s charge supply section) charging a lithium secondary battery having a positive electrode and a negative electrode, comprising: a power supply unit (via ref’s ac adaptor) which supplies power for charging to the lithium secondary battery; and a charge control unit which controls the power supply unit so as to, after precharge to charge up to a predetermined precharge capacity (Fig. 11:solid line) by a predetermined precharge current (Fig.11:dotted line), perform normal charge performing charging up to a normal capacity larger than the precharge capacity by a predetermined normal charge current higher than the precharge current; wherein the precharge is performed before each of the repeated normal charges (par.[0137-0145]).
Mori discloses all limitations, but differs from the claimed invention because he does not explicitly disclose a negative electrode not having a negative electrode active material.
XU discloses a negative electrode not having a negative electrode active material (par.[0039])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have modified the teachings of by Mori using a negative electrode not having a negative electrode active material for advantages such as providing the ability to improve electrical conductivity (par.[0039]) , as taught by XU.
As for claim 8, , Mori discloses and shows in Figs. 10-11 a charging method of charging a lithium secondary battery having a positive electrode and a negative electrode not having a negative electrode active material, comprising: a precharge step of performing charging up to a predetermined precharge capacity (Fig. 11:solid line) by a predetermined precharge current (Fig.11:dotted line); and a normal charge step performed following the precharge step, of performing charging up to a normal capacity larger than the precharge capacity by a predetermined normal charge current higher than the precharge current; wherein the precharge step is performed before each of the repeated normal charge steps (par.[0137-0145]).
Mori discloses all limitations, but differs from the claimed invention because he does not explicitly disclose a negative electrode not having a negative electrode active material.
XU discloses a negative electrode not having a negative electrode active material (ref’s copper foil) (par.[0039])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have modified the teachings of by Mori using a negative electrode not having a negative electrode active material for advantages such as providing the ability to improve electrical conductivity (par.[0039]) , as taught by XU.
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori,(USNO.2012/0091966) in combination with XU et al, (XU), (USNO.2020/0127320) and further in view of Reipur et al, (Reipur), (USPATNO.5,686,815)
As for claims 2 and 3, Mori in combination with XU discloses all limitations, but differs from the claimed invention because he does not explicitly disclose a precharge
capacity is 0.025% or more and 0.5% or less of the normal capacity; and wherein the precharge current is 0.001C or more and 0.03C or less and does not explicitly disclose time from the completion of the precharge to the start of the normal charge is 800 seconds or less.
Reipur discloses a precharge capacity is 0.025% or more and 0.5% or less of the normal capacity; and wherein the precharge current is 0.001C or more and 0.03C or less (ref’s in range of 1 C/h). Furthermore, Reipur discloses time from the completion of the precharge to the start of the normal charge is 800 seconds or less (col.19,line 15-25)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have modified the combined teachings of Mori and XU using a precharge capacity is 0.025% or more and 0.5% or less of the normal capacity; and wherein the precharge current is 0.001C or more and 0.03C or less and a time from the completion of the precharge to the start of the normal charge is 800 seconds or less for advantages such as reducing damage from heat generation (col.3, lines 20-23), as taught by Reipur.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori,(USNO.2012/0091966) in combination with XU et al, (XU), (USNO.2020/0127320) and further in view of Kren et al, (Kren), (USNO.2013/0209877)
As for claims 5 and 6, Mori in combination with XU discloses all limitations, but differs from the claimed invention because he does not explicitly disclose negative electrode is configured to include a copper foil and carbon nanofibers provided on the copper foil and does not explicitly disclose negative electrode is configured to include a copper foil and either a metal layer not containing Li or an alloy layer not containing Li provided on the copper foil
Kren discloses negative electrode is configured to include a copper foil and carbon nanofibers provided on the copper foil (par.[0016]). Furthermore, XU discloses negative electrode is configured to include a copper foil and either a metal layer not containing Li or an alloy layer not containing Li provided on the copper foil (par.[0016])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have modified the combined teachings of Mori and XU using a negative electrode not having a negative electrode active material for advantages such as providing the ability to reduce brittle and nonelastic behavior (par.[0012]), as taught by Kren.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicants’ argument that
As set forth in the present Specification, the precharge control of the present invention is governed by whether a precharge capacity has been reached. Specifically, the Battery Management System (BMS 400) determines whether the charge amount charged in the lithium secondary battery 100 has reached a predetermined precharge capacity. When the BMS 400 determines that the charge amount has reached the precharge capacity, it stops applying the precharge current and transitions to normal charging using a normal charge current larger than the precharge current. Specification, pars. [0064]-[0070]….Mori is entirely dictated by real-time cell voltage comparisons during an active charging cycle to prevent individual degraded cells in a multi-cell pack from exceeding a prohibited charge voltage. Mori's current step-adjustments (as illustrated by the step-wise curves in Figure 11) are real-time adjustments based on voltage feedback. Mori does not disclose or suggest at least performing a distinct precharge step up to a predetermined precharge capacity using a predetermined precharge current, determining whether the charge amount has reached that predetermined precharge capacity, or stopping/completing application of the precharge current upon determining that the precharge capacity has been reached and then initiating a normal charge step using a higher normal charge current." Because Mori's control relies strictly on cell voltage thresholds rather than tracking whether a charge amount has reached a predetermined precharge capacity, Mori cannot teach or suggest the precharge control limitations recited in Claims 1, 7, and 8.
The examiner respectfully disagree and submits, In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Furthermore, Mori discloses and shows in Figs. 10-11 a battery system, comprising: a lithium secondary battery; and a charging device (via ref’s charge supply section) which charges the lithium secondary battery; wherein the lithium secondary battery includes: a positive electrode; and a negative electrode; wherein the charging device includes: a power supply unit (via ref’s ac adaptor) which supplies power for charging to the lithium secondary battery; and a charge control unit (via ref’s MPU) which controls the power supply unit so as to, after precharge to charge up to a predetermined precharge capacity (Fig. 11:solid line) by a predetermined precharge current (Fig.11:dotted line), perform normal charge performing charging up to a normal capacity larger than the precharge capacity by a predetermined normal charge current higher than the precharge current; and wherein the precharge is performed before each of the repeated normal charges (par.[0137-0145]) as claimed.
For at least the reasons provided above, the applicant arguments regarding independent claims are not persuasive. The applicant argues that dependent claims are patentable for similar reasons and are also not persuasive. The applicant further argues that since dependent claims depend on the argued independent claim; they are patentable at least by virtue of their dependencies. Since the applicant's arguments regarding independent claims are not persuasive, the applicant's arguments regarding dependent claims are also not persuasive.
Accordingly, the rejection is still proper and thus maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 ARUN C WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-9765. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9 a.m. - 6 p.m..
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Julian Huffman can be reached on 571-272-2147. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ARUN C WILLIAMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights