DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
2. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The term “aerial density” in the Abstract and paragraphs 2, 30, and 32 of the instant specification is believed to be a misspelling of the term “areal density”.
The units “um” (listed in paragraphs 3, 32 and 33 of the instant specification) is believed to correspond to “μm”.
The terms ”CC” and “CV” (as listed in paragraph 7 of the instant specification and beyond) is interpreted to stand for “Constant Current and Constant Voltage”, respectively. The examiner recommends that these abbreviations are written in full at least once before abbreviating them (for example “… embodiment at Constant Current-Constant Voltage (Henceforth, “CC-CV”)”).
Paragraphs 10, 12, 43 and 45 of the instant specification (corresponding to instant Figures 7 and 9) reference literature data, but the literature sources do not appear in the instant specification nor an information disclosure statement (IDS). Any data that has been included should be cited in an IDS. See MPEP 609 for more information.
The term “cathode active material chemistry” (in paragraph 30 and beyond of the instant specification) is irregular in the field of the claimed invention; the context of paragraph 30 of the instant specification suggests this term is being utilized to describe other non-NMC cathode active materials. The examiner recommends dropping the word “chemistry” from this term.
The examiner recommends that, in paragraph 32 of the instant specification, the term “cathode chemistry” be revised to read “cathode active material”
The term “NMP solvent” (paragraph 33 of the instant specification) is believed to correspond to N-methyl pyrrolidone, and will be interpreted as such.
The examiner also recommends splitting paragraph 35 of the instant specification into several sentences while retaining the same content, with adding the appropriate plural term, where needed.
Paragraph 36 of the instant specification reads “the electrolyte is filled at 120-170 gm via vacuum fill …”. The examiner notes that gm can be an abbreviation for grams, but the con text of the instant paragraph seems to be referring to a volume or a pressure.
Paragraph 38 of the instant specification contains a typo – “ageing” should read aging.
Appropriate correction is required.
3. The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The examiner holds this position because the instant title states a “Li Ion Product”, while the instant claims are directed to a “a method for a Li product”. As stated in the claim objections below, this is a method for the development of a lithium ion product, and thus, the examiner recommends the title be amended to the following: “Method(s) to optimize the accessible energy density of Li Ion products”.
Claim Objections
4. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “aerial density” should be corrected to “areal density” and the phrase, “a cathode mixture slurry solids” is unclear, and will be interpreted as “a cathode mixture slurry containing solids”.
5. Claims 2-12 are objected to for their dependence on claim 1.
6. Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: “cathode active material chemistry” should be amended for the reasons outlined in the specification objections, listed above. For the purposes of examination, the current phrasing will be interpreted as a non-NMC cathode active material.
7. Claims 8-11 are objected to for their dependence on claim 7.
8. Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: “aerial density” should read “areal density”.
9. Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “um” should be amended to “μm”, as denoted above from the specification objections; “drying a wet electrode is dried in a 5 x 2m oven …” contains redundant language, and is recommended to be amended to “drying a wet electrode in a 5 x 2m oven …”; “arial density” should be corrected to “areal density”; and “the electrode pairs are wound with industry standard separator […] or any other with jelly roll turns of 17-21” should be amended, as outlined in the specification objections, listed above.
10. Claim 13 additionally recites the limitation "an NMP solvent". This appears to refer to N-methyl pyrrolidine and its derivatives. N-methyl pyrrolidone has a basis in the specification, but its derivatives do not have sufficient support in the instant specification. Thus, this will be interpreted as only N-methyl-pyrrolidine.
11. Claims 14 through 18 are objected to for their dependence on claim 13.
12. Claim 14 is objected to because it adds a limitation of a heating step without clarifying where the step occurs in the overarching method. For the purposes of examination, it will be presumed to occur after all the steps provided in claim 13.
13. Claim 14 is also objected for redundant language. It reads, in part “… one or both of the two (2) rolls are heated rolls heated from 25-60 °C”. This should be corrected to a variation of “… one or both of the two (2) rolls are heated between 25 to 60 °C”.
14. Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “gm” appears to correspond to “grams” , but the context does not imply a mass. For the purposes of examination, it will be interpreted as being filled with 120-170 grams of electrolyte. The examiner notes that the type of electrolyte composition is never mentioned in the instant specification. Additionally, “45 C°” should be revised to say “45 °C”.
15. Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: the word “form” should be corrected to “from”.
16. Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: the word “ageing” should be corrected to “aging”.
17. Appropriate corrections is required. The examiner reminds the applicant not to introduce new matter in amending and correcting the objections. See MPEP 608.04 for more information.
Claim Interpretation
18. Claim 6 recites the limitation of “an NMC-9.5.5”. In view of paragraphs 22 and 30, this will be interpreted as a Li-NMC with the formula LiNi0.9Mn0.05Co0.05O2.
19. Claim 14 ercitites the limitation “… one or both of the two (2) rolls are heated rolls heated from 25-60 °C”. The limitation “25-60 °C” will be interpreted as being heat between 25 °C to 60 °C., and the “rolls” refer to the rolls of the pressing equipment from claim 13.
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.
20. Claims 1-18 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.
21. Claim 1 is drawn to, in part, a method for a Li Ion product for accessible energy density optimization. It is unclear to the examiner if this is meant to be a method for the optimization of a Li Ion product for accessible energy density, or otherwise. For the purposes of examination, it will be interpreted as method for the optimization of a Li Ion product for accessible energy density.
22. Additionally, the “optimizing” limitations of claim 1 are not clearly linked to the provided cathode active material, or the previous limitations. For example, the limitation “a cathode electrode wet thickness post coating” is assumed to be a coating of the cathode mixture slurry solids of the previous limitation, but it is unclear if that is the case or not, and what it is coated on. For the purposes of examination, the areal density and the loading will be assumed to be of the provided cathode active material, the limitations of “a cathode thickness” (post pressing and post drying) will be interpreted as a thickness the cathode active material.
23. Claim 1 additionally recites the limitations “optimizing a cathode aerial density between for a high C-rate energy density retention” and "the high C-rate energy capacity". The term “between” in the first listed limitation is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “between” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. There is also insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation "the high C-rate energy capacity" in the claim. The only previous term that could be related is “a high C-rate energy density retention”, but that is a separate parameter, which is stated later in the same limitation. There is also insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation "the anode" in the claim. No mention of anodes are made previously, and it is unclear what it is meant to refer to.
24. Claims 2-12 are rejected due to their dependence on claim 1.
25. The term “higher” in claim 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “higher” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. While the examiner presumes that this means a battery, which has undergone the method of claim 1, would have better energy density than preceding versions of the battery, that aspect is not clearly established by the claim or the instant specification.
26. Claim 13, in part, is drawn to, a method for a Li Ion product for accessible energy density optimization. It is unclear to the examiner if this is meant to be a method for the optimization of a Li Ion product for accessible energy density, or otherwise. For the purposes of examination, it will be interpreted as method for the optimization of a Li Ion product for accessible energy density.
27. Additionally, it is unclear if the limitations of “a mixed cathode slurry” in claim 13 refers to the mixture of cathode active materials and a solvent mentioned previously, or if a new mixed cathode slurry is provided. For the purposes of examination, it will be interpreted as the mixture of cathode active materials and a solvent mentioned previously.
28. Likewise, the limitation “a wet electrode” in claim 13 is unclear, as it is may refer to a newly added wet electrode or the previously mentioned electrode coated with a mixed cathode slurry. For the purposes of examination, it will be interpreted as the previously mentioned electrode coated with a mixed cathode slurry.
29. In claim 13, the phrases "such as" and “e.g.” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
30. Claims 14-18 are rejected due to their dependence on claim 13.
31. Claim 15 recites the limitation "the electrolyte". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no mention of an electrolyte to this point, and thus a person of ordinary skill would not know what said electrolyte is. The examiner notes no further information is provided in the instant specification, other than a restatement of the claim (paragraph 36) or a general definition of the structure of a Li-ion battery (paragraph 23).
32. Claim 16 recites the limitation "the electrolyte fill hole". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no mention of an electrolyte or electrolyte fill hole in claim 13, and thus there is not antecedent basis for this limitation. The examiner notes an electrolyte is added in claim 15, but claim 16 does not depend on claim 15 and there is no mention of an electrolyte fill hole in claim 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
33. 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.
34. 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.
35. 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.
36. Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gallagher et al (J. Electrochem. Soc. 2016, 163 A138; Henceforth, Gallagher), in view of Zheng et al (Electrochimica Acta, 2012, 71, 258; Henceforth, Zheng) and Kim et al (KR 20220109699 A; Henceforth, Kim).
37. Regarding claim 1, the instant claim is drawn to a method for Li Ion product for accessible energy density optimization, comprising: providing a cathode active material; optimizing a cathode aerial density between for a high C-rate energy density retention; optimizing a cathode thickness during a post pressing for the high C-rate energy capacity and energy density retention; optimizing an N:P ratio the anode for the high C-rate energy and energy density retention; optimizing a loading for the high C-rate energy and energy density retention of a cathode mixture slurry solids; optimizing a cathode electrode wet thickness post coating for the high C-rate energy and energy density retention; and optimizing a cathode thickness post drying in a coat and a dry oven for the high C-rate energy and energy density retention.
38. Gallagher conducts a study to optimize areal capacities (Title) of a lithium-ion battery (A140, column 2) in order to establish the relationship between electrode loading, current density, electrolyte transport, and measured performance (A140, column 2). To do this, Gallagher provides a cathode active material in the form of NMC-622 (page A140, Experimental Section) and conducts tests to determine an optimal cathode aerial density between for a high C-rate energy density retention (A138-A148, in particular Figures 10 and 11 reproduced below and A145, column 2). Gallagher demonstrates the dependence of the loading and thickness of the active material layers for high C-rate energy and energy density retention towards an optimal configuration (Loading: A138-A148; in particular A144, column 2 “electrochemical characterization” and Figure 10a, reproduced below; Thickness: Figure 5, inset and Figure 8 and A143, column 1 through A144, column 1). The examiner notes that Gallagher only focuses on the final thickness of the positive electrode act9ive material, which were manufactured by a commercial entity with no details provided on the manufacturing method (A140, Experimental section). The examiner also notes that Gallagher demonstrates the method one would undertake to perform the optimizations for the properties listed above, thereby encompassing the optimizations of the instant claims.
PNG
media_image1.png
384
472
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
390
481
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figures 10a and 10b, reproduced from Gallagher.
PNG
media_image3.png
389
534
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 11, reproduced from Gallagher.
PNG
media_image4.png
427
527
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
449
547
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figures 5 (left) and 8 (right), reproduced from Gallagher.
39. Gallagher does not explicitly teach of an optimization of the N:P ratio for the high C-rate energy and energy density retention, nor the cathode electrode wet thickness post coating, the cathode electrode thickness post rolling, nor the cathode thickness post drying for high C-rate energy and energy density retention.
40. Zheng conducts a study to explore the impact of electrode thickness on electrochemical performance using NMC-111 and LiFePO4 (LFP) cathodes (page 259, column 1). The cathodes were made by creating a slurry of the active material, binder, and acetylene black (which the examiner notes is an active carbon), the coated on an aluminum foil current carrier at varying heights, dried at 80 °C and further pressed (page 259, column 1, Experimental section). The heights utilized are listed in Tables 1 and 2 (page 260), and the resulting discharge profiles and Peukert curves are depicted in Figures 2 and 3, with Figure 3a depicting the dependence with respect to C-rate. Zheng concludes the optimization of the thickness is critical for each particular battery system (page 264, column 2, Conclusion). The examiner notes that Zheng demonstrates the method one would undertake to perform the optimizations for thicknesses, thereby encompassing the optimizations of the instant claims. The examiner notes that, in order to have the proper heights of the resulting electrode, the initial wet height, the dried height, and the rolled height must have each be optimized through routine optimization in order to have a desired and standardized impact on the resulting active material thickness.
PNG
media_image6.png
731
1028
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Figures 2 (left) and 3 (right) reproduced from Zheng. The examiner notes Figures 2a and 3a are on the top row, and 2b and 3b are on the bottom row.
41. Zheng does not explicitly teach the optimization of the N:P ratio for the high C-rate energy and energy density retention
42. Kim teaches a method of manufacturing a secondary battery ([0023]) including the steps of forming an electrode assembly comprising a negative electrode including a silicon-based active material, a positive electrode facing the negative electrode, and a separator interposed between the negative electrode and the positive electrode; injecting an electrolyte into the electrode assembly to impregnate the electrode assembly; activating the impregnated electrode assembly by charging and discharging it in at least one cycle; placing the activated electrode assembly at 55°C to 85°C for 1 hour to 10 hours; and removing gas generated from the electrode assembly after the placing step ([0023]). Kim teaches the battery has a N/P ratio between 1.5 and 3.5 ([0078]), and, when the ratio is adjusted to the above range, it is possible to minimize the degradation of the battery's life characteristics due to the volume expansion described above, while simultaneously realizing a secondary battery with high energy density, rate characteristics, and capacity characteristics using silicon-based active materials ([0084]). The examiner notes that Kim demonstrates the result of the optimization of the N/P, thereby encompassing the optimizations of the instant claims.
43. Therefore it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to develop a method where a cathode active material is provided, the areal density and loading were optimized for high C-rate energy capacity and energy density retention, as taught by Gallagher, the thickness of the cathode material layer when wet, dried, and rolled was optimized for high C-rate energy capacity and energy density retention, as taught by Zheng in the same field of endeavor, and the N/P ratio was optimized for high C-rate energy capacity and energy density retention, as taught by Kim in the same field of endeavor. Zheng and Kim demonstrate precedent in the art of testing various thicknesses and N/P ratios, respectively, in order to establish an optimal thickness and N/P ratio for their particular battery setups. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation that utilizing the methodologies employed, which amounts to routine experimentation, to optimize the thickness of the cathode active material at various stages of production and the N/P ratio in order to have a high C-rate energy capacity and energy density retention would have been successful, as the methodologies would impart the same improvements to the system of Gallagher as they had in the base systems of Zheng and Kim. See MPEP 2143 (I) C. The examiner notes that while the above literature demonstrates results generated from the optimization of the listed factors, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation that the directed ranges and values would have been the result of an optimization of a particular parameter or in pursuit of an optimized parameter. The inclusion of the former would require routine optimization to adapt the parameter to a desired system, the process by which would necessitate the use of a method to optimize a given parameter while the later highlights the methodologies utilized in order to develop an optimized parameter. In either case, the use of these methods in order to develop optimized parameters renders the instant claims obvious, as they are a standard necessity in the scientific process.
44. Regarding claim 2, the instant claim is drawn to the method of claim 1, wherein the cathode active material comprises an NMC-111 material.
45. Gallagher, Zheng and Kim teach the method of claim 1. Gallagher teaches the positive active material provided is NMC-622, not NMC-111 (page A140, Experimental Section). Zheng teaches the use of NMC-111 (page 259, column 1), since it offers high energy and power density compared with other commercial oxide cathode materials (page 259, column 1), and is commonly accepted to be promising in the field of EVs (page 259, column 1).
46. Therefore it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method taught by Gallagher, Zheng and Kim in claim 1 by using NMC-111 as the positive electrode active material, as taught by Zheng in the same field of endeavor. There would have been a motivation to use NMC-111 as the cathode active material, as taught by Zheng, since it offers high energy and power density compared with other commercial oxide cathode materials (page 259, column 1). Additionally, a person of ordinary skill would have had the reasonable expectation that the use of NMC-111 as the positive active material would not change the ability to implement the method, since the method optimizes the battery performance based on the positive active material. See MPEP 2143 (I) B.
47. Regarding claim 4, the instant claim is drawn to the method of claim 1, wherein the cathode active material comprises an NMC-622 material.
48. Gallagher, Zheng and Kim teach the method of claim 1. Gallagher teaches the positive active material provided is NMC-622 (page A140, Experimental Section).
49. Therefore it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method taught by Gallagher, Zheng and Kim by using NMC-622 as the positive electrode active material, for the reasons outlined in claim 1, above.
50. Regarding claim 7, the instant claim is drawn to the method of claim 1, wherein the cathode active material comprises a cathode active material chemistry. The examiner notes that “cathode active material chemistry” is being interpreted as a non-NMC active material, as outlined in the claim objections, above.
51. Gallagher, Zheng and Kim teach the method of claim 1. Gallagher teaches the positive active material provided is NMC-622, not NMC-111 (page A140, Experimental Section). Zheng teaches the use of NMC-111 and LFP cathodes (page 259, column 1). Zheng teaches LFP has advantages of good safety attribute and long cycle life and is widely accepted to be promising for EV and PHEV applications (page 259, column 1). The examiner notes LFP is a non-NMC active material.
52. Therefore it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method taught by Gallagher, Zheng and Kim in claim 1 by using LFP as a non-NMC positive electrode active material, as taught by Zheng in the same field of endeavor. There would have been a motivation to use LFP as the cathode active material, as taught by Zheng, since LFP has advantages of good safety attribute and long cycle life (page 259, column 1). Additionally, a person of ordinary skill would have had the reasonable expectation that the use of LFP as the positive active material would not change the ability to implement the method, since the method optimizes the battery performance based on the positive active material. See MPEP 2143 (I) B.
53. Regarding claim 8, the instant claim is drawn to the method of claim 7, wherein the cathode active material chemistry comprises an LFP (Lithium Iron Phosphate).
54. Gallagher, Zheng and Kim teach the method of claim 7. Zheng teaches the use of NMC-111 and LFP cathodes (page 259, column 1). Zheng teaches LFP has advantages of good safety attribute and long cycle life and is widely accepted to be promising for EV and PHEV applications (page 259, column 1).
55. Therefore it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method taught by Gallagher, Zheng and Kim in claim 1 by using LFP as a non-NMC positive electrode active material, as taught by Zheng in the same field of endeavor, for the reasons outlined in in claim 7, above
56. Regarding claim 12, the instant claim is drawn to the method of claim 1, wherein the optimizing of the cathode aerial density between for high C-rate energy density retention results in a higher accessible and a useable energy density for the Li ion cell.
57. Gallagher, Zheng and Kim teach the method of claim 1. Gallagher conducts a study to determine an optimal cathode aerial density between for a high C-rate energy density retention (A138-A148, in particular Figures 10, 11 and A145, column 2), with a finding that the best performing depended on C-rate (page A146, column 1). Gallagher teaches the process of optimizing the cathode areal density, through the increase in the thickness of the cathode active material layer, results in a larger cell energy density (Figure 3).
PNG
media_image7.png
413
525
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Figure 3, reproduced from Gallagher.
57. Therefore it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method taught by Gallagher, Zheng and Kim by including the limitation of process the optimizing of the cathode aerial density between for high C-rate energy density retention results in a higher accessible and a useable energy density for the Li ion cell, for the reasons outlined in claim 1, above.
58. Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gallagher, Zheng and Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Slaughter et al (WO 2023025941 A1; Henceforth, Slaughter).
59. Regarding claim 3, the instant claim is drawn to the method of claim 1, wherein the cathode active material comprises an NMC-532 material.
60. Gallagher, Zheng and Kim teach the method of claim 1. None of them teach the use of NMC-532.
61. Slaughter teaches a method of coating electrode active material with a bimetallic oxide (page 3, lines 5-6), and the resulting lithium ion cell made with said electrode (page 18, lines 11-25). Slaughter teaches the electrode active materials are preferably NMCs, including NMC-111, NMC-442, NMC-532, NMC-622, and NMC-811 (page 16, lines 40-42 and page 17, lines 1-2).
62. Therefore it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method taught by Gallagher, Zheng and Kim in claim 1 by using NMC-532 as the positive electrode active material, as taught by Slaughter in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill would have had the reasonable expectation that the use of NMC-532 as the positive active material would not change the ability to implement the method, since the method optimizes the battery performance based on the positive active material. See MPEP 2143 (I) B.
63. Regarding claim 5, the instant claim is drawn to the method of claim 1, wherein the cathode active material comprises an NMC-811 material.
64. Gallagher, Zheng and Kim teach the method of claim 1. None of them teach the use of NMC-811.
65. Slaughter teaches a method of coating electrode active material with a bimetallic oxide (page 3, lines 5-6), and the resulting lithium ion cell made with said electrode (page 18, lines 11-25). Slaughter teaches the electrode active materials are preferably NMCs, including NMC-111, NMC-442, NMC-532, NMC-622, and NMC-811 (page 16, lines 40-42 and page 17, lines 1-2).
66. Therefore it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method taught by Gallagher, Zheng and Kim in claim 1 by using NMC-811 as the positive electrode active material, as taught by Slaughter in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill would have had the reasonable expectation that the use of NMC-811 as the positive active material would not change the ability to implement the method, since the method optimizes the battery performance based on the positive active material. See MPEP 2143 (I) B.
67. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gallagher, Zheng and Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Holman and Wrobel (US 20220223379 A1; Henceforth, Holman) and Williams et al (“NMC 9.5.5 for Li Ion Batteries”, published 2/28/2022 on batterydesign.net; Henceforth, Williams).
68. Regarding claim 6, the instant claim is drawn to the method of claim 1, wherein the cathode active material comprises an NMC-9.5.5 material.
69. Gallagher, Zheng and Kim teach the method of claim 1. None of them teach the use of NMC-9.5.5.
70. Holman teaches methods directed to synthesizing various NMC powders ([0006]), and methods of recycling end-of-life NMC powders ([0007]). Holman teaches that these methods are directed to relieve the waste from lithium-ion batteries, and recycle the highly valuable active materials, including NMCs ([0002] and [0004]). H0lman teaches this includes NMCs with lower amounts of cobalt, including NMC-811 ([0005]) and NMC-9.5.5 ([0014]). This is evidenced by the work of Williams, who documents a synthesis of NMC-9.5.5, and incorporation in an electrode and electrochemical cell.
71. Therefore it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method taught by Gallagher, Zheng and Kim in claim 1 by using NMC-9.5.5 as the positive electrode active material, as taught by Williams and Holman in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill would have had the reasonable expectation that the use of NMC-9.5.5 as the positive active material would not change the ability to implement the method, since the method optimizes the battery performance based on the positive active material. See MPEP 2143 (I) B.
72. Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gallagher, Zheng and Kim as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Lin et al (US 20210376375-A1; Henceforth, Lin).
73. Regarding claim 9, the instant claim is drawn to the method of claim 7, wherein the cathode active material chemistry comprises an LMFP (Lithium-Manganese-Iron-Phosphate).
74. Gallagher, Zheng and Kim teach the method of claim 7. Zheng teaches the use of NMC-111 and LFP cathodes (page 259, column 1), but not LMFP cathodes.
75. Lin teaches an electrode material of a lithium ion battery ([0006]), which is composed of an active material and a metal thin film ([0010]). Lin teaches the positive active material may be composed of a transition metal oxide; examples listed include NMC, LMFP, LCO, LMnO, LNO (lithium nickel oxide), LFP, LTO (lithium titanium oxide) and TNO (niobium titanium oxide), among others ([0035]).
76. Therefore it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method taught by Gallagher, Zheng and Kim in claim 7 by using LMFP as a non-NMC positive electrode active material, as taught by Lin in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill would have had the reasonable expectation that the use of LMFP as the positive active material would not change the ability to implement the method, since the method optimizes the battery performance based on the positive active material, and LMFP is commonly used in the art as a standard positive electrode active material. See MPEP 2143 (I) B.
77. Regarding claim 10, the instant claim is drawn to the method of claim 7, wherein the cathode active material chemistry comprises an LCO (Lithium Cobalt Oxide).
78. Gallagher, Zheng and Kim teach the method of claim 7. Zheng teaches the use of NMC-111 and LFP cathodes (page 259, column 1), but not LMFP cathodes.
79. Lin teaches an electrode material of a lithium ion battery ([0006]), which is composed of an active material and a metal thin film ([0010]). Lin teaches the positive active material may be composed of a transition metal oxide; examples listed include NMC, LMFP, LCO, LMnO, LNO (lithium nickel oxide), LFP, LTO (lithium titanium oxide) and TNO (niobium titanium oxide), among others ([0035]).
80. Therefore it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method taught by Gallagher, Zheng and Kim in claim 7 by using LCO as a non-NMC positive electrode active material, as taught by Lin in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill would have had the reasonable expectation that the use of LCO as the positive active material would not change the ability to implement the method, since the method optimizes the battery performance based on the positive active material, and LCO is commonly used in the art as a standard positive electrode active material. See MPEP 2143 (I) B.
81. Regarding claim 11, the instant claim is drawn to the method of claim 7, wherein the cathode active material chemistry comprises an LMnO (Lithium Manganese Oxide).
82. Gallagher, Zheng and Kim teach the method of claim 7. Zheng teaches the use of NMC-111 and LFP cathodes (page 259, column 1), but not LMFP cathodes.
83. Lin teaches an electrode material of a lithium ion battery ([0006]), which is composed of an active material and a metal thin film ([0010]). Lin teaches the positive active material may be composed of a transition metal oxide; examples listed include NMC, LMFP, LCO, LMnO, LNO (lithium nickel oxide), LFP, LTO (lithium titanium oxide) and TNO (niobium titanium oxide), among others ([0035]).
84. Therefore it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method taught by Gallagher, Zheng and Kim in claim 7 by using LMnO as a non-NMC positive electrode active material, as taught by Lin in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill would have had the reasonable expectation that the use of LMnO as the positive active material would not change the ability to implement the method, since the method optimizes the battery performance based on the positive active material, and LMnO is commonly used in the art as a standard positive electrode active material. See MPEP 2143 (I) B.
85. Claims 13, 14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin, and further in view of Gallagher, Miyazaki et al (US 20150030911 A1; Henceforth, Miyazaki), Li et al (US 20240258584 A1, which has priority to 06/16/2022; Henceforth, Li), Kim (EP 3319155 A1), Kifune (US 20180351211 A1), Mizoguchi (WO 2024247853 A1, claiming priority to 05/31/2023), Takami et al (US 20080067972 A1; Henceforth, Takami), and “Batch Ovens, Catalog Booths” (archived in 2023 via the Internet Archive; Henceforth, Rohner).
86. Regarding claim 13, the instant claim is drawn to a method for Li Ion product for accessible energy density optimization comprising: provides a mixture of cathode active material (CAM) with an active carbon, an NMP solvent and a suitable binder such as PVDF (Poly Vinyl Di-Fluoride) is mixed in a proportion of solids to liquids ratio of 65-95%; coating a mixed cathode slurry is coated on an Aluminum foil of thickness of 8-15 um at thickness of 210-330 um; drying a wet electrode is dried in a 5 x 2m oven with a temperatures between 100- 130 *C to evaporate the slurry; compressing the dried electrode using a pressing equipment with two (2) rolls; pairing the pressed electrode with anode electrode consisting of an arial density and thickness to ensure an N:P ratio of 1.05-1.2; and winding the electrode pairs with an industry standard separator (e.g. ceramic) or any other with jelly roll turns of 17-21 and thickness from 11-14 mm followed by a combination of two (2) jelly rolls connected with current collectors on a lid assembly through an ultrasonic or any other welding method followed by wrapping in an insulator wrap and the two jelly roll insulator wrapped active material placed in a prismatic can and the lid assembly being welded to the prismatic can via laser welding or any other welding method.
87. Lin teaches a method of manufacturing a secondary battery ([0002]). Lin teaches the method is composed of the following steps: forming an electrode assembly comprising a negative electrode including a silicon-based active material, a positive electrode facing the negative electrode, and a separator interposed between the negative electrode and the positive electrode; injecting an electrolyte into the electrode assembly to impregnate the electrode assembly; activating the impregnated electrode assembly by charging and discharging it in at least one cycle; placing the activated electrode assembly at 55°C to 85°C for 1 to 10 hours; and removing gas generated from the electrode assembly after the placing step ([0012]). The positive active material layer may further include a binder and/or a conductive material ([0068], where the binder can be polyvinylidene fluoride ([0069] (the examiner notes this is equivalent to polyvinyl difluoride); and the conductive material can be active carbonaceous materials ([0071]), and they are mixed with NMP to make the slurry ([0076]). The slurry is formed such that the content of solids in the slurry is between 50-95 wt %, preferably 70-95 wt % ([0076]). The positive current collector can be made of aluminum ([0060] with a thickness of 5-500 μm ([0061]), and Lin teaches an example (Example 1) that uses an aluminum current collector with a thickness of 15 μm ([0136]). The examiner notes that the translation of terms in paragraphs 132 and 135 appear to be swapped, based on the context of the subsequent paragraphs. Lin teaches the slurry was dried at 130 °C for 10 hrs in a vacuum oven after being roll pressed ([0136]), before being rolled with a separator and the anode ([0138]). The examiner notes the drying temperature and the current collector thickness lie within the instant ranges and therefore anticipates it. Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001). See MPEP 2131.
88. Lin does not teach the following aspects: the wet thickness being between 210-330 um, the N:P ratio being between 1.05-1.2, the drying occurring in a 2x5m oven, and the rolling step occurring after drying, having the jelly-roll wound 17-21 times tom yield a final thickness of 11-14 mm, and combining two (2) jelly rolls connected to current collectors on a lid assembly through an ultrasonic or any other welding method wrapped in an insulator wrap, and placing the two jelly roll insulator wrapped active material in a prismatic can with the lid assembly being welded to the prismatic can via laser welding or any other welding method.
89. Gallagher conducts a study to optimize areal capacities (Title) of a lithium-ion battery (A140, column 2) in order to establish the relationship between electrode loading, current density, electrolyte transport, and measured performance (A140, column 2). Gallagher teaches examples using of an N:P ratio of 1.12 to 1.19 (Table I), in various pouch style batteries. These examples lie within the instant range and therefore anticipates it. Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001). See MPEP 2131.
90. Gallagher does not teach the following aspects: the wet thickness being between 210-330 um, the drying occurring in a 2x5m oven, and the rolling occurring after drying, having the jelly-roll wound 17-21 times tom yield a final thickness of 11-14 mm, and combining two (2) jelly rolls connected to current collectors on a lid assembly through an ultrasonic or any other welding method, wrapping them in an insulator wrap, and placing the two jelly rolls wrapped in the insulation in a prismatic can with the lid assembly being welded to the prismatic can via laser welding or any other welding method.
91. Li teaches a secondary battery ([0036]) wherein a positive electrode, negative electrode, and separator are wound together, forming a jelly-roll like electrode assembly ([0136]). One or more electrode assemblies can be included in the battery ([0067] and Figure 1, reproduced below). The examiner notes the battery configuration of Figure 1 is prismatic. Li teaches the positive and negative electrodes are connected to the top plate assembly by welding each to intermediary members ([0068]), and the top plate assembly is welded to the battery housing ([0068]).
PNG
media_image8.png
464
381
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Figure 1, reproduced from Li.
92. Li does not explicitly teach wrapping the electrode assemblies in insulation wrap, the cathode active material slurry having a thickness of between 210-330 um, the drying of the slurry occurring in a 2x5m oven, having a rolling step occur after a drying step, and having the jelly-roll wound 17-21 times tom yield a final thickness of 11-14 mm.
93. Miyazaki teaches a non-aqueous secondary battery ([0013]). While the focus is on square stacked electrode assemblies ([0013]), Miyazaki teaches a reference example wherein the electrode assembly is wound 21 times ([0058]). The examiner notes that this lies within the instant range and therefore anticipates it. Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001). See MPEP 2131.
94. Miyazaki does not teach wrapping the electrode assemblies in insulation wrap, the cathode active material slurry having a thickness of between 210-330 um, the drying of the slurry occurring in a 2x5m oven, having a rolling step occur after a drying step, and having the jelly-roll wound to yield a final thickness of 11-14 mm.
95. Kim teaches a method of preparing an electrode slurry, including preparing an electrode slurry which includes the processes of preparing a mixed solution by mixing a binder, a conductive material, and an active material with a solvent; separating the mixed solution prepared through process 1 into layers; and removing at least a portion of the solvent from the mixed solution ([0012]). Kim teaches the binder may be polyvinylidene fluoride ([0030]), the conductive additive can be an active carbon ([0032]), the solvent used may be NMP ([0033]), adding an active material ([0026]), and adding it to a current collector ([0054]). Kim teaches the drying process occurs in a vacuum oven at 50-200°C for up to 1 day ([0060]), then is rolled between two heated rollers ([0061]) to the desired thickness, at a temperature between 60°C to 90 °C ([0061]).
96. Kim does not teach wrapping the electrode assemblies in insulation wrap, the cathode active material slurry having a thickness of between 210-330 um, the drying of the slurry occurring in a 2x5m oven, and having the jelly-roll wound to yield a final thickness of 11-14 mm.
97. Kifune teaches a secondary battery obtained by rolling a cathode, an anode, and an interposed separator together (Abstract). Kifune teaches the electrode assembly is covered in a case-like insulation sheet, before being placed in the battery can ([0041]).
98. Kifune does not the cathode active material slurry having a thickness of between 210-330 um, the drying of the slurry occurring in a 2x5m oven, and having the jelly-roll wound to yield a final thickness of 11-14 mm.
99. Mizoguchi teaches method for manufacturing a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery comprising stacking a positive electrode current collector, a positive electrode active material layer, a separator, a negative electrode active material layer, and a negative electrode current collector in this order, wherein a slurry for forming a positive electrode containing a positive electrode active material, a conductive additive, an electrolyte, and a non-aqueous solvent ([0009]). Mizoguchi teaches the thickness of the slurry layer can be between 5 to 500 μm, preferably 20 to 400 μm, more preferably 40 to 400 μm, even more preferably 80 to 350 μm, even more preferably 120 to 350 μm, and even more preferably 150 to 340 μm ([0067]), and teaches an examples using a thickness of 300 μm ([0079] and [0084]). This thickness lies within the instant range and therefore anticipates it. Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001). See MPEP 2131. Mizoguchi does not teach drying of the slurry in a 2x5m oven, and having the jelly-roll wound to yield a final thickness of 11-14 mm.
100. Takami teaches a set of battery modules (Abstract), made of battery units that are wound in a jelly-roll configuration then flattened (Figure 3, reproduced below). Takami teaches an example with a final thickness of 13 mm ([0163]). This thickness lies within the instant range of the instant claim and therefore anticipates it. Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001). See MPEP 2131. Takami does not teach drying of the slurry in a 2x5m oven.
PNG
media_image9.png
861
651
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Figure 3, reproduced from Takami.
101. Rohner is a catalog for batch overs, available online in mid-2023. The batch ovens in the catalog have working dimensions that range from 6’x6.5’x10’ to 12’x13’x40’. While it is unknown which dimensions the instant claim refer to, the examiner notes Rohner has an oven configuration that is 6’ wide by 15’ deep by 6.5’ high, which is the closest reasonable configuration to the metric dimensions of the instant claim.
102. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Lin with the modifications taught by Gallagher, Kim, Miyazaki, Kifune, Li, Mizoguchi, and Takami from the same field of endeavor. Lin, Kim, Kifune and Li all teach methods and techniques common in the art for various stages of the manufacturing of batteries. Kim teaches the use of two heated rollers versus the unspecified rollers of Lin, Kifune teaches the addition of an insulator sheet around the electrode assemblies, and Li teaching a method of connecting the electrode assemblies to the battery cover and case. A person of ordinary skill would have the reasonable expectation that these methods and attributes could reasonable be added together in a singular process successfully, as each of the processes and elements would be performing the same function as it had in each independent system previously. See MPEP 2143 (I) A. Additionally, Gallagher, Mizoguchi, Takami, and Miyazaki all demonstrate precedent in the art of specific values for dimensions and/or properties common that Lin, Kim, Kifune or Li did not explicitly teach. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation that modifying the specific parameters in the method taught by Lin, Kim, Kifune and Li would have been successful, as they had been previously demonstrated to work in the systems of Gallagher, Mizoguchi, Takami, and Miyazaki, and the change would be expected to work in a predictable manner. See MPEP 2143 (I) B.
103. A person of ordinary skill would also have the reasonable expectation that the specific equipment utilized by Lin could be modified based on the size of the electrodes being manufactured. Since the batch ovens taught by Rohner would be capable of heating and drying the electrodes, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the reasonable expectation that the substitution of the oven of Lin for that taught by Rohner would not have changed the effectiveness of the method, as it would be capable of performing the same function. See MPEP 2143 (I) B. The examiner additionally notes the range of the solid to liquid ratio taught by Lin overlaps/encompasses the range taught by the instant claim. It has been held that, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the solid to liquid ratio from the prior art range, because the prior art teaches the desired property/utility over the entire range.
104. Regarding claim 14, the instant claim is drawn to the method of claim 13, wherein one or both of the two (2) rolls are heated rolls heated from 25-60 °C.
105. Lin, Gallagher, Miyazaki, Li, Kim, Kifune, Mizoguchi, Takami and Rohner teach the method of claim 13. Lin teaches the use of a roller at room temperature, but not the use of multiple rollers. Kim teaches the use of heated rollers, that range in temperature from 60-90 °C.
106. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Lin with the modifications taught by Gallagher, Kim, Miyazaki, Kifune, Li, Mizoguchi, and Takami from the same field of endeavor, as described for claim 13, above, wherein the rollers are heated from 25-60 °C. The examiner notes the range taught by Kim and the temperature taught by Lin each overlap the range taught by the instant claim. It has been held that, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the temperature from the prior art values, because the prior art teaches the desired property/utility over the entire range.
107. Regarding claim 18, the instant claim is drawn to the method of claim 13, wherein a plurality of C-rate tests are then carried for three (3) repeats sequentially starting with C/5 then C/2 then 1C and then 2C in a controlled 25 °C oven for 3 prismatic cells each for a charge C-rate capacity retention assessment and a discharge C-rate capacity retention assessment.
108. Lin, Gallagher, Miyazaki, Li, Kim, Kifune, Mizoguchi, Takami and Rohner teach the method of claim 13. Lin teaches the performance of C-rate tests at 25 °C ([0152]) for the purposes of capacity retention (Table 1), but not that multiple batteries were tested simultaneously. Gallagher teaches a series of rate compatibility tests, looking to examine the capacity utilized as a function of discharge rate, consisting of 3 cycles of at one rate before moving to the next rate, the rates being C/10, C/5, C/2, 1C, and 2C (page 141, column 1). These were measured using a 96-channel MACCOR Series 4000n Test Unit in an oven at 30 ± 1 °C (page 141, column 1). While Gallagher does not explicitly teach testing 3 cells at once, the examiner notes the system they utilize is capable of running at least 3 at once.
109. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Lin with the modifications taught by Gallagher, Kim, Miyazaki, Kifune, Li, Mizoguchi, and Takami from the same field of endeavor, as described for claim 13, above, wherein the C-rate tests were performed as described by Gallagher at the temperature denoted by Lin in the same field of endeavor. Gallagher had demonstrated precedent in the art to perform C-rate tests at various scan rates in order to examine the capacity retention of a battery configuration. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation that running a full series of C-rate tests to match that of Gallagher, at the temperature taught by Lin, would not have change how the tests were performed, as each element would perform similarly to how it had been done previously. See MPEP 2143 (I) A. A person of ordinary skill would have been able to utilize the testing setup of Gallagher to test multiple samples at once with a reasonable expectation of success, as they would not need to change how the device functions in order to run the extra samples.
110. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin, Gallagher, Miyazaki, Li, Kim, Kifune, Mizoguchi, Takami and Rohner, as applied to claim 13, above, and further in view of Skarstad and Hayes (US 4465743 A; Henceforth, Skarstad) and Kim et al (CN 116130911 A; Henceforth, Na).
111. Regarding claim 15, the instant claim is drawn to the method of claim 13, wherein the electrolyte is filled at 120-170 gm via vacuum fill, followed by heating for 6-12 hours in a 45 °C chamber, followed by simultaneous pre-charge to 20-80% SOC (State of Charge) at C/10 to 1C rates while degassing the chemical gases formed.
112. Lin, Gallagher, Miyazaki, Li, Kim, Kifune, Mizoguchi, Takami and Rohner teach the battery of claim 13. Kim teaches heating a battery at 40 °C ([0218]) for durations that can include 8 to 12 hrs ([0171] and [0215]). None of the other prior arts teach filling an amount of electrolyte via vacuum fill, nor a simultaneous degassing and pre-charging step.
113. Skarstad teaches an electrochemical cell ([012]), wherein the electrolyte is introduced into the battery via a vacuum fill technique ([027]). The examiner notes that Skarstad does not specify an exact mass of electrolyte injected via this manner, but it is presumed that it is a sufficient amount needed for their battery. Skarstad does not teach filling an amount of electrolyte via vacuum fill, nor a simultaneous degassing and pre-charging step.
114. Na teaches a method for forming a secondary battery ([n0011]) wherein a pre-formation step is undertaken, wherein the battery is charged and gas is collected in a gas collection bag simultaneously ([n0055], [n0058], and [n0071]). The purpose of this step is to remove some of the gases generated during the entire formation process of the secondary battery before the main formation process, reducing the potential for damage caused by gas formation, which reduces the quality and introduces secondary risks ([n0056] and [n0058]). The amount of charging can be to an SOC of less than 100%, including 80% or less and the range 1-70% ([n0059]). The examiner notes the heating can be done in the range of 20-100 °C ([n0069]). Na teaches an example where the rates utilized are 0.25C and 0.85C ([n0092]), which lies within the instant range and therefore anticipates it. Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001). See MPEP 2131.
115. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Lin with the modifications taught by Gallagher, Kim, Miyazaki, Kifune, Li, Mizoguchi, and Takami from the same field of endeavor, as described for claim 13, above, wherein the electrolyte was added by vacuum fill, as taught by Skarstad in the same field of endeavor, heated, and degassed while pre-charging to 20-80% SOC at a rate between C/10 and 1C, as taught by Na in the same field of endeavor. Skarstad demonstrates precedent in the art to add electrolyte to a battery via vacuum fill. A person of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation that adding electrolyte to the battery of claim 13 would have been successful, as it would be performed in the same manner as it has been previously described. See 2143 (I) C. Additionally, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation that the amount of electrolyte would be a matter of routine optimization in the art, which would largely be dependent on the size of the battery case, and the amount of electrolyte needed to impregnate the electrode assemblies. Therefore, while Skarstad doesn’t specify an exact mass for the electrolyte added, it would be expected that the amount would vary system to system, and the mass specified would be an optimized through routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 (II) A. Na demonstrates precedent in the art for performing formation steps wherein battery is charged and gas is collected in a gas collection bag simultaneously and at the rate of 0.25C and 0.85C. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have had a reasonable expectation that performing the formation steps would have been successful, as they would be performed in the same manner as it has been previously described in the system of Na. See 2143 (I) C. There would have been a motivation to preform degassing while undergoing a pre-charge, as taught by Na, in order to prevent damage to the battery, which would reduce its quality and introduce secondary risks ([n0069]).
116. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin, Gallagher, Miyazaki, Li, Kim, Kifune, Mizoguchi, Takami and Rohner, as applied to claim 13, above, and further in view of Skarstad and Amiruddin and Li (US 20130043843 A1; Henceforth, Amiruddin).
117. Regarding claim 16, the instant claim is drawn to the method of claim 13, wherein the electrolyte fill hole is capped with a metal piece which is welded to seal the prismatic product followed by formation cycle consisting of discharge to 3V, charge to 4.2V and discharge to 3V and charge to anywhere form 20-80% SOC.
118. Lin, Gallagher, Miyazaki, Li, Kim, Kifune, Mizoguchi, Takami and Rohner teach the battery of claim 13. Gallagher teaches utilizing formation cycles wherein the battery is charged between 3 and 4.2 V (page A141, “Electrochemical Characterization”). The above listed prior art do not teach the electrolyte fill hole is capped with a metal piece which is welded to seal the prismatic product, nor that the final charge state is between 20-80% SOC.
119. Skarstad teaches an electrochemical cell ([012]), wherein the electrolyte is introduced into the battery via a vacuum fill technique ([027]). Skarstad teaches that the battery is sealed by welding a nickel pin in the fill-hole ([027]). The examiner notes that this pin is used as a terminal in the battery of Skarstad. Skarstad does not teach that the final charge state is between 20-80% SOC.
120. Amiruddin teaches a method of forming a lithium-ion secondary battery ([0004]). Amiruddin teaches, as part of a test to determine the storage life of a battery, completing a formation cycle, then charged to 80% SOC for storage ([0102]). The examiner notes the value selected before storage is not particular, and can also be 100% SOC or 60% SOC ([0102]). The examiner notes this lies within the range of the instant claim and therefore anticipates it. Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001). See MPEP 2131.
121. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Lin with the modifications taught by Gallagher, Kim, Miyazaki, Kifune, Li, Mizoguchi, and Takami from the same field of endeavor, as described for claim 13, above, wherein the electrolyte fill hole is capped with a metal piece and welded to seal the prismatic product, as taught by Skarstad in the same field of endeavor, followed by formation cycle consisting of discharge to 3V, charge to 4.2V, as taught by Gallagher, before being charged to an SOC between 20-80%, as taught by Amiruddin. Skarstad demonstrates precedent in the art to add electrolyte to a battery via vacuum fill, and to seal it by welding in a nickel pin. A person of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation sealing the fill hole with a metal pin through welding would have been successful, as it would be performed in the same manner as it has been previously described. See 2143 (I) C. Gallagher demonstrates precedent in the art for performing formation cycles wherein battery is charged and discharged from 3.2V. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have had a reasonable expectation that performing the formation steps would have been successful, as they would be performed in the same manner as it has been previously described in the system of Gallagher. See 2143 (I) C. Amiruddin demonstrates precedent in the art for charging a battery, after a formation cycle, to an SOC between 20-80A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have had a reasonable expectation that performing the formation steps would have been successful, as they would be performed in the same manner as it has been previously described in the system of Amiruddin. See 2143 (I) C.
122. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin, Gallagher, Miyazaki, Li, Kim, Kifune, Mizoguchi, Takami and Rohner, as applied to claim 13, above, and further in view of Park et al (KR20150049479A; Henceforth, Park).
123. Regarding claim 17, the instant claim is drawn to the method of claim 13, wherein a prismatic product is aged at room temperature (25 °C) from 8-18 days or high temperature aging at 35-50 °C for 1-4 days followed by room temperature (25 *C) ageing for 3-12 days.
124. Lin, Gallagher, Miyazaki, Li, Kim, Kifune, Mizoguchi, Takami and Rohner teach the method of claim 13. They do not teach to age the batteries at room temperature (25 °C) from 8-18 days or high temperature aging at 35-50 °C for 1-4 days followed by room temperature (25 *C) ageing for 3-12 days.
125. Park teaches a method of manufacturing a secondary battery ([0006]) characterized by a room temperature aging step, a degassing step of removing gas inside the battery aged at room temperature, and a waiting time after the degassing step ([0006]). In addition, after the above-mentioned room temperature aging step, a high temperature aging step at a temperature higher than room temperature may be further included ([0008]). The high temperature aging step can be between 40 and 50 °C for a time period of 43 to 53 hrs ([0009]), followed by a room temperature waiting period of 2 to 4 days ([0029]). Park teaches a specific example of aging at 45°C for 48 hrs, followed by a higher temperature step, before waiting at room temperature for 2-3 days ([0039]-[0042]). Park teaches this process helps with the impregnation process of the battery electrolyte during battery formation ([0005]). The examiner notes the aging times and temperatures lie within the instant ranges and therefore anticipates it. Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001). See MPEP 2131.
126. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Lin with the modifications taught by Gallagher, Kim, Miyazaki, Kifune, Li, Mizoguchi, and Takami from the same field of endeavor, as described for claim 13, above, wherein the an aging step occurs at 35-50 °C for 1-4 days followed by room temperature (25 *C) ageing for 3-12 days, as taught by Park in the same field of endeavor. There would have been a motivation, as taught by Park, to age the battery at high temperatures, before cooling to room temperature, in order to help the electrolyte impregnate the electrode. A person of ordinary skill would have had the reasonable expectation that implementing this method with the system of Lin, as modified by Gallagher, Kim, Miyazaki, Kifune, Li, Mizoguchi, and Takami, would have led to predictable results, as the method has been shown to help improve the electrolytes ability to penetrate the electrode in analogous systems. See MPEP 2143 (I) C.
Conclusion
127. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN P MURPHY whose telephone number is (571)272-9321. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:30 pm.
128. 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.
129. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicholas A 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.
130. 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.
/RPM/Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/OSEI K AMPONSAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights