DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, species 2 in the reply filed on June 11, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 6 and 19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention/species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 11, 2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed November 7, 2023 and April 29, 2025 have been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Drawings
The drawings received November 7, 2023 are acceptable.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding conditional claim limitations, a case where the conditional does not exist would render the conditional limitation not applicable. Conditional limitations exist in the following claims:
Claim 1 (i.e. “in any case where …”)
Claim 2 (i.e. “during use under low temperature”)
Claim 4 (i.e. “during use under low temperature”)
Claim Objections
Claim 11 objected to because of the following informalities: referring to “no supplementary active substance” or “a same type of supplementary active substance” (lines 2-3). Claim 1 sets forth antecedent basis for “one or more types of supplementary active substances” (line 16). Accordingly, claim 11’s recitation should be given the proper definite article to refer back to the supplementary active substance in the manner antecedent basis was given. 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 1-5, 7-18 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.
Claim 1 sets forth antecedent basis for “one or more types of supplementary active substances” (line 16) (singular or plural). However, claims 1 (ll 17-18), 5 (ll2-3), 7 (line 2), 8 (line 2), 9 (ll 3-4, line5), 12 (ll 3-4, ll6-7, ll 9-10), and 17 (line 2) refer back to such material as “the supplementary active substance” (singular). Thus, it is unclear what “the supplemental active substance” refers to. Since claims 2-4 and 6-18 are dependent upon claim 1, they are rejected for the same reason.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-11, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2013/0216911 (Hosoya et al.).
As to claim 1, Hosyoa et al. teach a battery pack, comprising:
a battery pack box (enclosure [60]) (para 0173; fig. 5); and
battery cells accommodated in the battery pack box (para 0174);
wherein:
based on determined temperature distribution in an entire internal space of the battery pack box during use under low temperature, the internal space of the battery pack box comprises a first region to an n-th region according to a descending order of temperature, wherein n is a natural number greater than or equal to 2; a first battery cell is provided in the first region, a k-th battery cell is provided in a k-th region, and the k-th battery cell and a (k-1)-th battery cell are arranged adjacent to each other, k being a natural number satisfying 2 ≤ k ≤ n (regions naturally exist in light of the presence of the battery; also temperature detection section [65] exists) (fig. 5; para 0173);
a positive electrode of each k-th battery cell comprises a positive electrode active substance, the positive electrode active substance comprising following substances:
lithium iron phosphate and/or lithium nickel cobalt manganate having a first discharge voltage plateau (see examples in tables 1-2), and
one or more types of supplementary active substances having a second discharge voltage plateau, a molecular formula of the supplementary active substance being AxMy(PO4)z, wherein:
A is one or more selected from Li, Na, K, and Ca,
M is one or more selected from V, Ti, and Mn, x, y, and z are each independently selected from integers from 1 to 6, and
values of x, y, and z make the whole compound electrically neutral (see examples in table 1-2); and
for the first battery cell to the n-th battery cell, in any case where a sum of a discharge capacity corresponding to the first discharge voltage plateau and a discharge capacity corresponding to the second discharge voltage plateau is 100%, a discharge capacity proportion corresponding to the second discharge voltage plateau of the k-th battery cell is greater than a discharge capacity proportion corresponding to the second discharge voltage plateau of the (k-1)-th battery cell (exists in light of the product exists; alternately, in a case when the conditional is not met, the claim limitation does not need to be present, and thus the limitation is also met).
As to claim 2, Hosoya et al. teach the battery pack as set forth above, and thus reads on the claim limitation based on the determined temperature distribution in the entire internal space of the battery pack box during use under low temperature, for the first region or the k-th region, a difference between a maximum temperature and a minimum temperature in a same region is greater than or equal to 3°C (due to the conditional nature of the limitation; a case when the conditional is not met, the claim limitation does not need to be present, and thus the limitation is also met).
As to claim 3, Hosoya et al. teach the battery pack as set forth above, wherein a maximum temperature in the k-th region is less than or equal to a minimum temperature in the (k-1)-th region (as applied to any of the multiple batteries present in Hosoya et al., barring specification regarding the zones and the maximum and minimum temperatures). Office personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Also, limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claim. See In re Zletz, 893F.2d 319, 321-22,13 USPQ2d, 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
As to claim 4, Hosoya et al. teach the battery pack as set forth above, and thus reads on the claim limitation in the entire internal space of the battery pack box, based on the determined temperature distribution in the internal space of the battery pack box during use under low temperature, a maximum temperature is TH, a minimum temperature is TL, and TH-TL=TM; when TM ≥ 6°C, n ≥ 2; a maximum temperature in the first region is TH, and a minimum temperature in the first region T1=TH-(TM/n); when k < n: a maximum temperature in the k-th region is Tk-1, and a minimum temperature in the k-th region Tk=TH-k(TM/n), a maximum temperature in the n-th region is Tn-1, and a minimum temperature in the n-th region Tn=TL; and 3°C ≤ TM/n ≤ 10°C (exists in light of the product exists; alternately, in a case when the conditional is not met, the claim limitation does not need to be present, and thus the limitation is also met).
As to claim 5, Hosoya et al. teach the positive electrode of each k-th battery cell, a mass percentage of the supplementary active substance is 3% to 15% based on a total mass of the positive electrode active substance (i.e. example 7 in table 1 has 5% of the supplementary active substance, as applied to the pack of fig. 5 (para 0173-0174)).
As to claim 7, Hosoya et al. teach the positive electrode of the first battery cell comprises the supplementary active substance (the examples of table 1 and table 2 have supplementary active substance, as applied to the pack (of cells) of fig. 5 (para 0173-0174)).
As to claim 8, Hosoya et al. teach the battery set forth therein. Regarding the limitation that a second voltage plateau of the supplementary active substance in the first battery cell is greater than or equal to an overall discharge cut-off voltage of the first battery cell, this limitation is expected. The reason for expectation is that the same battery as claimed is set forth within Hosoya et al., thus, the characteristic would be expected to be present (see tables 1-2).
As to claim 9, Hosoya et al. teach the battery pack as set forth above, and thus reads on the claim limitation under a condition that the respective positive electrodes of the first battery cell to the n-th battery cell comprise the same positive electrode active substance, a percentage of the supplementary active substance in the positive electrode of the (k-1)-th battery cell is less than or equal to a percentage of the supplementary active substance in the positive electrode of the k-th battery cell (the examples of table 1 and table 2 have supplementary active substance, as applied to the pack (of cells) of fig. 5 (para 0173-0174) (same batteries in a pack, thus equal)).
As to claim 10, Hosoya et al. teach the internal space of the battery pack box comprises the first region, a second region, and a third region; the first battery cell is provided in the first region; a second battery cell is provided in the second region; and a third battery cell is provided in the third region (fig. 5; para 0174 – 6 batteries embodied).
As to claim 11, Hosoya et al. teach the positive electrode of the first battery cell comprises no supplementary active substance or comprises a same type of supplementary active substance as the second battery cell and the third battery cell (the examples of table 1 and table 2 have supplementary active substance, as applied to the pack (of cells) of fig. 5 (para 0173-0174) (same batteries in a pack, thus same type)).
As to claim 16, Hosoya et al. teach a discharge capacity of a single cell of each k-th battery cell is less than a discharge capacity of a single cell of each (k-1)-th battery cell (the examples of table 1 and table 2 have supplementary active substance, as applied to the pack (of cells) of fig. 5 (para 0173-0174)). (Note: Although the same batteries are in the pack, natural manufacturing different would result in the claimed invention, barring specification regarding which batteries are referenced, as well as what “less” encompasses. Office personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Also, limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claim. See In re Zletz, 893F.2d 319, 321-22,13 USPQ2d, 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
As to claim 17, Hosoya et al. teach the supplementary active substance is one or more selected from Li3V2(PO4)3, Na3V2(PO4)3, K3V2(PO4)3, Li3V(PO4)2, Na3V(PO4)2, K3V(PO4)2, LiMnPO4, NaMnPO4, KMnPO4, Li2VMn2(PO4)3, Na2VMn2(PO4)3, K2VMn2(PO4)3, LiVMn(PO4)2, NaVMn(PO4)2, KVMn(PO4)2, CaV4(PO4)6, LiTi2(PO4)3, NaTi2(PO4)3, KTi2(PO4)3, CaTi4(PO4)6, Li2VTi(PO4)3, Na2VTi(PO4)3, K2VTi(PO4)3, CaVTi(PO4)3, Li3MnTi(PO4)3, Na3MnTi(PO4)3, and K3MnTi(PO4)3. (table 1, example 13 (Li3V2(PO4)3)).
As to claim 18, Hosoya et al. teach an electric apparatus (para 0166-0168, 0184, 0190, 0198; figs. 6-8) comprising the battery pack according to claim 1 (the battery pack of claim 1 set forth in the rejection to claim 1, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hosoya et al. (The teachings of Hosoya et al., as set forth above and applicable herein are incorporated herein but are not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake.)
As to claim 14, Hosoya et al. teach the battery set forth therein. Regarding the limitation that a positive electrode active substance of the first battery cell has a gram capacity of 140–198 mAh/g, a positive electrode active substance of the second battery cell has a gram capacity of 137–192 mAh/g, and a positive electrode active substance of the third battery cell has a gram capacity of 134–186 mAh/g, this limitation would either be (a) expected or (b) alternately obvious.
With respect to (a): The reason for expectation is that the same battery as claimed is set forth within Hosoya et al., thus, the characteristic would be expected to be present (same materials as applied to a pack) (see tables 1-2, as applied to fig. 5; para 0173-0174) (claimed ranges substantially overlap for the first, second, and third battery).
With respect to (b): If it is shown that the limitation is not met, any differences would be small, such that obviousness is still achieved. It has been held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is the range or value of a particular variable, then a prima facie rejection is properly established when the difference in the range or value is minor. Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). Claims that differ from the prior art only by slightly different (non-overlapping) ranges are prima facie obvious without a showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art. (In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935,1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990)) Also see MPEP §2144.05(I).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosoya et al. (The teachings of Hosoya et al., as set forth above (i.e. to claims 1 and 10), are incorporated herein but are not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake.)
As to claim 12, Hosoya et al. teach in the positive electrode of the second battery cell, a mass percentage of the supplementary active substance is 3% to 7% based on a total mass of the active substance of the positive electrode of the second battery cell; (i.e. example 7 in table 1 has 5% of the supplementary active substance, as applied to the pack of fig. 5 (para 0173-0174)).
Hosoya et al. do not teach (a) in the positive electrode of the first battery cell, a mass percentage of the supplementary active substance is 0% to 3% based on a total mass of the active substance of the positive electrode of the first battery cell, and (b) in the positive electrode of the third battery cell, a mass percentage of the supplementary active substance is 7% to 15% based on a total mass of the active substance of the positive electrode of the third battery cell.
However, with respect to (a): Hosoya et al., teach example 7 in table 1 has 5% of the supplementary active substance, as applied to the pack of fig. 5 (para 0173-0174) (as applied to the first battery cell. Although this is not within the claimed range, it the difference is small such that obviousness is still achieved. It has been held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is the range or value of a particular variable, then a prima facie rejection is properly established when the difference in the range or value is minor. Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). Claims that differ from the prior art only by slightly different (non-overlapping) ranges are prima facie obvious without a showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art. (In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935,1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990)) Also see MPEP §2144.05(I).
However, with respect to (b): Hosoya et al., teach example 7 in table 1 has 5% of the supplementary active substance, as applied to the pack of fig. 5 (para 0173-0174) (as applied to the first battery cell. Although this is not within the claimed range, it the difference is small such that obviousness is still achieved. It has been held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is the range or value of a particular variable, then a prima facie rejection is properly established when the difference in the range or value is minor. Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). Claims that differ from the prior art only by slightly different (non-overlapping) ranges are prima facie obvious without a showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art. (In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935,1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990)) Also see MPEP §2144.05(I).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 and claim 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: none of the prior art of record, alone or in combination, appears to teach, suggest, or render obvious the invention of at least claim 13 and claim 15.
Claim 13 teaches battery pack comprising the elements therein. Notably, the claim requires “an overall discharge cut-off voltage V1 of the first battery cell is 2.0–2.1 V, an overall discharge cut-off voltage V2 of the second battery cell is 1.7–2.0 V, an overall discharge cut-off voltage V3 of the third battery cell is 1.6–1.9 V, and V1 > V2 > V3.”
Claim 15 teaches battery pack comprising the elements therein. Notably, the claim requires “under a temperature below 10°C, 1.6 V ≤ discharge cut-off voltage of the k-th battery cell ≤ discharge cut-off voltage of the (k-1)-th battery cell ≤ 2.1 V.”
Hosoya et al. teaches a battery pack with batteries having an active material and a supplementary active substance. Hosoya et al. does not recognize different electrochemical properties within different sections of the pack, such that claim 13 or claim 15 is met (regarding the specific relationships between the discharge cut-off voltage). No motivation exists to modify Hosoya et al. in the claimed manner. Thus, none of the prior art alone or in combination teaches, suggests, or renders obvious the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Note: No other prior art is considered pertinent.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUGENIA WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4942. The examiner can normally be reached a flex schedule, generally Monday-Thursday 5:00 -7:30 (AM) and 9:45-3:15 ET.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/EUGENIA WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights