DETAILED ACTION
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 8, 9, 12-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ge et al., US-PGPUB 2020/0259232 (hereinafter Ge)
Regarding Claims 1, 8, 9 and 15. Ge discloses a diagnosis method of a battery (Abstract), including, as electrode active materials, a first electrode active material whose impedance has a first natural frequency and a second natural frequency lower than the first natural frequency and a second electrode active material whose impedance has a third natural frequency with a magnitude between a magnitude of the first natural frequency and a magnitude of the second natural frequency (Abstract, lithium nickel-cobalt-manganese oxide (cathode) and lithium titanate (anode) are active materials (Paragraphs [0025]-[0026]), that inherently has the claimed frequencies), the comprising: measuring an impedance of the battery at each of a plurality of measurement target frequencies by setting, as a measurement range, a first measurement range including the first natural frequency and not including the second natural frequency and the third natural frequency, and a second measurement range including the second natural frequency and not including the first natural frequency and the third natural frequency (Paragraphs [0063], impedance tests, sweeping from the frequency range of 0.005 Hz to 50 kHz for the above active materials; Fig. 4) and determining a state of the battery based on a measurement result of the impedance of the battery at each of the measurement target frequencies (Paragraph [0065], determining the stability of the batteries; Paragraph [0069])
Ge does not explicitly disclose a number of the measurement target frequencies is set to two or more and five or less, a frequency within the first measurement range and a frequency within the second measurement range are included in the measurement target frequencies, and the third natural frequency outside the first and second measurement ranges is not included in the measurement target frequencies. However, it would have been obvious to do so, absent criticality, as it depends on the designer’s choice and criteria (Note: Applicant cites the claimed number of target frequencies as example in the Specification)
Regarding Claims 12 and 13. Ge disclose the first electrode active material is an electrode active material that performs a two-phase coexistence reaction, and the second electrode active material is an electrode active material that performs a single-phase reaction (claim 13. wherein the first electrode active material is one of lithium titanate and lithium iron phosphate) (Paragraphs [0025]-[0026], lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide is a single-phase reaction active material, while the lithium titanate is a double-phase reaction active material)
---------- 103 rejection based on Moazzen ---------------------------------
Claims 1-8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moazzen et al., “Interpretation and Modeling of the Electrochemical Impedance of LiFePO4/Li4TiO12 Batteries,” Journal of The Electrochemical Society, May (2021) (hereafter Moazzen)
Regarding Claims 1, 8 and 15. Moazzen discloses a diagnosis method of a battery (Title, Abstract), including, as electrode active materials, a first electrode active material whose impedance has a first natural frequency and a second natural frequency lower than the first natural frequency and a second electrode active material whose impedance has a third natural frequency with a magnitude between a magnitude of the first natural frequency and a magnitude of the second natural frequency (Abstract, lithium iron phosphate LiFePO4 and lithium titanate, Li4TiO12, are active materials, see the dependent claims 12 and 13 that recite these active materials, Figs. 1, 7 in particular and rest of the figures 2-6. Note: The claims do not recite that the second electrode only has a single natural frequency or the third natural frequency), the comprising:
measuring an impedance of the battery at each of a plurality of measurement target frequencies by setting, as a measurement range, a first measurement range including the first natural frequency and not including the second natural frequency and the third natural frequency, and a second measurement range including the second natural frequency and not including the first natural frequency and the third natural frequency (Figs. 1-7, impedance figures on the left, sweeping from 0.01 to 1000 Hz); and determining a state of the battery based on a measurement result of the impedance of the battery at each of the measurement target frequencies (Conclusion, section)
Moazzen does not explicitly disclose a number of the measurement target frequencies is set to two or more and five or less, a frequency within the first measurement range and a frequency within the second measurement range are included in the measurement target frequencies, and the third natural frequency outside the first and second measurement ranges is not included in the measurement target frequencies. However, it would have been obvious to do so, absent criticality, as it depends on the designer’s choice and criteria (Note: Applicant cites the claimed number of target frequencies as example in the Specification)
Regarding Claim 5. Moazzen discloses calculating the frequency characteristic of the charge transfer impedance of the first electrode active material and the charge transfer resistance of the first electrode active material, by performing fitting calculation using an equivalent circuit set with a plurality of electric characteristic parameters (Fig. 5; page 7-8, Fitting Results section; Fig. 2, Equivalent circuit model used to fit the impedance spectra; Tables I, II, fitting) including electric characteristic parameters corresponding to impedance components of the first natural frequency and electric characteristic parameters corresponding to impedance components of the second natural frequency, and the measurement result of the impedance of the battery at each of the measurement target frequencies, the electric characteristic parameters of the equivalent circuit are calculated, and the frequency characteristic of the charge transfer impedance of the first electrode active material and the charge transfer resistance of the first electrode active material are calculated based on calculation results of the electric characteristic parameters corresponding to the impedance components of the first natural frequency and the second natural frequency (Abstract, equivalent circuit modeling and charge transfer; page 1, last paragraph on the right; page 4, Equivalent circuit modeling section. Conclusion section, charge transfer)
Regarding Claim 6. Moazzen discloses specifying the first natural frequency and the second natural frequency of the impedance of the first electrode active material based on at least one of a charging amount, an SOC, and a temperature of the battery (Figs. 1, 3-7, charging and SOCs; page 3, left column, temperature)
Regarding Claim 7. Moazzen discloses determining, in a state where the battery is operating, whether the battery is being charged, and determining, in a state where the battery is not operating, whether a last operation of the battery is charging; and measuring, in each of a case where the battery is being charged and a case where the last operation of the battery is the charging, the impedance of the battery at each of the measurement target frequencies by setting the first measurement range and the second measurement range as the measurement range (Figs. 1, 3-7, Experimental section, pages 2-3)
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moazzen, “Interpretation and Modeling of the Electrochemical Impedance of LiFePO4/Li4TiO12 Batteries,” Journal of The Electrochemical Society, May (2021) in view of Applicant admitted prior art, US-PGPUB 2023/0400526 (Paragraphs [0003]-[0004]) (hereinafter AAPA)
Regarding Claim 2. Moazzen discloses in the determining the state of the battery, a frequency characteristic of a charge transfer impedance of the second electrode active material and a charge transfer resistance of the second electrode active material are calculated based on the measurement result of the impedance of the battery at each of the measurement target frequencies, the degree of degradation of the battery is determined based on a change in each of the frequency characteristic of the charge transfer impedance of the second electrode active material and the charge transfer resistance of the second electrode active material (Conclusion, section).
Moazzen does not explicitly disclose determining the degree of degradation from a start of use of the battery.
AAPA discloses determining the degradation from a start of use of the battery due to the changing of the impedance (Paragraphs [0003]-[0004]).
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to use the teaching of AAPA in Moazzen and determine the degree of degradation of the battery based on a change in each of the frequency characteristic of the charge transfer impedance of the second electrode active material and the charge transfer resistance of the second electrode active material from a start of use of the battery, so as to get the full picture of the battery degradation for the entire life of the battery.
Regarding Claim 3. Moazzen discloses calculating the frequency characteristic of the charge transfer impedance of the second electrode active material and the charge transfer resistance of the second electrode active material, by performing fitting calculation using an equivalent circuit set (Fig. 5; page 7-8, Fitting Results section; Fig. 2, Equivalent circuit model used to fit the impedance spectra; Tables I, II, fitting) with a plurality of electric characteristic parameters including electric characteristic parameters corresponding to impedance components of the third natural frequency and the measurement result of the impedance of the battery at each of the measurement target frequencies, each of the electric characteristic parameters of the equivalent circuit is calculated, and the frequency characteristic of the charge transfer impedance of the second electrode active material and the charge transfer resistance of the second electrode active material are calculated based on calculation results of the electric characteristic parameters corresponding to the impedance components of the third natural frequency (Abstract, equivalent circuit modeling and charge transfer; page 1, last paragraph on the right; page 4, Equivalent circuit modeling section. Conclusion section, charge transfer)
Regarding Claim 4. Moazzen discloses wherein in the determining the state of the battery, a frequency characteristic of a charge transfer impedance of the first electrode active material and a charge transfer resistance of the first electrode active material are calculated based on the measurement result of the impedance of the battery at each of the measurement target frequencies (Conclusion section)
Claims 9-11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moazzen, “Interpretation and Modeling of the Electrochemical Impedance of LiFePO4/Li4TiO12 Batteries,” Journal of The Electrochemical Society, May (2021) in view of Kim et al., US-PGPUB 2020/0185697 (hereinafter Kim).
Regarding Claim 9. Moazzen is silent in regard to management system of a battery, comprising: a diagnosis apparatus defined in claim 8; and the battery diagnosed by the diagnosis apparatus.
Kim discloses acquiring impedance measurement for different frequencies of an electrode assembly, including electrode performance evaluation device (Fig. 1-2; Abstract; Paragraph [0150])
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Kim in Moazzen and have a management system of a battery, comprising a diagnosis apparatus, so as to efficiently have the battery diagnosed by the diagnosis apparatus.
Regarding Claim 10. Moazzen discloses wherein in the battery, a ratio of the first natural frequency of the impedance of the first electrode active material to the second natural frequency of the impedance of the first electrode active material is not less than 50 to not more than 5,000 (using Figs. 1 and 3-7 for comparison of the active materials and determination of the ratio)
Regarding Claim 11. Moazzen discloses wherein in the battery, a ratio of the third natural 20 frequency of the impedance of the second electrode active material to the second natural frequency of the impedance of the first electrode active material is not less than 10 to not more than 1,000 (using Figs. 1 and 3-7 for comparison of the active materials and determination of the ratio)
Regarding Claim 14. Moazzen discloses the battery includes a first electrode including the first electrode active material as an electrode active material, and a second electrode having a polarity opposite to a polarity of the first electrode and including the second electrode active material as an electrode active material (Abstract, cathode and anode)
7. Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moazzen, “Interpretation and Modeling of the Electrochemical Impedance of LiFePO4/Li4TiO12 Batteries,” Journal of The Electrochemical Society, May (2021) in view of Kim, US-PGPUB 2020/0185697 as applied claim 9 and further in view of Ge, US-PGPUB 2020/0259232 as evidenced by Momo et al., US-PGPUB 2014/0184172 (hereinafter Momo)
Regarding Claims 12 and 13. Moazzen discloses the first electrode active material is an electrode active material that performs a two-phase coexistence reaction (lithium iron phosphate LiFePO4 and lithium titanate, Li4TiO12, active materials),
The modified Moazzen does not disclose the second electrode active material is an electrode active material that performs a single-phase reaction
Ge discloses the second electrode active material is an electrode active material that performs a single-phase reaction (Abstract, lithium nickel-cobalt-manganese oxide (cathode), Paragraphs [0025]-[0026]) performs single-phase reaction)
Momo discloses lithium iron phosphate active material that exhibits two-phase reaction as the positive electrode (Abstract, Paragraph [0076]-[0079], Fig. 23; Paragraphs [0010]-[0015]).
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Ge in the modified Moazzen and have electrode assembly, where the first electrode active material is an electrode active material that performs a two-phase coexistence reaction, and the second electrode active material is an electrode active material that performs a single-phase reaction, and evaluate their battery performance.
Regarding Claim 13. Moazzen discloses the first electrode active material is one of lithium titanate and lithium iron phosphate (Abstract)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HYUN D PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-7922. The examiner can normally be reached 11-4.
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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at 571-272-2619. 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.
/HYUN D PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights