DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/8/2023 was considered by the examiner.
Drawings
Figure 2 corresponds to Fig. 1 of US 2019/0041466, Fig. 1 of US 2019/0198942 and should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g).
Figure 3 corresponds to Fig. 1 of US 2020/0067147 and should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g).
Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The phrase “Provide is” should be removed from the start of the abstract.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Please amend line 9-10 of claim to recite “setting a voltage of a test power supply to a voltage equal to or higher than a voltage of the lithium-ion secondary battery;”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “adjusting a charging rate of the lithium-ion secondary battery to be in a plateau region and to be in the range from 25 to 35% or 70 to 90%;” is unclear for numerous reasons.
First, it is unclear what is meant by “adjusting” in the sense that it is unclear what is doing the adjusting or how the adjusting is performed (i.e. what actual method step the claim requires to be performed). The specification and drawings do not provide clear guidance as to what element is performing the adjusting. For example, paragraphs [0009] and [0038] of the specification as filed 9/8/2023 teaches:
“…connecting the battery charged until the charging rate reached the plateau region to a test power supply that was adjusted, so that the voltage thereof was equal to the battery voltage; …”
While the specification recited connecting a “battery charged”, as best inferred by the examiner the adjusting is performed using a battery charger. If this interpretation is correct, please provide corrections and clarifications to the application.
Second, it is unclear what is meant be “charging rate” and what is meant by “adjusting a charging rate”. In view of the plain meaning, the term “charging rate” would correspond to a change in charge over time, however, it is unclear how a charging rate would be defined as a percentage as recited in the claim.
Further, the claim recites “setting [a] voltage of a test power supply to a voltage equal to or higher than [a] voltage of the lithium-ion secondary battery;”. (As best understood by the examiner, an antecedent basis should be established for “voltage of a test power supply” and “voltage of the lithium-ion secondary battery”). As best understood by the examiner, the battery is set to a fixed voltage and would, therefore, not have a “charging rate” as claimed.
Third, the language as used does not appear to be consistent with its plain meaning, or as it would be conventionally used in the art. Further, while the applicant is permitted to be their own lexicographer, terms used contrary to their ordinary meaning must be clearly redefined in the written description. See MPEP § 2111.01 I.-IV. And MPEP § 2173.05(a).
As best understood by the examiner in view of [0036] and [0090] of the specification as filed and Fig. 4, the “charging rate” corresponds to what would conventionally be referred to as a state of charge (SOC). For example, [0036] of the specification as filed states “The plateau region is the region where the voltage hardly changes showing the correlation between the capacity Q or the charging rate (SOC: State Of Charge), and the voltage V of the battery.” Further Fig. 4 plots a voltage versus a charging rate, whereas [0090] refers to Fig. 4 as an SOC-OCV curve, i.e. an open circuit voltage (OCV) vs state-of-charge (SOC).
Thus, the applicant appears to be using “charging rate” as a stand in for the term “state-of-charge”, however, both of these terms already have ordinary and conventional meanings in the art which are not interchangeable. Using “charging rate” as a stand in for “state-of-charge” is inconsistent with the plain language and contrary to their ordinary and conventional meanings in the art since: 1) “charging rate” already has an ordinary and conventionally meaning in the art corresponding to a change in charge over time, e.g. coulombs/second, and 2) a “state-of-charge” as conventionally represented as the total amount of charge of a battery (coulombs), or as a percentage of the capacity of the battery. Since these terms correspond to different physical parameters and would be akin to using the term velocity as a stand in for distance. One of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably use the terms “charging rate” and “state-of-charge” interchangeably.
Therefore, the term “charging rate” does not refer to the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art as required by MPEP 2111.01 III.. The applicant, as best understood by the examiner, is acting as their own lexicographer contrary to the ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, however, the written description does not clearly redefine the term "so as to put a reasonable competitor or one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the patentee intended to so redefine that claim term" as required in MPEP 2173.05(a)III. or otherwise disavow the claim term wherein, “the applicant must clearly set forth a special definition of a claim term in the specification that differs from the plain and ordinary meaning it would otherwise possess” as outlined in MPEP 2111.01 IV..
For the purpose of examination, the claim will be interpreted as “adjusting, using a battery charger, a state-of-charge of the lithium-ion secondary battery to be in a plateau region and to be in the range from 25 to 35 % or 70 to 90%.
Claims 2-4 a rejected through a dependence on claim 1.
Prior Art Rejections
At the time of rejection, no prior art of record identified teaches or suggest all limitations of claim 1, either alone or in combination.
The closest related prior art is US 2022/0085426 (Tanaka) which teaches a method of testing a lithium-ion secondary battery, the battery comprising an electrolyte layer arranged between the cathode and the anode, the method comprising: adjusting a charging rate of the lithium-ion secondary battery to be in a plateau region and to be in the range from 25 to 35% or 70 to 90%; setting voltage of a test power supply to a voltage equal to or higher than voltage of the lithium-ion secondary battery; building a circuit by connecting the lithium-ion secondary battery and the test power supply; measuring a leakage current that flows through the circuit until the leakage current converges; and determining whether the lithium-ion secondary battery is good or bad based on the leakage current after the leakage current has converged.
Tanaka fails to teach the battery comprising a cathode containing lithium iron phosphate as a cathode active material, an anode containing a carbon material as an anode active material, the method comprising: adjusting a charging rate of the lithium-ion secondary battery to be in a plateau region and to be in the range from 25 to 35% or 70 to 90%, in combination with all other limitations of claim 1.
It is known in the art for a “battery comprising a cathode containing lithium iron phosphate as a cathode active material, an anode containing a carbon material as an anode active material,” is known in the art. See US 8,257,847 from the same assignee as the pending application.
The prior art of record fails to teach adjusting a charging rate of the lithium-ion secondary battery to be in a plateau region and to be in the range from 25 to 35% or 70 to 90%, in combination with all other limitations of claim 1. As stated in [0041] of the pending specification as filed 9/8/2023, the claimed limitation provides the benefit of “voltage changes due to temperature changes are suppressed when the charging rate of the battery ranges from 25 to 35% or 70 to 90%, which results in stable convergence of the leakage current; that is, low temperature sensitivity of the leakage current. Thereby, whether the battery is good or bad can be determined based on the leakage current with high accuracy in a short time.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN LEE YENINAS whose telephone number is (571)270-0372. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 10 - 6.
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, Judy Nguyen can be reached at (571) 272-2258. 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.
/STEVEN L YENINAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights