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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10 May 2024, 23 July 2025, and 20 April 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informality: lines 2-3 recite “…wherein the electrolyte of the lithium source half-battery is the same as or different from that of the battery to be pre-lithiated, each selected from…”. This recitation does not seem to further limit the invention as there are no possibilities other than being either the same or different, and could be removed for clarity. The claim could possibly be rewritten as “…wherein the electrolyte of the lithium source half-battery and the electrolyte of the battery to be pre-lithiated are each selected from…”.
Claim 9 recites “and a composite thereof” in line 4. For the sake of compact prosecution, it is being interpreted as “or a composite thereof” since there is no exemplary recitation of a seven-part negative electrode active material in the specification.
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 1-10 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 6 recites the broad recitation “wherein the pre-lithiation temperature is 35 °C to 65 °C”, and the claim also recites "preferably 45 °C" which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for the following limitations in the claims.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the interior" in line 5.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the negative electrode” in lines 14-15.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the electrode active substance” in line 7.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the flow” in line 6.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the electrolyte of the battery to be pre-lithiated” in line 13.
Claims 2-10 are also included in this rejection as they depend from claim 1.
Claim 4 recites the limitations “the current”, “the ambient temperature”, “the pre-lithiation time”, and “the rotation speed” in line 4-6.
Claims 5-7 are also included in this rejection as they depend from 4.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the pre-lithiation temperature” in line 2.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the pre-lithiation time” in line 3.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the rotation speed” in line 2.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the negative electrode active material” in line 2.
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 and 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan (CN 102456927) in view of Lebedeva et al. (“Amount of Free Liquid Electrolyte in Commercial Large Format Prismatic Li-Ion Battery Cells”, Journal of The Electrochemical Society, 2019, Vol 166, A779-786, hereinafter, Lebedeva).
Regarding claim 1, Yan teaches a method for manufacturing a lithium-ion battery including pre-lithiation with steps corresponding to the instant claimed steps 1-5:
Step 1: providing a lithium source half-battery (Abstract, an external lithium source device) comprising a casing that encapsulates the single electrode comprising a lithium-containing metal or lithium containing-oxide, and the electrolyte (Claim 1, sealed container with a composite lithium sheet inside and filled with electrolyte), with an external conduit in fluid communication with the interior of the casing (Claim 1, electrolyte conveying pipeline connected with bottom of said sealed container upper electrolyte conveying port), and a microfluidic pump for controlling the flow of a fluid in the external conduit (¶ 44 pump);
Step 2: providing a battery to be pre-lithiated (¶ 10 manufacturing a battery cell)
Step 3: connecting the external conduit to the pre-lithiation tunnel and turning on the microfluidic pump to realize circulation between the electrolyte of the lithium source half-battery and the electrolyte of the battery to be pre-lithiated (¶ 21, “setting an electrolyte conveying pipeline 5 connect sealed container 2 of electrolytic liquid delivery port 20 and battery cell 1 upper electrolyte supplementary opening 12, and provided with an electrolyte refluxing pipe 6 connect battery cell 1 upper electrolyte outlet 13 and sealed container 2 is electrolyte return port 21, electrolyte conveying pipeline 5 and electrolytic liquid reflux pipeline 6 form an electrolytic liquid loop flowing between the sealed container 2 and the battery cell 1”, and ¶ 44, the pump…”can provide electrolyte flow between the sealed container 2 and battery driving force”);
Step 4: connecting the electrode of the lithium source half-battery and the negative electrode of the battery to be pre-lithiated to an external power supply, and performing pre-lithiation on the battery to be pre-lithiated (¶ 22, “DC power supply 3, 4 electrically connect the anode and the composite, cathode and battery cell 1 upper electrode terminal 11 are electrically connected”, ¶ 32, “metal lithium lose electronic claims producing lithium ion and lithium ion through electrolyte loop, reaches cathode surface involved in the formation reaction of the SEI film”);
Step 5: after pre-lithiation, removing the external conduit and sealing the pre-lithiation tunnel to obtain a pre-lithiated battery (¶ 23, “sealing battery cell electrolyte supplementary opening 1 is 12 after finishing and electrolytic liquid outlet 13”)
While Yan mentions that the battery cell has an opening for the electrolyte to flow, it does not mention the step of punching the battery to form it, just that the technology and manufacturing process are well known in the art. In a related field of endeavor, Lebedeva teaches the drilling of holes into batteries to reach the electrolyte inside (Lebedeva, Experimental, Measuring the amount of free electrolyte ¶ 3). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to use the method of drilling the hole through the battery case to reach the electrolyte instead of punching the pre-lithiation tunnel because both methods have a predictable outcome and yield the same result of creating a path from the outside of the battery to the electrolyte inside.
Regarding claim 3, Yan in view of Lebedeva teaches the battery pre-lithiation process of claim 1 wherein the pre-lithiation tunnel is located at the upper end and lower end of the battery (Fig 1 of Yan, electrolyte conveying pipeline at the top and bottom of the battery, Yan ¶ 19 mentions an upper leading-out anode terminal 10 corresponding to the top of the battery in the figure), and Lebedeva teaches that the drilled holes for access to the electrolyte were 3 mm in diameter (Lebedeva Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 4, Yan in view of Lebedeva teaches the battery pre-lithiation process of claim 1 wherein the pre-lithiation process is controlled by adjusting the current between electrodes, temperature, time, and pump rotation speed. Embodiment 1 of Yan involves placing the battery in a 45-degree environment and “baking aging” for 48 hours (Yan ¶ 57), setting the pump flow rate to 3 ml/min (flow rate is a function of rotation speed) (Yan ¶ 58), and adjusting loop current to 25mA (Yan ¶ 58).
Regarding claim 5, Yan in view of Lebedeva teaches the battery pre-lithiation process of claim 4 wherein the pre-lithiation applied current is 25 mA, which is within the claimed range of 1 mA to 5000 mA (Yan ¶ 58).
Regarding claim 6, Yan in view of Lebedeva teaches the battery pre-lithiation process of claim 4 wherein the pre-lithiation temperature is 45 degrees (Yan ¶ 57) and the time is 48 hours plus 72 hours (Yan ¶ 57-59) which is within the range of 1 hour to 240 hours.
Regarding claim 7, Yan in view of Lebedeva teaches the battery pre-lithiation process of claim 4 including a pump to circulate the electrolyte between the external lithium source device and the battery to be pre-lithiated, but does not explicitly mention that the rpm of the pump is between 1 rpm and 30 rpm. However, while not disclosing an rpm, Yan mentions a flow rate of 3 ml/min, and one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine the corresponding rpm given the other factors, such as displaced volume per rotation, involved in the conversion or optimize those factors to achieve the claimed rpm of 1 to 30.
Regarding claim 8, Yan in view of Lebedeva teaches the battery pre-lithiation process of claim 1 wherein the electrolyte of lithium-ion batteries is ethylene carbonate and dimethyl carbonate (Yan ¶ 25) which are esters.
Regarding claim 9, Yan in view of Lebedeva teaches the battery pre-lithiation process of claim 1 wherein the negative electrode active material comprises graphite and conductive carbon black, which correspond to the claimed carbon materials (Yan ¶ 53).
Regarding claim 10, Yan in view of Lebedeva teaches the battery pre-lithiation process of claim 1 wherein the casing of the lithium source half-battery is provided with two external conduits (Yan Fig. 1 shows two openings or conduits for electrolyte flow on the external lithium source).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan (CN 102456927) in view of Lebedeva (“Amount of Free Liquid Electrolyte in Commercial Large Format Prismatic Li-Ion Battery Cells”, Journal of The Electrochemical Society, 2019, Vol 166, A779-786) in further view of Jeon et al. (Wo 2021167353, hereinafter, Jeon).
Yan in view of Lebedeva teaches the battery pre-lithiation process of claim 1 including the lithium-containing metal comprising lithium, but does not teach that it also comprises an alloy of lithium with another one of the claimed elements. In a related field of endeavor, Jeon teaches a lithium-ion supply metal sheet for pre-lithiation of a battery that may include lithium, a lithium alloy, or a mixture thereof, and the alloy may be lithium-aluminum, lithium-copper, lithium-silicon, etc. (Jeon Mode of Invention ¶ 9). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to substitute the composite lithium sheet of Yan in view of Lebedeva with the lithium-ion supply metal sheet of Jeon because using either lithium source would have a predictable outcome and yield the same result of supplying lithium ions for the battery.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL FANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8815. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-5:00pm.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571)272-0604. 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.
/M.F./ Examiner, Art Unit 1784
/HUMERA N. SHEIKH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights