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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-6 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 8-9: “the initial charging step” should be to “the step of initially charging the battery assembly" due to lack of antecedent basis
Claim 6, line 9: “the area” should be “an area” due to lack of antecedent basis
Claims 2-5 are objected because they are dependent from claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyun Jun Choi et al. (JP2022551636 A, cited in the IDS), hereinafter Hyun, in view of Seong Won Choi et al. (US 20230028907 A1), hereinafter Seong.
Regarding claim 1, Hyun teaches a method for manufacturing a non-aqueous electrolytic solution secondary battery, comprising:
a step of constructing a battery assembly in which an electrode body and a non-aqueous electrolytic solution are accommodated in a battery case, the electrode body including a positive electrode and a negative electrode laminated on each other across a separator [0030];
a step of initially charging the battery assembly ([0066] step d1);
a high-temperature holding step of holding the battery assembly after subjected to the initial charging step at a high temperature range of 50°C to 80°C ([0066] step d3);
an ordinary-temperature holding step of holding the battery assembly at an ordinary temperature for a duration of 10 hours to 30 days after the high-temperature holding step ([0066] step d4, [0019]), which falls within the range of equal to or greater than 6 hours. Hyun does not specifically teach that the method comprises a degassing step of pressing the battery assembly after being subjected to the ordinary-temperature holding step in a laminating direction of the electrode body and releasing the battery assembly.
Seong, however, teaches of a method of manufacturing a battery assembly that includes aging and degassing the battery (Abstract). Seong also teaches that the method comprises a degassing step of pressing the battery assembly after being subjected to the ordinary-temperature holding step in a laminating direction of the electrode body and releasing the battery assembly [0057].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the Hyun method so that it comprises the Seong pressing degassing step because Hyun states that an additional degassing step can be performed after the ordinary-temperature holding step (Hyun [0069]). That means the Seong pressing degassing step can occur in order to discharge the gas inside the electrode assembly without forming a hole in the battery case (Seong [0057])
Regarding claim 2, modified Hyun teaches the manufacturing method according to claim 1, wherein in the degassing step, the battery assembly is pressed in the laminating direction of the electrode body under a pressure in the range of 100 to 400 kgf (Seong [0063]). In kN, this range would be 0.98 kN to 3.92 kN, which falls within the claimed range of 0.1 kN to 5 kN
Regarding claim 3, modified Hyun teaches the manufacturing method according to claim 1, wherein in the degassing step, with a length of the battery assembly in the laminating direction before the pressing defined as 100%, the battery assembly is pressed so as to reduce the length of the battery assembly in the laminating direction by a range from 7.5 to 10%. The change in length is determined by the temperature and pressure applied, and it would be obvious to select any temperature or pressure indicated by the reference, including values that would give a change in length within the claimed range. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 4, modified Hyun teaches the manufacturing method according to claim 1, wherein in the ordinary-temperature holding step, the battery assembly is held at the ordinary temperature for a duration in the range of 10 to 30 hours (Hyun [0018]). This falls within the range of greater than or equal to 6 hours.
Regarding claim 6, modified Hyun teaches the manufacturing method according to claim 1, wherein the positive electrode includes a positive electrode collector and a positive electrode active material layer arranged on the positive electrode collector (Hyun [0042]),
the negative electrode includes a negative electrode collector and a negative electrode active material layer arranged on the negative electrode collector, in the electrode body (Hyun [0048]),
the positive electrode active material layer and the negative electrode active material layer are laminated on each other in such a manner as to face each other across the separator (Hyun [0052]),
and in the degassing step, with an area of a region in the presence of the positive electrode active material layer in the electrode body defined as 100%, the battery assembly is pressed in the laminating direction at least in a region greater than 100% (Seong Fig. 5, roller 210 and 220, battery case 120). The roller presses the region, or case, of in the presence of the positive electrode active material layer. This range falls within the claimed range of equal to or greater than 50%.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyun in view of Seong as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Na et al. (US 20230155163 A1).
Regarding claim 5, modified Hyun teaches the manufacturing method according to claim 1, but does not teach that at least one of the high-temperature holding step and the ordinary-temperature holding step further includes a pressing process of pressing the battery assembly in the laminating direction of the electrode body, and a pressure of the pressing in the degassing step is higher than a pressure of the pressing in the pressing process.
Na et al, however, teaches of a method of forming a secondary battery, that method including degassing the battery (Abstract). Na et al. also teaches that the high-temperature holding step further includes a pressing process of pressing the battery assembly in the laminating direction of the electrode body, and a pressure of the pressing in the degassing step is higher than a pressure of the pressing in the pressing process [0017]. The pressing process pressure is 10,000 kgf or less, which can be less than the degassing step pressure of 0.1 kN to 5 kN.
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to further modify the modified Hyun method of manufacturing to include the Na et al. pressing process because the process can remove a portion of the gas generated in the overall formation process of the secondary battery before the main formation process (Na et al. [0049]).
Also, 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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kamiyama et al. (US 12412961 B2) teaches the manufacture of a secondary battery including a step of pressing the electrode body (Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YVONNE WEI whose telephone number is (571)270-0870. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30am-5pm, Friday 7:30am-4pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571) 272-3433. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YVONNE WEI/ Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/NIKI BAKHTIARI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights