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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/07/2023. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 1a, 2a, 3a and 1b, 2b, 3b in Figure 6B. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: reference character(s) are not mentioned in the description: 1a, 2a, 3a and 1b, 2b, 3b in Figure 6B. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 from which claim 3 depends recites the limitation “short-circuit determination step” and claim 3 recites the limitation “short-circuit determining step”. Appropriate correction is required for consistency.
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 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 recites the limitation “a plurality of power generation units” in Lines 15-16 and then recites “the voltage of the power generation unit is measured” in Lines 23-24. It is unclear which of the plurality of power generation units has its voltage measured. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and claims 2-5 ultimately depend from claim 1 thus claims 2-5 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umetsa et al. (US 20200194775 A1), hereinafter "Umetsa" in view of Takahashi et al. (JP 2020202019 A – Machine Translation referenced for citation), hereinafter "Takahashi" and Yamashita et al. (US 20170023648 A1), hereinafter "Yamashita". Umetsa, Takahashi, and Yamashita et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, inspection of battery cells.
In regard to Claims 1-2, Umetsa et al. discloses a method for inspecting a battery, the method comprising:
A preparing step wherein the preparing step is a step of preparing an electrode assembly including a cathode active material layer and an anode active material layer (Umetsa, [0247-0250]). Umetsa et al. also discloses an embodiment wherein the electrode assembly has a non-opposed region other than a region where the cathode active material layer and the anode active material layer face each other as the planar dimensions of the positive active material layer, negative active material layer and separator are not equal which necessarily creates a region other than a region where the cathode active material layer and the anode active material layer face each other as some peripheral portion of the negative active material layer extends outside of the positive electrode layer (Umetsa, [0352]).
A liquid injection step, the liquid injection step is a step of injecting a liquid electrolyte into the electrode assembly (Umetsa, [0251]).
A sealing step wherein the sealing step is a step of sealing the battery under reduced pressure (Umetsa, [0251]).
A short-circuit determination step wherein the short-circuit determination step is a step of determining the presence or absence of a short circuit (Umetsa, [0266-0267]).
While Umetsa discloses a plurality of power generation units connected in series (Umetsa, [0305, 0308]) they are not explicitly in a battery and comprise multiple batteries. However, the skilled artisan would be well aware of variations in batteries to include batteries with a plurality of power generation units connected in series as evidenced by Takahashi et al. which discloses an inspection method comprising alternately stacking a plurality of bipolar electrodes and a plurality of separators between electrode terminals which is necessarily a battery having a plurality of power generation units connected in series which is then short circuit tested (Takahashi, Abstract, [1, 6]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a variation in battery configuration for short circuit testing as taught in Takahashi to the method for inspecting of Umetsa as doing so would be obvious to try for the skilled artisan and as doing so would amount to nothing more than a variation of it for use in the same field based on design incentives or other market forces, as the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Lastly, while Umetsa discloses one known method for performing a short circuit test after a preparing step, a liquid injection step, and a sealing step, it is silent as to the method comprising the steps of methods (i) or (ii). However, the skilled artisan would be well aware of other methods used to test for short circuits as evidenced by Yamashita et al. which discloses a short circuit determination step using a method performed before an initial charging wherein the voltage of the power generation unit is measured at atmospheric pressure, and it is determined that a short circuit has occurred in the power generation unit when the measured value of the voltage of the power generation unit is 0V (Yamashita, Abstract, [0039, 0075]) with an advantage of enhancing production efficiency by performing the inspection method in the manufacturing process (Yamashita, [0021]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to perform a short circuit test before an initial charge using the method (i) as taught in Yamashita as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Yamashita and as doing so would amount to nothing more than applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
In regard to Claim 3, Umetsa in view of Takahashi and Yamashita discloses the he method for inspecting a battery according to claim 1. With respect to the limitations of claim 3, it is noted that the limitations are directed to non-selected options of parent claim 1. For example, claim 1 explicitly recites "a step of determining the presence or absence of a short circuit by at least one of the following methods (i) and (ii)” (emphasis added). Accordingly, the limitations of claim 3 are reasonably considered to be optional limitations which depend upon the selection of method (ii) recited in claim 1, and which in this case have not been selected because Umetsa in view of Yamashita et al. discloses the use of method (i), as noted above.
In regard to Claim 5, Umetsa in view of Takahashi and Yamashita discloses the the method for inspecting a battery according to claim 1. Yamashita also discloses an inspection step and a charging step, wherein the inspection step is a step of performing a method for inspecting a battery according and the charging step is a step of performing an initial charging on the battery for which it is not determined that a short circuit has occurred Yamashita, (Yamashita, Abstract, [0039, 0075]), with an advantage of enhancing production efficiency by performing the inspection method in the manufacturing process (Yamashita, [0021]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to perform a short circuit test before an initial charge using the method (i) as taught in Yamashita as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Yamashita and as doing so would amount to nothing more than applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umetsa et al. (US 20200194775 A1), hereinafter "Umetsa" in view of Yamashita et al. (US 20170023648 A1), hereinafter "Yamashita". Umetsa and Yamashita et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, inspection of battery cells.
In regard to Claim 4, Umetsa et al. discloses a method for inspecting a battery, the method comprising:
a preparing step wherein the preparing step is a step of preparing an electrode assembly including a cathode active material layer and an anode active material layer (Umetsa, [0247-0250]). Umetsa et al. also discloses an embodiment wherein the electrode assembly has a non-opposed region other than a region where the cathode active material layer and the anode active material layer face each other as the planar dimensions of the positive active material layer, negative active material layer and separator are not equal which necessarily creates a region other than a region where the cathode active material layer and the anode active material layer face each other as some peripheral portion of the negative active material layer extends outside of the positive electrode layer (Umetsa, [0352]).
A liquid injection step, the liquid injection step is a step of injecting a liquid electrolyte into the electrode assembly to obtain a battery having a power generation unit (Umetsa, [0251]).
A sealing step wherein the sealing step is a step of sealing the battery under reduced pressure (Umetsa, [0251]).
A short-circuit determination step wherein the short-circuit determination step is a step of determining the presence or absence of a short circuit (Umetsa, [0266-0267]).
Lastly, while Umetsa discloses one known method for performing a short circuit test after a preparing step, a liquid injection step, and a sealing step, it is silent as to the method comprising the steps of methods (i) or (ii). However, the skilled artisan would be well aware of other methods used to test for short circuits as evidenced by Yamashita et al. which discloses a short circuit determination step using a method performed before an initial charging wherein the voltage of the power generation unit is measured at atmospheric pressure, and it is determined that a short circuit has occurred in the power generation unit when the measured value of the voltage of the power generation unit is 0V (Yamashita, Abstract, [0039, 0075]) with an advantage of enhancing production efficiency by performing the inspection method in the manufacturing process (Yamashita, [0021]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to perform a short circuit test before an initial charge using the method (i) as taught in Yamashita as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Yamashita and as doing so would amount to nothing more than applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kobayashi et al. (JP 2022176622 A – Machine Translation cited for reference), which discloses a method for inspecting a battery with a plurality of power generation units connected in series comprising a preparation step, liquid electrolyte injection and short circuit test which determines that a short circuit has occurred in the power generation unit when the measured value of the voltage of the power generation unit is 0V (Kobayashi, [Abstract, 18, 153, 164]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH MAX OTERO whose telephone number is (571)272-2559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F Generally 7:30-430.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/K.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/JONATHAN CREPEAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights