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 .
Claim Interpretation
Claim 41 states “wherein providing the formation charge current comprises charging to partial formation at the first rate”.
Applicant’s specification states “in various methods, providing the formation charge current can include charging to partial formation at the first rate. For example, charging to partial formation at the first rate can include charging to about 10% to about 50% of the total capacity of the electrochemical cell. As another example, charging to partial formation at the first rate can include charging to about 10% to about 30% of the total capacity of the electrochemical cell (P7).
Therefore, this is the interpretation of “charging to partial formation” being used.
Claim 50 states “wherein the first electrode comprises a silicon-dominant electrode”.
Applicant’s specification states “:he provided electrochemical cell can include at least one electrode comprising a silicon-dominant electrode. The electrode can include at least about 20% by weight of silicon. In certain implementations, the electrode can include at least about 20% to about 99% by weight of silicon. For example, the weight percentage of silicon can be any value within this range (e.g., about 20%, about 25%, about 30%, about 35%, about 40%, about 45%, about 50%, about 55%, about 60%, about 65%, about 70%, about 75%, about 80%, about 85%, about 90%, about 95%, about 96%, about 97%, about 98%, about 99%, etc.), or any range within this range such as any range formed by the example values (e.g., about 30% to about 99%, about 40% to about 99%, about 50% to about 99%, about 60% to about 99%, about 70% to about 99%, about 80% to about 99%, about 90% to about 99%, about 30% to about 95%, about 40% to about 95%, about 50% to about 95%, about 60% to about 95%, about 70% to about 95%, about 80% to about 95%, about 30% to about 90%, about 40% to about 90%, about 50% to about 90%, about 60% to about 90%, about 70% to about 90%, about 80% to about 90%, etc.)” (P26).
Therefore, this is the interpretation of “silicon-dominant electrode” being used.
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 31-40, 42-43, 45-46, and 51-56 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.
Regarding claims 31-40, 42-43, 46, and 51-56, The term “about” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Further, regarding claim 45, the claim recites “wherein the formation charge current is provided at the second rate prior to the first rate”.
However, claim 45 depends upon claim 31 which recites “wherein the providing comprises: providing the formation charge current at the first rate of constant current until a rate switching condition is met; and providing the formation charge current at the second rate of constant current after the rate switching condition is met”.
Given in claim 31 it states the formation charge current at the first rate is done “until a rate switching condition is met” and the formation charge current at the second rate is done “after the rate switching condition is met”, the claim as written describes the formation charge current being provided at the first rate prior to the second rate.
Therefore, it is unclear how the formation charge current is provided at the second rate prior to the first rate when claim 31 sets forth the opposite.
No prior art is being applied to this claim until the issues are remedied.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 44 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 44 recites “wherein the formation charge current is provided at the first rate prior to the second rate”.
However, claim 44 depends upon claim 31 which recites “wherein the providing comprises: providing the formation charge current at the first rate of constant current until a rate switching condition is met; and providing the formation charge current at the second rate of constant current after the rate switching condition is met”.
Given in claim 31 it states the formation charge current at the first rate is done “until a rate switching condition is met” and the formation charge current at the second rate is done “after the rate switching condition is met”, the claim as written describes the formation charge current being provided at the first rate prior to the second rate.
Therefore, the recitation of claim 44 is redundant.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 31, 35-43, 46, and 48-56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al (US 20190181491 A1, as given in the 01/24/2025 IDS).
Regarding claim 31, Park discloses a method of forming an electrochemical cell (see entire disclosure and especially P20), the method comprising: providing an electrochemical cell comprising; a first electrode and a second electrode, wherein at least the first electrode comprises up to about 99% by weight of silicon, a separator between the first electrode and the second electrode and an electrolyte in contact with the first electrode, the second electrode, and the separator (“The electrochemical cell can include a first and second electrode, a separator between the first and second electrodes, and electrolyte in contact with the first electrode, the second electrode, and the separator. At least one of the electrodes can comprise at least about 20% by weight of silicon (e.g., at least about 20% to about 99% by weight of silicon)”, P20).
Park discloses providing, during a formation process, a formation charge current at a first rate of constant current and at a second rate of constant current to the electrochemical cell, wherein the first rate is less than the second rate, and wherein the providing comprises: providing the formation charge current at the first rate of constant current until a rate switching condition is met; and providing the formation charge current at the second rate of constant current after the rate switching condition is met (“In some such instances, the formation charge current can be substantially constant for a certain period of time followed by a taper charge to a lower rate, for example, as under a constant current, constant voltage procedure”, P27; given Park states the formation charge current can be changed, there must be a rate switching condition).
Regarding claims 35-38, Park discloses the formation charge current can be provided in a range of about 1.5 C to about 10 C (P27). Therefore, it would be obvious to select the formation charge current at the “lower rate” step to be within 1.5 C to about 10 C (lying in/being the claimed ranges), given these are the currents for the formation charge current itself.
Regarding claim 39-40, Park discloses the amount of time the formation charge current is provided can be about 3 minutes to 50 minutes (P28). Therefore, it would be obvious to select the amount of time the formation charge current is provided, at either the first rate or second rate, to be about 3 minutes to 50 minutes (lying within the claimed ranges), given this time range is the range taught for the formation charge current itself.
Regarding claim 41-43, Park discloses the cell can be charged to partial formation to further reduce processing time and/or reduce irreversible capacity; for example, the formation charge current can be provided from about 15% to about 50% (P29).
The range about 15% to about 50% overlaps with the claimed range, 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. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (See MPEP § 2144.05)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to charge the cell to partial formation at the first rate within the range claimed, given this partial formation charge range is the range taught for the formation charge current itself, and it would provide reduced processing time and/or reduced irreversible capacity.
Regarding claim 44, Park discloses wherein the formation charge current is provided at the first rate prior to the second rate (see the rejection of claim 31).
Regarding claim 46, Park discloses wherein the entire formation of the cell is completed within a single charge or a single charge/discharge cycle (“In some such instances, the formation charge current can be substantially constant for a certain period of time followed by a taper charge to a lower rate, for example, as under a constant current, constant voltage procedure”, P27; given Park states the formation charge current is tapered, the change in rates would be happening in a single charge/discharge cycle).
Regarding claim 48, Park discloses wherein the electrochemical cell is a lithium-ion battery and providing the formation charge current comprises providing the formation charge current with substantially no lithium plating (P32).
Regarding claim 49, Park discloses wherein the first electrode is an anode (see the rejection of claim 31 above and P7, 18).
Regarding claim 50, modified Kawakami meets the limitation wherein the first electrode comprises a silicon-dominant electrode (P7, 26).
Regarding claim 51-56, Park discloses the first electrode can comprise the silicon at about 30% to about 99% by weight, at about 40% to about 99% by weight, at about 50% to about 99% by weight, at about 60% to about 99% by weight, at about 70% to about 99% by weight, or at about 80% to about 99% by weight (P7).
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, 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.
Claims 31-35, 39-40, 44, and 48-56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawakami (US 20170200943 A1) in view of Wood III et al (Prospects for reducing the processing cost of lithium ion batteries, as given in the 01/24/2025 IDS).
Regarding claim 31, Kawakami discloses a method of forming an electrochemical cell, the method comprising:
providing an electrochemical cell comprising; a first electrode and a second electrode (anode active material layers 502/602/702 and cathode active layers 505/605/705; P73),
wherein at least the first electrode comprises up to about 99% by weight of silicon (“anode active material containing silicon as a main component is preferably in a range of 50% to 99% by weight”, P51);
a separator between the first electrode and the second electrode and an electrolyte in contact with the first electrode, the second electrode, and the separator (“… examples of the ion conductor thereof include a separator holding an electrolyte solution (an electrolyte solution prepared by dissolving an electrolyte in a solvent) … In practice, a separator for preventing electrical short-circuit is placed between the anode and cathode …”, P79; see also entire disclosure P72).
Kawakami teaches “to maintain high capacity and achieve high charge-discharge efficiency and long charge-discharge cycle life in an energy storage device, such as a lithium-ion rechargeable battery, using an anode including particles containing silicon as a main component (hereafter referred to as silicon anode), all the components of the silicon anode, that is, the particles themselves containing silicon as a main component, a conductive additive, a binder and pores that absorb the expansion of the volume during lithiation (lithium insertion), a current collector capable of enduring stress that occurs when the volume is expanded, and an electrolyte solution additive for forming a stable SEI layer are important; and it is necessary to consider a comprehensive measure such that the performance of the silicon anode can be delivered” (P28). Therefore, it can be seen that Kawakami desires at least the formation of a SEI layer on the silicon anode.
However, Kawakami does not disclose providing, during a formation process, a formation charge current at a first rate of constant current and at a second rate of constant current to the electrochemical cell, wherein the first rate is less than the second rate, and wherein the providing comprises: providing the formation charge current at the first rate of constant current until a rate switching condition is met; and providing the formation charge current at the second rate of constant current after the rate switching condition is met.
In a similar field of endeavor, Wood III discloses a way to achieve significant cost reduction is to reduce the formation time associated with an anode solid electrolyte interface (SEI) layer (Page 234, Right Column, Section 1). Wood III discloses three formation cycles at consecutive rates of C/20, C/10, and C/4 (Page 239, Left Column, Section 3.2). Wood III discloses reduced SEI-layer formation time can save an additional $22/kWh-usable (Page 234, Highlights Column).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Wood III and provided to Kawakami a formation process that includes a formation charge current at a first rate of constant current and at a second rate of constant current to the electrochemical cell, wherein the first rate is less than the second rate (the first rate being drawn to C/20, the second rate being drawn to C/10), and wherein the providing comprises: providing the formation charge current at the first rate of constant current until a rate switching condition is met; and providing the formation charge current at the second rate of constant current after the rate switching condition is met (given Wood III states the three formation cycles are consecutive rates, there must be a rate switching condition met for the operator to switch the rates from C/20 to C/10 and C/10 to C4), given Wood III teaches this can reduce the formation time associated with an anode solid electrolyte interface (SEI) layer, thereby achieving significant cost reduction.
Regarding claims 32-34, modified Kawakami teaches the first rate is C/20 (see the rejection of claim 31 above), therefore, it lies within the claimed ranges of C/80 or C/50 or C/40 to C/10.
Regarding claim 35, modified Kawakami teaches the second rate is C/10 (see the rejection of claim 31 above), therefore, it lies within the claimed range of less than 10C.
Regarding claim 39-40, Wood III teaches “Three formation cycles at consecutive rates of C/20, C/10, and C/4 would take 68 h” (Page 239, Right Column Section 3.2)
The Examiner has calculated 68 hours as being 4080 minutes.
Therefore, in modified Kawakami, the formation charge current provided at the first rate is provided for between greater than 0 to less than 4080 minutes. Similarly, the formation charge current provided at the second rate is provided for between greater than 0 to less than 4080 minutes
Both of these ranges overlap with the claimed ranges of time provided for the first rate and time provided for the second rate being from about 1 minute to about 1000 minutes, 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. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (See MPEP § 2144.05).
Regarding claim 44, modified Kawakami meets the limitation wherein the formation charge current is provided at the first rate prior to the second rate (see the rejection of claim 31).
Regarding claim 48, Wood III teaches an SEI layer is formed via the formation cycles, not that lithium plating occurs. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would necessarily believe that modified Kawakami meets the limitation wherein the electrochemical cell is a lithium-ion battery and providing the formation charge current comprises providing the formation charge current with substantially no lithium plating.
Further, Applicant’s specification states “high currents are generally avoided as they can cause lithium plating and/or other detrimental effects” (P17). Given modified Kawakami teaches the first rate is C/20 and the second rate is C/10 (see the rejection of claim 31 above), and these are known to be low charging current rates, then it would be recognized that providing the formation charge current comprises providing the formation charge current with substantially no lithium plating.
Regarding claim 49, modified Kawakami meets the limitation wherein the first electrode is an anode (see the rejection of claim 31 above and Kawakami P51).
Regarding claim 50, modified Kawakami meets the limitation wherein the first electrode comprises a silicon-dominant electrode (“anode active material containing silicon as a main component is preferably in a range of 50% to 99% by weight”, Kawakami P51).
Regarding claim 51-56, Kawakami discloses the silicon in the first electrode is contained in a range of 50 % to 99 % by weight (P51). This range lies within/overlaps the ranges of 30 % to 99 % by weight, 40 % to 99 % by weight, 50 % to 99 % by weight, 60 % to 99 % by weight, 70 % to 99 % by weight, 80 % to 99 % by weight, 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. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (See MPEP § 2144.05)
Claims 41-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawakami (US 20170200943 A1) in view of Wood III et al (Prospects for reducing the processing cost of lithium ion batteries, as given in the 01/24/2025 IDS) as applied to claim 31, further in view of Park et al (US 20190181491 A1, as given in the 01/24/2025 IDS).
Regarding claims 41-43,Wood III teaches “for three (low-rate) formation cycles, three full charges and discharges plus a recharge at the end would be needed”, therefore, modified Kawakami does not meet the limitation wherein providing the formation charge current comprises charging to partial formation at the first rate.
In a similar field of endeavor, Park teaches a silicon-dominate anode that is formed under a formation charge current (P26). Park teaches to further reduce processing time and/or reduce irreversible capacity, the cell can be charged to partial formation, for example, the formation charge current can be provided from about 15% to about 50% of the total capacity of the electrochemical cell (P29).
While Park teaches the formation charge current to be greater than 1C, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the how the benefits of reducing processing time and irreversible capacity would improve the battery of modified Kawakami. If a technique has been used to improve one device (provide a formation charging of an electrochemical cell including a formation charge current being provided from about 15% to about 50% of the total capacity of the electrochemical cell), and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way (reduce processing time and/or reduce irreversible capacity), using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill. SEE MPEP § 2141 (III) Rationale C, KSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court 2007).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Park and provided wherein providing the formation charge current comprises charging to partial formation at the first rate from about 15% to about 50% of the total capacity of the electrochemical cell, given Park teaches this can reduce processing time and/or reduce irreversible capacity.
Modified Kawakami includes wherein charging to partial formation at the first rate comprises charging to about 15% to about 50% of the total capacity of the electrochemical cell, which overlaps the claimed ranges of about 10% to about 50% and about 10% to about 30% of the total capacity of the electrochemical cell. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (See MPEP § 2144.05).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 31-56 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-39, 41-66, 70-73, and 75-83 of U.S. Patent No. 12027692. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
All of the limitations of independent claim 31 in the instant application are met by claims 1, 27, and 54 of U.S. Patent No. 12027692. All of the limitations of dependent claim 32-56 in the instant application are met by claims 2-26, 28-39, 41-53, 55-66, 70-73 and 75-83 of U.S. Patent No. 12027692
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mary Byram whose telephone number is (571)272-0690. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm EST.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571)272-1481. 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.
/MARY GRACE BYRAM/Examiner, Art Unit 1729