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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is 230 words long. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Claims 1-12 are 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 1 recites the limitation “an increase amount L∆ of an excess electrolytic solution” in lines 5 and 6 and the limitation wherein it is “equal to or less than a predetermined upper limit threshold LMAX, as a good quality product” in line 7-9. The “increase amount L∆ of an excess electrolytic solution” limitation is not defined until claim 3, which makes unclear the decisions made based on the method recited on claim 1 and its dependent claims. Additionally, “L∆”, which is a singular value, is compared to be equal or less than an “upper limit threshold”, which is a range. The previous referred comparison is not proper, because by definition a single value can be withing, or not, a specified range, but it cannot be equal to the specified range. Finally, the limitation “a good quality product”, may refer to a plurality of battery characteristics, highly influenced by what an inventor considers critical to their product, therefore being indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 recites the limitation wherein the “increase amount L∆ of the excess electrolytic solution is equal to or more than a predetermined lower limit threshold LMIN, as a good quality product” in lines 2-4. The rejection reasons for limitations “increase amount L∆ of an excess electrolytic solution” and “a good quality product” are addressed above as presented for claim 1. Additionally, “L∆”, which is a singular value, is compared to be equal or more than a “lower limit threshold”, which is a range. The previous referred comparison is not proper, because by definition a single value can be withing, or not, a specified range, but it cannot be equal to the specified range. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 3-9, being directly or indirectly dependent on claim 1, inherit the deficiencies of claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “an increase amount L∆” and “the increase amount L∆ being equal to or less than a predetermined upper limit threshold LMAX” in line 6-8. The “increase amount L∆ of an excess electrolytic solution” limitation is not defined, which makes unclear the decisions made based on the teachings recited on claim 10 and its dependent claims. Additionally, “L∆”, which is a singular value, is compared to be equal or less than an “upper limit threshold”, which is a range. The previous referred comparison is not proper, because by definition a single value can be withing, or not, a specified range, but it cannot be equal to the specified range. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 recites the limitation an “increase amount L∆” and “the increase amount L∆ being equal to or less than a predetermined upper limit threshold LMAX” in line 3 and 4. The rejection reasons for these limitations are the same as presented for claim 10 above. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12, being directly dependent on claim 10, inherit the deficiencies of claim 10. Appropriate correction is required.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneda et al. (JP 2021170436 A, see machine translation for citation).
Regarding claim 1, Kaneda teaches a method for inspecting secondary batteries, and more specifically, to a method for inspecting secondary batteries containing a non-aqueous electrolyte [0001]. Figures 4 and 5 shows the configuration of a lithium-ion battery cell (1), which comprises an electrode body (15) housed together with an electrolyte inside a battery case (11) [0030-0033]. An nondestructive X-ray inspection of cells (1) is performed using a set up comprising a controller (204), an X-ray generator (201), a stage (202) and a X-ray detector (203) [0035, 0036 and Fig. 6]. It is taught that a controller (204) determines the presence or absence of excess electrolyte (19) from the X-ray transmission image of cell (1) [0047 and Fig. 7]. If the presence of excess electrolyte (19) is not confirmed, the cell (1) is constrained and charged until the voltage (VB) of cell (1) becomes higher than a predetermined value [0050 and Fig. 7]. The controller (204) takes an controls the X-ray generator (201) and the X-ray detector (203) to take an X-ray transmission image of cell (1) again [0055]. The controller (204) calculates the excess liquid volume (L2), which may be for example, the distance between the bottom of cell (1) and the liquid surface, in cell (1) [0047 and 0056]. The controller (204) compares the excess liquid volume (L2) with a predetermined reference volume (REF2) and if the excess liquid volume (L2) is equal to or greater than the standard volume (REF2), the controller (204) determines that cell (1) can be reused [0057].
From the above descriptions, an initial excess liquid volume before the charging step is implicit and because an excess liquid volume (L2) is calculated after charging, the limitation of “an inspection charge on the battery assembly for a predetermined period to measure an increase amount L∆ of an excess electrolytic solution” is met. In addition because it is compared if the calculated excess liquid volume (L2) is equal or greater than the reference volume (REF2), such reference would be analogous to a lower limit value or threshold. From common knowledge an upper limit threshold should be higher than a lower limit threshold, therefore from the above descriptions, the calculated excess liquid volume (L2) would be equal to, less than or overlap the “upper limit threshold (LMAX)” independently the numerical range it comprises, because it is not taught the extent of the expression greater than the standard volume (REF2).
Despite the taught invention is directed to determine whether or not a secondary battery can be reused to manufacture new battery packs [0011 and 0015], the general concept and methodology is applicable to a brand new secondary battery construction and inspection as claimed.
Kaneda is analogous art to the current invention because it is concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely an inspection step for a for performing an inspection charge on the battery assembly, in which in which an electrode body and an electrolytic solution are accommodated inside a battery case, for a predetermined period to measure an increase amount L∆ of an excess electrolytic solution for the inspection charge; and a first judging step for selecting the battery assembly, whose increase amount L∆ of the excess electrolytic solution is equal to or less than a predetermined upper limit threshold LMAX, as a good quality product.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the judging step comparison between the excess liquid volume (L2) and the predetermined reference volume (REF2) range disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 2, Kaneda teaches all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. From claim 1 discussion the claimed limitations are met.
Regarding claim 3, Kaneda teaches all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. From claim 1 discussion, the initial excess liquid volume (L0) before the charging step is implicit, the excess liquid volume (L2) (L1) is calculated after the charging step and the battery has an electrolyte housed inside its case (LT). Despite Kaneda does not teach the specific formula “L∆= (L1-L0)/LT” to calculate the “increase amount of the excess electrolytic solution” an person of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the claimed formula because it allows the data normalization and the obtained dimensionless values can be easily compared with other analyzed battery cells.
Regarding claim 4, Kaneda teaches all the elements of the current invention in claim 3. From claim 1 discussion, Kaneda teaches that the excess liquid volume (L2) is calculated from an X-ray transmission image of cell (1) [0055 and 0056].
Regarding claim 5, Kaneda teaches all the elements of the current invention in claim 4. Kaneda further teaches that the procedure for determine the electrolyte (19) liquid volume, both for the presence determination step and for the excess liquid volume (L2), is based on high-contrast transmission images compared to the electrode body which are the result of the transmittance of the non-aqueous electrolyte irradiated with X-rays [0009, 0010 and 0047]. From this previous description the limitation wherein the measurement is made based on a “change in luminance” is met. It is taught that after determining the presence of the excess electrolyte (19), the cell (1) is restrained and charged, the liquid level of the excess electrolyte (19) rises [0047 and 0054]. By analyzing the X-ray transmission image, the position of the liquid surface of the excess electrolyte (19), for example, the distance between the bottom of cell (1) and the liquid surface, is determined [0047 and 0056]. From a table having data from previous experiments, the position of the excess liquid (19) is related to an amount of excess liquid volume (L2) and it is compared to a standard volume (REF2) [0047 and 0056]. From the previous description, it is inferred an excess electrolyte (19) position when its presence is determined, a new position after charging the cell (1) and a position related to the employed standard volume (REF2), therefore despite is not explicitly taught a “measuring line (ML)” is set to determine the excess liquid volume (L2). Following the setup of Fig. 9, the above referred “measuring line (ML) can be said to be “along a side surface of the battery case, in an area between the electrode body and the battery case” based on the shooting area.
Regarding claim 6, Kaneda teaches all the elements of the current invention in claim 4. Kaneda further teaches that in a set up for taking the x-ray image of the cell (1), the cell (1) can be tilted using a jig (4) placed on the stage (202) [0046 and Fig. 6 and 9]. From the previous teachings the recited limitations are met.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneda et al. (JP 2021170436 A, see machine translation for citation) as applied to claim 4 above, further in view of Lipman e al. (Advanced materials supply considerations for electric vehicle applications, see NPL documents for citation).
Regarding claim 7, Kaneda teaches all the elements of the current invention in claim 4 except “wherein the battery case is formed with aluminum or resin”.
Lipman discusses critical materials considerations for electric drive vehicles, focusing on the underlying component technologies, which mainly include materials for advanced batteries, motors and electronics, lightweight structures, and other components specific to each vehicle type [Abstract]. Regarding the aluminum employment in battery containers, it is taught that an aluminum case guarantees lightness, shock resistance and supports the battery temperature management system with its high thermal conductivity [p. 1171; col. 1; par. 3].
Lipman is analogous art to the current invention because it is concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely critical materials for critical materials considerations for electric drive vehicles which include advanced batteries. Despite the teachings of Lipman are directed to batteries for electric vehicles, it can be applied to any other secondary battery.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the secondary battery of Kaneda to include the limitation “wherein the battery case is formed with aluminum”, because Lipman teaches that guarantees lightness, shock resistance and supports the battery temperature management system with its high thermal conductivity.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneda et al. (JP 2021170436 A, see machine translation for citation) as applied to claim 3 above, further in view of Jeon, D.H. (Wettability in electrodes and its impact on the performance of lithium-ion batteries, see NPL documents for citation).
Regarding claim 8, Kaneda teaches all the elements of the current invention in claim 3. Kaneda further teaches that when cell (1) is constrained and charged, due to the compression and expansion of the negative electrode active material (3), electrolyte seeps out from inside the negative electrode active material (3), and the amount of excess electrolyte increases [0052].
Kaneda does not teach “wherein the upper limit threshold LMAX is set to be within a range from 0.05% to 10%”.
Jeon teachings relates to the wettability in electrodes and its impact on the performance of lithium-ion batteries [Tittle]. It is taught that insufficient wetting in the electrode is inevitable and that it has an impact on the cell performance as well as cycle life [p. 145; col. 1; 3.3. Effect of wettability on performance]. From Fig. 8(a-c), the discharge performance at various cathode and anode wettabilities is shown. It can be observed that for a 90% wet scenario the discharge capacity of the battery is about 8% lower. It is taught that the discharge performance is strongly affected by the cathode wettability, while the low anode wettability may cause lithium deposition in the anode, which is crucial to the safety and cycle life [p. 146; col. 2; line 9-16].
Jeon can be considered analogous art to the current invention because it is concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely wettability in electrodes and its impact on the performance of lithium-ion batteries.
From Jeon teachings it could be reasonable to set an “upper limit threshold LMAX” not greater than 10% for Kaneda’s inspection method, in order to minimize the discharge capacity reduction and lithium deposition in the anode.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the “upper limit threshold LMAX” range reasonably employable based on Jeon teachings because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneda et al. (JP 2021170436 A, see machine translation for citation) as applied to claim 3 above, evidenced by Gao et al. (Aging mechanisms under different state-of-charge ranges and the multi-indicators system of state-of-health for lithium-ion battery with Li(NiMnCo)O2 cathode, see NPL documents for citation).
Regarding claim 9, Kaneda teaches all the elements of the current invention in claim 3. Kaneda further teaches that it cell (1) achieves a high state of charge during charging before the X-ray inspection step for determine the excess liquid volume (L2) (L1) [0050 and 0052].
Gao evidence that a state of charge (SOC) range between 80-100% is considered a high SOC interval [Fig. 4A and p. 645; col. 1; line 3-6].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the high state of charge range disclosed by Kaneda and evidenced by Gao because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneda et al. (JP 2021170436 A, see machine translation for citation).
Regarding claim 10, Kaneda teaches a method for inspecting secondary batteries, and more specifically, to a method for inspecting secondary batteries containing a non-aqueous electrolyte [0001]. Figures 4 and 5 shows the configuration of a lithium-ion battery cell (1), which comprises an electrode body (15) housed together with an electrolyte inside a battery case (11) [0030-0033]. An nondestructive X-ray inspection of cells (1) is performed using a set up comprising a controller (204), an X-ray generator (201), a stage (202) and a X-ray detector (203) [0035, 0036 and Fig. 6]. It is taught that a controller (204) determines the presence or absence of excess electrolyte (19) from the X-ray transmission image of cell (1) [0047 and Fig. 7]. If the presence of excess electrolyte (19) is not confirmed, the cell (1) is constrained and charged until the voltage (VB) of cell (1) becomes higher than a predetermined value [0050 and Fig. 7]. The controller (204) takes an controls the X-ray generator (201) and the X-ray detector (203) to take an X-ray transmission image of cell (1) again [0055]. The controller (204) calculates the excess liquid volume (L2), which may be for example, the distance between the bottom of cell (1) and the liquid surface, in cell (1) [0047 and 0056]. The controller (204) compares the excess liquid volume (L2) with a predetermined reference volume (REF2) and if the excess liquid volume (L2) is equal to or greater than the standard volume (REF2), the controller (204) determines that cell (1) can be reused [0057].
From the above descriptions, an initial excess liquid volume before the charging step is implicit and because an excess liquid volume (L2) is calculated after charging, the limitation of “an inspection charge on the battery assembly for a predetermined period to measure an increase amount L∆ of an excess electrolytic solution” is met. In addition because it is compared if the calculated excess liquid volume (L2) is equal or greater than the reference volume (REF2), such reference would be analogous to a lower limit value or threshold. From common knowledge an upper limit threshold should be higher than a lower limit threshold, therefore from the above descriptions, the calculated excess liquid volume (L2) would be equal to, less than or overlap the “upper limit threshold (LMAX)” independently the numerical range it comprises, because it is not taught the extent of the expression greater than the standard volume (REF2).
It is further taught that Kaneda’s invention is directed to the manufacture new battery packs, made from secondary batteries that can be reused, to be installed in an user’s electric vehicle [0002, 0011, 0015 and 0017]. In this disclosure, a battery pack includes a plurality of modules which may be connected in series or in parallel and each of the modules contains multiple cells (single batteries) connected in series [0014]. From the previous description the limitation “a battery pack, at least comprising: plural single-batteries and a connecting member configured to electrically connect each of the plural single-batteries, wherein 90% or more of the plural single-batteries are secondary batteries” is met.
Despite the taught invention is directed to determine whether or not a secondary battery can be reused to manufacture new battery packs, the general concept and methodology is applicable to a brand new secondary battery construction and inspection as claimed.
Kaneda is analogous art to the current invention because it is concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely a battery pack, at least comprising: plural single-batteries; and a connecting member configured to electrically connect each of the plural single-batteries, wherein 90% or more of the plural single-batteries are secondary batteries, each comprising an increase amount L∆ of an excess electrolytic solution for an inspection charge for a predetermined period, the increase amount L∆ being equal to or less than a predetermined upper limit threshold LMAX.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the comparison between the excess liquid volume (L2) and the predetermined reference volume (REF2) range disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 11, Kaneda teaches all the elements of the current invention in claim 10. From claim 10 discussion the claimed limitations are met.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneda et al. (JP 2021170436 A, see machine translation for citation) as applied to claim 10 above, evidenced by Chian et al. (A Review on Recent Progress of Batteries for Electric Vehicles, see NPL documents for citation).
Regarding claim 12, Kaneda teaches all the elements of the current invention in claim 10. From claim 10 discussion, Kaneda teaches that its electric vehicle battery pack includes a plurality of modules which may be connected in series or in parallel and each of the modules contains multiple cells (single batteries) connected in series [0002 and 0014]. Chian evidence that for an electric vehicle powered by Li-ion batteries, at least 100 individual cells are needed [p. 4457; col. 2; line 5-7].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the necessary Li-ion batteries range disclosed by Kaneda and evidenced by Chian because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GILBERTO RAMOS RIVERA whose telephone number is (571) 272-2740. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:00 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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/G.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights