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 Objections
Claims 4 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Applicant claims “initial overpotential”. It is not clear what this value is meant to represent. For purposes of examination, it will be assumed that it means 0V above the 80%+SOC in light of ¶[69] of the applicant’s specification (i.e. if 80-100% SOC is 4.2V, then if it stops at 4.2V, the overpotential is 0V). If applicant has another meaning, explain to clarify.
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because
It contains more the 150 words
It contains part numbers
It contains exemplary language (e.g.) [remove all phrases with e.g.] and “for example”
It introduces the term (LiMLE) without providing the meaning
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 11, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gao et al (USPGPN 20220407126)
Independent Claim 1, Gao discloses a method for restoring (abstract, Claims 1-20) a lithium-metal liquid-electrolyte electrochemical cell (¶’s [04, 05, 11, 16, 21, 28, 34, 41]) comprising a lithium-metal negative electrode (¶’s [11, 16, 21, 34]) and a liquid electrolyte comprising a lithium-containing salt and a liquid solvent (¶[30]), the method comprising:
cycling the lithium-metal liquid-electrolyte electrochemical cell using operating conditions comprising an operating discharge current and an operating charge current (¶’s [10, 13, 14, 27, 45]);
determining a restoring threshold of the lithium-metal liquid-electrolyte electrochemical cell (¶’s [13, 14, 27, 45]); and
when the lithium-metal liquid-electrolyte electrochemical cell reaches the restoring threshold, cycling the lithium-metal liquid-electrolyte electrochemical cell using restoring conditions comprising a restoring discharge current and a restoring charge current thereby restoring the lithium-metal liquid-electrolyte electrochemical cell (¶’s [46-52]), wherein the restoring discharge current is at least 1 D on average (¶[51]).
Independent Claim 15, Gao discloses a battery system (Fig. 1) for restoring (abstract, Claims 1-20) a lithium-metal liquid-electrolyte (¶[30]) electrochemical cell (¶’s [04, 05, 11, 16, 21, 28, 34, 41]), the battery system comprising:
a power supply (28) configured to flow an electric current through the lithium-metal liquid-electrolyte electrochemical cell in accordance with a set of restoring conditions (¶’s [46-52]) comprising a restoring charge current and a restoring discharge current (¶[52]); and
a controller (42), communicatively coupled to the power supply and comprising:
a memory (¶[41]) storing the restoring conditions and operating parameters of the lithium-metal liquid-electrolyte electrochemical cell (¶’s [13, 14, 27, 45]), and
a processor (¶[41], CPU of 42) configured to determine a restoring threshold of the lithium-metal liquid-electrolyte electrochemical cell such that when the lithium-metal liquid-electrolyte electrochemical cell reaches the restoring threshold (¶’s [13, 14, 27, 45]), the processor is configured to instruct the power supply to cycle the lithium-metal liquid-electrolyte electrochemical cell using restoring conditions comprising a restoring discharge current and a restoring charge current thereby restoring the lithium-metal liquid-electrolyte electrochemical cell (¶’s [46-52]),
wherein the restoring discharge current is at least 1 D on average (¶[51]).
Dependent Claims 2 and 16, Gao discloses the restoring threshold is determined based on one or more of:
a discharge capacity of the lithium-metal liquid-electrolyte electrochemical cell while cycling using the operating conditions (applicant’s ¶’s [77-79] of the published specification describes dendrites/dendritic-growth as an indication of reduced capacity, where Gao ¶’s [43-48] describes comparing this growth to determine whether it is noticeable),
an overpotential of the lithium-metal liquid-electrolyte electrochemical cell while cycling using the operating conditions,
an impedance of the lithium-metal liquid-electrolyte electrochemical cell (¶’s [13,14,45]),
a direct-current (DC) resistance of the lithium-metal liquid-electrolyte electrochemical cell (¶’s [13,14,45], where one of ordinary skill in the art understands that in the absence of alternating current and/or imaginary aspects, the DC resistance is identical to the impedance),
duration of a rest period since cycling the operating conditions,
an open circuit voltage (OCV) during the rest period since cycling using the operating conditions (¶[45]),
the operating discharge current and the operating charge current during cycling using the operating conditions (¶’s [07, 18, 41, 44]), and
an operating cycle count using the operating conditions after a prior restoration of the lithium-metal liquid-electrolyte electrochemical cell (¶’s [10, 13, 14, 45]).
Dependent Claim 11, Gao teaches the restoring discharge current is at least 0.75 D (¶’s [51, 52] has 1C-10C, which is greater than 0.75C).
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 3, 5, 6, 8-10, 12-14, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al (USPGPN 20220407126)
Dependent Claims 3 and 17, Gao teaches the restoring threshold is determined based on the discharge capacity of the lithium-metal liquid-electrolyte electrochemical cell while cycling using the operating conditions (as noted above, the dendrite growth is a basis for discharge capacity, and thus this feature is met), and
the lithium-metal liquid-electrolyte electrochemical cell reaches the restoring threshold when the discharge capacity is 5-30% relative to an initial capacity (this limitation is a simple design choice which is lacking a showing of criticality [official notice taken], and which is within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try, esp. as the reduced capacity of 1/20th to 1/3rd capacity would noticeably inconvenience a user used to the full capacity).
Dependent Claims 5 and 19, Gao teaches the restoring threshold is determined based on the impedance of the lithium-metal liquid-electrolyte electrochemical cell (as explained above for Claims [1, 2, 15, and 16], the impedance is based on the resistance), and
the lithium-metal liquid-electrolyte electrochemical cell reaches the restoring threshold when the impedance increases by 10-50% relative to an initial impedance (this limitation is a simple design choice which is lacking a showing of criticality [official notice taken], and which is within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try, esp. as the higher resistance of 10-50% would noticeably inconvenience a user used to the initial impedance/resistance value).
Dependent Claims 6 and 20, Gao teaches the restoring threshold is determined based on the direct-current (DC) resistance of the lithium-metal liquid-electrolyte electrochemical cell (as explained above for Claims [1, 2, 15, and 16], the impedance is based on the resistance while resistance is explicitly described to be used), and
the lithium-metal liquid-electrolyte electrochemical cell reaches the restoring threshold when the direct-current (DC) resistance increases by 10-50% relative to an initial direct-current (DC) resistance (this limitation is a simple design choice which is lacking a showing of criticality [official notice taken], and which is within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try, esp. as the higher resistance of 10-50% would noticeably inconvenience a user used to the initial impedance/resistance value).
Dependent Claim 8, Gao teaches the restoring threshold is determined based on the open circuit voltage (OCV) during the rest period since cycling using the operating conditions (as explained above for Claims [1, 2, 15, and 16]), and
the lithium-metal liquid-electrolyte electrochemical cell reaches the restoring threshold when the open circuit voltage (OCV) drops by at least about 0.05V (this limitation is a simple design choice which is lacking a showing of criticality [official notice taken], and which is within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try, esp. as a reduction in OCV near the top of the range can be a large change in SOC for lithium batteries, which would noticeably impact the remaining capacity when discharged for a user)
Dependent Claim 9, Gao teaches cycling the lithium-metal liquid-electrolyte electrochemical cell using the restoring conditions comprises discharging the lithium-metal liquid-electrolyte electrochemical cell using the restoring discharge current by 5-50% of a discharge capacity of the lithium-metal liquid-electrolyte electrochemical cell (¶[49] describes the pulse may last 1-200s, while ¶[51] describes the c-rate to be 1-10C, i.e. 1-10D;
10C would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to last 6 minutes to full discharge, which is 360s, thus putting the two together would result in meeting this range, where furthermore, this limitation is a simple design choice which is lacking a showing of criticality [official notice taken], and which is within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try, esp. as use of less power discharged improves efficiency).
Dependent Claim 10, Gao teaches the restoring conditions further comprise a restoring discharge cutoff voltage such that the lithium-metal liquid-electrolyte electrochemical cell is discharged using the restoring discharge current until the restoring discharge cutoff voltage (¶[51] describes cutoff of less than 3% of 0%, which one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention understands is typically around 3V for lithium batteries, or within the claimed range of less than 3.7V;
furthermore, this limitation is a simple design choice which is lacking a showing of criticality [official notice taken], and which is within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try, esp. as the voltage is commonly used in lithium battery types both claimed and in Gao).
Dependent Claim 12, Gao teaches the restoring discharge current is at least 2 times greater than the restoring charge current (¶[52] describes that for every two discharge pulses, there is a charging pulse, i.e. the cumulative discharging pulse is double the charging pulse cumulative, where official notice taken that by having a higher amount for discharge than for charging, the dendrites can be removed better as dendrites are taught by Gao to be removed by the use of discharging ¶[50], and official notice taken the much higher discharge pulses than charging pulses are disclosed).
Dependent Claim 13, Gao teaches the lithium-metal liquid-electrolyte electrochemical cell is part of a battery such that the battery is cycled in accordance with the restoring conditions (¶[28] says the cell of Fig. 1 can be used with other batteries, where as this operation occurs for each cell, the battery as a whole would be cycled in the way necessary;
while Gao is silent to a battery pack, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a battery with multiple cells in a pack/package to provide easier carrying of the cells in the battery, improved protection from the elements, and ease of design for the battery pack rather than the plural cells being incorporated into the loading device [e.g. a vehicle/phone]).
Dependent Claim 14, Gao teaches the restoring threshold is determined based on one or more characteristics of additional lithium-metal liquid-electrolyte electrochemical cells in the battery pack (as described above for Claim 1).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al (USPGPN 20220407126) in view of Zettel et al (USPGPN 20060176024)
Dependent Claim 7, Gao is silent to the restoring threshold is determined based on the duration of the rest period since cycling the operating conditions, and
the lithium-metal liquid-electrolyte electrochemical cell reaches the restoring threshold when the duration of the rest period is 8 weeks to 1 year.
Zettel teaches the restoring threshold is determined based on the duration of the rest period since cycling the operating conditions (¶’s [07, 24-26] describes providing a refreshing/restoring operation when the period is past the threshold time). One of ordinary skill in the art understands that calendar age is among other factors employed to determine the overall health/degradation-state of a battery. Thus, by taking the calendar age into consideration, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be able to obtain a more accurate measure of the battery health.
While the exact period is not described by Gao in view of Zettel, this limitation is a simple design choice which is lacking a showing of criticality [official notice taken], and which is within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try, esp. because as the longer the period, the less energy is wasted in reconditioning the battery;
Gao, Zettel, and the present application are analogous in that they involve the charging and discharging of batteries, and solving methods relating to the cycling).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gao with Zettel to provide improved accuracy.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 18 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claims 4 and 18, the prior art discloses the limitations of Claims [1 & 2 for Claim 4, 15 & 16 for Claim 18]. The prior art fails to disclose the further limitations of Claims 4 and 18, respectively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN T TRISCHLER whose telephone number is (571)270-0651. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30A-3:30P (often working later), M-F, ET, Flexible. 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, Drew Dunn can be reached at 5712722312. 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.
/JOHN T TRISCHLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights