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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-10, drawn to a method of operating a lithium battery) in the reply filed on 09/11/2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 03/12/2024, 07/01/2026, and 10/02/2026 have been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: On Page 1, line 5, “lithium-met-polymer” should be “lithium-metal-polymer”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an agent” in claim 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Pg. 11, lines 28-31 of the instant specification states that the agent generating electron conductivity may be chosen from carbon blacks, SP carbon, acetylene blacks, carbon fibers and nanofibers, carbon nanotubes, graphene, graphite, metal particles, and fibers of at least conductive metal such as aluminum, platinum, iron, cobalt and nickel, and a mixture thereof. Thus, the limitation will be interpreted as carbon blacks, SP carbon, acetylene blacks, carbon fibers and nanofibers, carbon nanotubes, graphene, graphite, metal particles, and fibers of at least conductive metal such as aluminum, platinum, iron, cobalt and nickel, and a mixture thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 7-10 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 7 refers to “the solid or quasi-solid electrolyte” in line 2. However, “at least one solid or quasi-solid electrolyte”, encompassing multiple solid or quasi-solid electrolytes are earlier recited in claim 1 and it is uncertain as to which is being referenced in claim 7. See MPEP 2173.05 (e). It is unclear whether just one or all solid or quasi-solid electrolytes comprise/require the limitation of claim 7.
Claims 8 and 10 refer to “the positive electrode” in lines 2 in claim 8 and lines 2-3 in claim 10. However, “at least one positive electrode”, encompassing multiple positive electrodes are earlier recited in claim 1 and it is uncertain as to which is being referenced in claims 8 and 10. See MPEP 2173.05 (e). It is unclear whether just one or all positive electrodes comprise/require the limitations of claims 8 and 10.
Claim 9 refers to “the negative electrode” in line 2. However, “at least one negative electrode”, encompassing multiple negative electrodes are earlier recited in claim 1 and it is uncertain as to which is being referenced in claim 9. See MPEP 2173.05 (e). It is unclear whether just one or all negative electrodes comprise/require the limitation of claim 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 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:
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.
Claims 1-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2002/0160269 A1), and in further view of Huang et al. (CN 103746150 A).
Regarding claim 1, Sakai teaches a lithium battery chosen from solid or quasi-solid electrolyte lithium batteries, said lithium battery comprising at least one positive electrode, at least one solid or quasi-solid electrolyte, and at least one negative electrode (Para. [0016] states that the invention disclosed by Choi provides a lithium battery that includes a cathode, an anode, and a polymeric gel electrolyte.).
Choi fails to disclose a method for operating a lithium battery, said battery comprising the following steps: i) a step of charging the lithium battery at a charging temperature Tc; and ii) a step of discharging the lithium battery at a discharging temperature TD, wherein the charging temperature TC is strictly greater than the discharging temperature TD.
However, Huang teaches a method for operating a lithium battery wherein said method comprising at least the following steps: i) a step of charging the lithium battery at a charging temperature Tc; and ii) a step of discharging the lithium battery at a discharging temperature TD, wherein the charging temperature TC is strictly greater than the discharging temperature TD (Huang discloses that the method for operating said lithium battery includes two steps. i) Claim 3 states a step of charging a lithium battery at a suitable charging temperature (TC) of 10-20°C. ii) Claim 4 further explains of a second step of discharging said lithium battery at a suitable discharging temperature (TD) of -10 °C to 0 °C, stating that the charging temperature is strictly greater than the discharging temperature.).
Choi and Huang are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of developing methods with improved charging/discharging efficiency. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lithium battery of Choi to include a method of operating a battery wherein said method comprises at least a step of charging the lithium battery at a charging temperature Tc; and a step of discharging the lithium battery at a discharging temperature TD, wherein the charging temperature TC is strictly greater than the discharging temperature TD because Huang teaches that a suitable charging temperature of the battery is within the range of 10°C - 20°C and a suitable discharging temperature is within the range of -10°C - 0°C wherein said ranges are designed to find the optimal reference temperature in the balance between being able to charge the battery and being able to discharge the battery at a suitable temperature, thus saving power supply energy to the thermal control module (claims 3-4 and paras. [0030]-[0031]) and applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious. See MPEP 2141. III. (D).
Regarding claim 2, Choi, as modified by Huang, discloses the method for operating a lithium battery as discussed in claim 1.
Choi, as modified by Huang, further discloses wherein the difference between the charging temperature TC during step i) and the discharging temperature TD during step ii) is of at least 5 °C (Huang claim 3 describes a suitable charging temperature of the lithium battery as being 10°C - 20°C while claim 4 states that a suitable discharging temperature of the lithium battery as being -10°C - 0°C. The difference between the charging temperature and the discharging temperature is in the range of 10°C and 40°C.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select applicants claimed range of a difference between the charging temperature and the discharging temperature of the lithium ion battery is at least 5°C because Huang teaches overlapping ranges for a difference between a charging temperature and a discharging temperature of a battery is in the range of 10°C - 40°C, and in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 3, Choi, as modified by Huang, discloses the method for operating a lithium battery as discussed in claim 1.
Choi, as modified by Huang, further discloses wherein the difference between the charging temperature TC during step i) and the discharging temperature TD during step ii) is of at most 50 °C (Huang claim 3 describes a suitable charging temperature of the lithium battery as being 10°C - 20°C while claim 4 states that a suitable discharging temperature of the lithium battery as being -10°C - 0°C. The difference between the charging temperature and the discharging temperature is in the range of 10°C and 40°C.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select applicants claimed range of a difference between the charging temperature and the discharging temperature of the lithium ion battery is at most 50°C because Huang teaches overlapping ranges for a difference between a charging temperature and a discharging temperature of a battery is in the range of 10°C - 40°C, and in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 4, Choi, as modified by Huang, discloses the method for operating a lithium battery as discussed in claim 1.
Choi, as modified by Huang, further discloses wherein the charging temperature TC during step i) ranges from 0 °C to 100 °C (Huang claim 3 describes a suitable charging temperature of the lithium battery as being 10°C - 20 °C.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select applicants claimed range of a charging temperature ranging from 0°C - 100°C because Huang teaches overlapping ranges for a charging temperature ranging from 10°C - 20 °C, and in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 5, Choi, as modified by Huang, discloses the method for operating a lithium battery as discussed in claim 1.
Choi, as modified by Huang, further discloses wherein the discharging temperature TD during step i) ranges from -10 °C to 90 °C (Huang claim 4 states that a suitable discharging temperature of the lithium battery as being -10°C - 0°C.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select applicants claimed range of a discharging temperature ranging from -10°C - 90°C because Huang teaches overlapping ranges for a discharging temperature ranging from -10°C - 0 °C, and in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 6, Choi, as modified by Huang, discloses the method for operating a lithium battery as discussed in claim 1.
Choi, as modified by Huang, further discloses wherein said method further comprises repeating steps i) and ii) (Para. [0078] states that the lithium battery prepared as Example 3 undergoes repeated cycles of charging and discharging of said lithium battery at 25 °C and -10 °C. Additionally, para. [0026] of Huang states that Huang provides a lithium battery and a thermal control module to heat or cool the battery according to its temperature relative to its present state within its cycle of charging/discharging, enabling the battery to be kept out of operation when the battery possesses a temperature outside its operating temperature range).
Regarding claim 7, Choi, as modified by Huang, discloses the method for operating a lithium battery as discussed in claim 1.
Choi further discloses wherein the solid or quasi-solid electrolyte is a polymer electrolyte comprising:
at least one lithium salt and at least one polymer material based on poly(ethylene oxide) (PEO), or
at least one anionic polymer substituted with an anion of a lithium salt (Para. [0061] states that a lithium battery is prepared as Example 4 wherein the cathode and the anode within said battery are prepared in the same manner as in the lithium battery disclosed as Example 1. Additionally, a polymeric electrolyte forming composition is prepared by dissolving polyethylene oxide and 1.1 M LiPF6 in a solvent of ethylene carbonate and propylene carbonate.).
Regarding claim 8, Choi, as modified by Huang, discloses the method for operating a lithium battery as discussed in claim 1.
Choi further discloses wherein the positive electrode comprises a positive electrode active material, an agent generating electron conductivity, and optionally a polymeric material (Para. [0061] states that a cathode and an anode of said lithium battery of Example 4 were prepared in the same manner as Example 1. Para. [0055] describes the preparation of the lithium battery of Example 1. LiCoO2 (positive electrode active material), carbon black (agent generating electron conductivity), and polyvinylidene fluoride (polymeric material) are mixed to form a cathode active material slurry.).
Regarding claim 10, Choi, as modified by Huang, discloses the method for operating a lithium battery as discussed in claim 1.
Choi further discloses wherein the battery further comprises a current collector connected to the positive electrode (Para. [0045] states that a cathode and an anode of said lithium battery are manufactured by forming an electrode active material on a current collector using electrode active material compositions.).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al, in view of Huang et al., and in further view of Sakai et al. (US 2016/0218364 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Choi, as modified by Huang, discloses the method of operating the lithium battery as discussed in claim 1.
Choi, as modified by Huang, fails to disclose the method wherein the negative electrode consists of a lithium metal, or one of its alloys.
However, Sakai teaches wherein the negative electrode consists of a lithium metal, or one of its alloys (Para. [0146] states that in the production of the lithium secondary battery, a metal lithium foil having a thickness of 500 µm was formed and used as a negative electrode.).
Choi, Huang and Sakai are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of developing lithium batteries with improved charging/discharging efficiency. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of operating a lithium battery of Choi, as modified by Huang, to include wherein the negative electrode consists of a lithium metal, or one of its alloys because Sakai teaches that the invention provided is excellent in discharge capacity and cycle characteristics (para. [0020]) and combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. See MPEP 2141. III. (A).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Knudson et al. (US 2021/0159557 A1) discloses a battery management system for controlling a battery charging temperature and a battery discharging temperature wherein said battery charging temperature is strictly greater than said battery discharging temperature.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANTINO M SERVAGNO whose telephone number is (571)270-0847. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:00 am - 5:00 pm, F 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Joshua Allen can be reached at (571) 270-3176. 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.
/SANTINO MICHALE SERVAGNO/Examiner, Art Unit 1713
/JOSHUA L ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1713
