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 Status
Claims 1-15 are currently pending and are presented for examination on the merits.
Objections
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to for mere recitation of the broadest claim. A brief narrative of the disclosure as a whole is required. 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. See MPEP § 608.01(b). Correction is required.
Drawings
Each sheet must include a top margin of at least 2.5 cm. (1 inch), a left side margin of at least 2.5 cm. (1 inch), a right side margin of at least 1.5 cm. (5/8 inch), and a bottom margin of at least 1.0 cm. (3/8 inch). Please confirm that all drawings meet these requirements, including FIG. 2.
At FIG. 2, should the statement in box 212 be “. . . BASED ON A . . .”? Please check for similar errors.
If FIGS. 2, 3, and 4 are flow charts, please use arrows to indicate flow (i.e., sequence of steps).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
a. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
b. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
c. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
d. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0150185 to Ramezan Pour Safaei et al, alone.
With respect to Claim 1, Ramezan teaches a process for manufacturing a battery (FIGS. 2,7; [0028];[0047], “The minimization problem of equation (2) is subject to current, voltage and temperature limits specified by a manufacturer of the specific battery”) comprising: charging and discharging the battery during a battery manufacturing formation process ([0028];[0057]) according to a current and voltage profile (Abstract; [0047]); wherein a duration of the charging at a high voltage level is maintained for an extended time period ([0028];[0035], duration), thereby saturating a solid electrolyte interface (SEI) during the formation process and reducing a swelling of the battery (FIGS. 2, 7; [0017];[0031];[0047];[0067]).
Ramezan teaches an equivalent system operable to perform the method recited in the instant invention, but does not use the same verbiage, such as “discharging the battery,” “current and voltage profile,” etc., however, the applied reference(s) need not use the same terminology, or disclose the limitations verbatim. Ramezan teaches a different model operable to perform a manufacturing process that is optimal; it considers SEI and swelling. The set of parameters/model are a simple substitute for the recited parameters and system. See, KSR international Co. v. Teleflex Inc. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ramezan to include the specified verbiage and specific set of models.
With respect to Claim 2, Ramezan teaches wherein the extended time period comprises at least one minute. [0057];FIG. 3
With respect to Claim 3, Ramezan teaches wherein the extended time period comprises at least 25% of a charge cycle. ([0057-58]; FIG. 5)
With respect to Claim 4, Ramezan teaches wherein the current and voltage profile comprises a range based on a specification of the battery and a voltage limit. (Abstract;[0007];[0019])
With respect to Claim 5, Ramezan teaches wherein the charging at a high voltage for an extended time period comprises fluctuations in the high voltage level during the extended time period. ([0028], pulses)
With respect to Claim 6, Ramezan teaches a process for manufacturing a battery comprising: charging and discharging a battery during a battery manufacturing formation process according to a current and voltage profile (see Claim 1); wherein a rate of the charging and discharging is based on a voltage range associated with the charging and discharging ([0004];[0029]), thereby saturating a solid electrolyte interface (SEI) during the formation process and reducing a swelling of the battery ([0017];[0029-31]).
With respect to Claim 7, Ramezan teaches wherein the voltage range comprises a wider voltage range for a smaller current. ([0004];[0028-29], taught by “dynamic current limits, steady state and dynamic voltage limits, . . ., nominal voltages, nominal capacities”)
With respect to Claim 8, Ramezan teaches wherein the voltage range comprises a narrower voltage range for a larger current. [0028-29]
With respect to Claim 9, Ramezan teaches wherein a duration of the charging at the voltage range is maintained for an extended time period. ([0028-29])
With respect to Claim 10, Ramezan teaches wherein the extended time period comprises at least one minute. [0057];FIG. 3
With respect to Claim 11, Ramezan teaches a process for manufacturing a battery comprising: charging and discharging a battery during a battery manufacturing formation process according to a current and voltage profile (see Claim 1); wherein a temperature at which the battery is charged varies as a function of a cutoff voltage of the charging ([0028-29], “current-voltage-temperature profiles”), thereby saturating a solid electrolyte interface (SEI) during the formation process and reducing a swelling of the battery (see Claim 1).
With respect to Claim 12, Ramezan teaches wherein the temperature is at a higher level when the cutoff voltage is at a lower level. ([0028-29])
With respect to Claim 13, Ramezan teaches wherein the temperature is at a lower level when the cutoff voltage is at a higher level. ([0028-29], opposite of Claim 12)
With respect to Claim 14, Ramezan teaches wherein a duration of the charging is maintained for an extended time period. [0028-29]
With respect to Claim 15, Ramezan teaches wherein the extended time period comprises at least one minute. ([0057];FIG. 3)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM J JACOB whose telephone number is (571)270-3082. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00-5:00, alternating Fri. off.
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, Matthew Gart can be reached on 5712723955. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WILLIAM J JACOB/ Examiner, Art Unit 3696
