CTFR 17/379,717 CTFR 92063 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments/amendments filed 5/18/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant has added new matter to the disclosure, as the phrase “manufacturer rated maximum charging current” was never disclosed by the applicants originally filed disclosure. Furthermore, the applicant has argued that the data sheet of Dong’s battery is only the standard/recommended charging current. The examiner, and one of ordinary skill in the art, would disagree for two main reasons. (a) the applicant’s disclosure does not even provide support for this term (noted as new matter). (b) the applicant has provided no evidence that the data sheet is not the maximum rated charging current recommended by the manufacturer. It is further noted that the applicant’s IDS (information disclosure statement[s]) submission and arguments filed 12/17/25 would appear to cast doubt that evidence supporting the applicant’s assertion that the data sheet does not demonstrate the manufacturer rated charging current claimed. To then claim that there is a maximum value not on the data sheets is not very convincing to the preponderance of the evidence available. Therefore, the applicant’s arguments have been respectfully refuted. It is noted that the examiner appears to have missed claim 19 in the non-final rejection mailed 2/3/26. It is further noted that there was a typographical error on page 11 of the non-final rejection mailed 2/3/26 (Nishio instead of correct Nishino in the claim header). However, as the applicant has argued that the scope has been changed with the amendments filed 5/18/26, this action will be a final rejection due to the changed scope. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: As noted below, the phrase “manufacturer rated maximum charging current” was not supported by the originally filed disclosure. The data sheets provided by the examiner (PTO-892 forms) and the applicant (IDS) do not disclose such a term. As it can therefore be assumed that the rated charging current set in the data sheet by the manufacturer is assumed to be the maximum value recommended by the manufacturer, therefore, for purposes of examination if the originally disclosed “manufacturer rated [[ maximum ]] charging current” is met by the prior art, then it will be assumed that the amended term is met as well . Appropriate correction is required. Drawings 06-36 AIA The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “manufacturer rated maximum charging current” (new matter) of Claims 1-20 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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. Specification 07-29 AIA The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Applicant has added “the manufacturer rated maximum charging current” (new matter) of Claims 1-20, but has not included the claimed text in the specification. Claimed terms should be included in the specification as the claims are a summary of the specification. However, unless the new matter issue below is resolved, addition to the drawings and specification will result in further objections for new matter . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-01 AIA The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The applicant has added the word “maximum” to the phrase “manufacturer rated charging current.” The issue is the applicant lacks support for thew new phrase “manufacturer rated maximum charging current”. ¶’s [27, 30] [of the published specification] describes the original phrase, but the word maximum is applied to the voltage limit. The word “rating” (without manufacturer”) is further used in ¶’s [27, 28, 30, 31] [of the published specification], while “rated” (without manufacturer”) is used in ¶[28] [of the published specification]. The word “manufacturer” is used only in ¶’s [27-30] [of the published specification], but again, not in conjunction with the phrase “maximum rated charging current”. Lacking a showing that one of ordinary skill in the art would not interpret the rated charging current of the manufacturer’s data sheet as something other than this value, the applicant has thus added new matter to the claims. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Dong (USPGPN 20150162758), as evidenced by Panasonic (“Lithium Ion UR18650SA,” Panasonic Sanyo Energy USA Corporation, Version 13.02 R1, Published 2012, www.megacellmonitor.com/pdf/vendor_specs/SPEC_SANYO_UR18650SA.pdf ) . Independent Claim 11 , Dong discloses a method for charging a battery pack (10 in Fig. 4), the method (Figs. [1-3, 5-9], abstract, ¶’s [12, 32, 41-63, esp. 12, 32, 41, 43-45, 48, 49, 53, 55-63]) comprising: connecting the battery pack to a battery pack charger (¶’s [33, 34, 44, 56, esp. 44, 56]); providing a charging current to one or more lithium-ion battery cells of the battery pack using an over-voltage charging profile (Fig. 6, ¶[63] describes a voltage of 4.35V being the point where the battery is stopped from charging, where Panasonic provides evidence that the predetermined maximum charging voltage limit for the battery cell is 4.2V), the over-voltage charging profile including a first charging current level, the first charging current level being greater than a manufacturer rated maximum [see claim objection interpretation] charging current for the one or more lithium-ion battery cells (¶’s [19-23, 62], Figs. [5-9], where these ¶’s describes that this particular battery is charged with 4 A, while the data sheet from Panasonic’s evidence shows that the manufacturer rated charging current is only 0.88A, while the charge capacity is up to 1.25Ah, meaning 1C would be 1.25A, thus a charge for 4A would be above both 1C and the manufacturer rated charging current); charging the one or more lithium-ion battery cells to a voltage exceeding a predetermined maximum charging voltage limit for the one or more lithium-ion battery cells (Fig. 6, ¶[63], 4.36V > 4.2V according to Panasonic for that particular cell[s], or 4.38 V); and stopping the charging current after the voltage exceeds the predetermined maximum charging voltage limit (19 minutes is described to be the duration, and Fig. 6 shows that time occurs when 4.35V is reached, ¶[63]) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-6, 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong (USPGPN 20150162758) in view of Kanomata (USPGPN 20170352926; hereinafter Kano), as evidenced by Panasonic (“Lithium Ion UR18650SA,” Panasonic Sanyo Energy USA Corporation, Version 13.02 R1, Published 2012, www.megacellmonitor.com/pdf/vendor_specs/SPEC_SANYO_UR18650SA.pdf ), Suzuki et al (USPGPN 20130335034), Yang (USPGPN 20200366116), and Suzuki (USPGPN 20170047618; -hereinafter Suzuki2) . Independent Claim 1 , Dong teaches a method for charging a battery pack (10 in Fig. 4), the method (Figs. [1-3, 5-9], abstract, ¶’s [12, 32, 41-63, esp. 12, 32, 41, 43-45, 48, 49, 53, 55-63]) comprising: connecting the battery pack to a battery pack charger (¶’s [33, 34, 44, 56, esp. 44, 56]); providing a charging current to one or more battery cells of the battery pack using a constant current charging profile, the constant current charging profile including a first charging current level, the first charging current level being greater than a manufacturer rated charging current for the one or more battery cells (¶’s [19-23, 62], Figs. [5-9], where these ¶’s describes that this particular battery is charged with 4 A, while the data sheet from Panasonic’s evidence shows that the manufacturer rated charging current is only 0.88A, while the charge capacity is up to 1.25Ah, meaning 1C would be 1.25A, thus a charge for 4A would be above both 1C and the manufacturer rated charging current); making a change when a voltage of the one or more battery cells increases to a predetermined voltage value (¶’s [27, 62, 65]). Dong is silent to using a stepped charging profile, the step charging profile including a first charging current level, the first charging current level being greater than a manufacturer rated charging current for the one or more battery cells; stepping down the charging current to a second charging current level when a voltage of the one or more battery cells increases to a predetermined voltage value. Kano teaches providing a charging current to one or more battery cells of the battery pack using a stepped charging profile (Figs. 3 & 4, ST11-ST15), the step charging profile including a first charging current level (see ~5.27-5.4A starting current in Figs. 3 & 4), the first charging current level being greater than a manufacturer rated maximum [see claim objection interpretation] charging current for the one or more battery cells (Suzuki ¶[56], Suzuki2 ¶[90], and Yang ¶’s [76-78, 82-89, 94, 95, 102, 113, 115, 116] provide evidence to define the rated charging current of the battery as the capacity of the battery divided by 1 hour [i.e. for a battery with 1Amp-Hour, the rated current would be 1 Amp]; the manufacturer of the battery is known to one of ordinary skill in the art to set the capacity of the battery, thus, the rated capacity of the battery can easily be found. In other words, a C-rate of 1-C [i.e. amount of current required to fully recharge the battery from empty to full in 1 hour] is known to one ordinary skill in the art as the rated charging current of the battery; In light of the contextual information known to one of ordinary skill in the art above, ¶[34] demonstrates definition of the manufacturer’s rated capacity in line with the evidence of the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, with ¶[38] demonstrating the manufacturer capacity is ~2.93 Amp-Hours, which means 1 C equals 2.93 Amps, and ¶[38] describes the first charging current can be 1.8 times that); stepping down the charging current to a second charging current level when a voltage of the one or more battery cells increases to a predetermined voltage value (see Figs. 2-4). Kano teaches this method of using a stepped charging current process starting above 1C serves to improve the speed/rapidity of the charging while improving lifetime by preventing degradation by the rapid charging (¶’s [11-14, esp. 11, 14]). Both Kano and Dong analogously describe a method of charging with constant current and constant voltage where the constant current is above the 1 C rating for the battery. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Dong with Kano to provide improved lifetime and speed. Kano further teaches a method for charging a battery pack (Fig. 1), the method (Figs. [2-6, esp. 2-4]) comprising: connecting the battery pack to a battery pack charger (¶’s [30, 55] describes the battery being connected to a charger/charging-apparatus, ST1 in Fig. 2, start of charging in Figs. 3 & 4) Independent Claim 15 , Dong teaches a battery pack charger (20 in Fig. 4) for charging a battery pack (10), the battery pack charger (performing method described in Figs. [1-3, 5-9], abstract, ¶’s [12, 32, 41-63, esp. 12, 32, 41, 43-45, 48, 49, 53, 55-63]) comprising: one or more battery pack receiving portions for receiving and interfacing with the battery pack (21), the battery pack including one or more battery cells (¶[27]); a power control module configured to provide power to the one or more battery pack receiving portions (301, 307, ¶’s [32-35]); and a controller connected to the power control module (308), the controller configured to: provide a charging current to one or more battery cells of the battery pack using a constant current charging profile, the constant current charging profile including a first charging current level, the first charging current level being greater than a manufacturer rated maximum [see claim objection interpretation] charging current for the one or more battery cells (¶’s [19-23, 62], Figs. [5-9], where these ¶’s describes that this particular battery is charged with 4 A, while the data sheet from Panasonic’s evidence shows that the manufacturer rated charging current is only 0.88A, while the charge capacity is up to 1.25Ah, meaning 1C would be 1.25A, thus a charge for 4A would be above both 1C and the manufacturer rated charging current); making a change when a voltage of the one or more battery cells increases to a predetermined voltage value (¶’s [27, 62, 65]). Dong is silent to using a stepped charging profile, the step charging profile including a first charging current level, the first charging current level being greater than a manufacturer rated charging current for the one or more battery cells; stepping down the charging current to a second charging current level when a voltage of the one or more battery cells increases to a predetermined voltage value. Kano teaches providing a charging current to one or more battery cells of the battery pack using a stepped charging profile (Figs. 3 & 4, ST11-ST15), the step charging profile including a first charging current level (see ~5.27-5.4A starting current in Figs. 3 & 4), the first charging current level being greater than a manufacturer rated charging current for the one or more battery cells (Suzuki ¶[56], Suzuki2 ¶[90], and Yang ¶’s [76-78, 82-89, 94, 95, 102, 113, 115, 116] provide evidence to define the rated charging current of the battery as the capacity of the battery divided by 1 hour [i.e. for a battery with 1Amp-Hour, the rated current would be 1 Amp]; the manufacturer of the battery is known to one of ordinary skill in the art to set the capacity of the battery, thus, the rated capacity of the battery can easily be found. In other words, a C-rate of 1-C [i.e. amount of current required to fully recharge the battery from empty to full in 1 hour] is known to one ordinary skill in the art as the rated charging current of the battery; In light of the contextual information known to one of ordinary skill in the art above, ¶[34] demonstrates definition of the manufacturer’s rated capacity in line with the evidence of the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, with ¶[38] demonstrating the manufacturer capacity is ~2.93 Amp-Hours, which means 1 C equals 2.93 Amps, and ¶[38] describes the first charging current can be 1.8 times that); stepping down the charging current to a second charging current level when a voltage of the one or more battery cells increases to a predetermined voltage value (see Figs. 2-4). Kano teaches this method of using a stepped charging current process starting above 1C serves to improve the speed/rapidity of the charging while improving lifetime by preventing degradation by the rapid charging (¶’s [11-14, esp. 11, 14]). Both Kano and Dong analogously describe a method of charging with constant current and constant voltage where the constant current is above the 1 C rating for the battery. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Dong with Kano to provide improved lifetime and speed. Kano further teaches a method for charging a battery pack (Fig. 1), the method (Figs. [2-6, esp. 2-4]) comprising: connecting the battery pack to a battery pack charger (¶’s [30, 55] describes the battery being connected to a charger/charging-apparatus, ST1 in Fig. 2, start of charging in Figs. 3 & 4) Dependent Claims 2 and 16, the combination of Dong and Kano teaches the second charging current level is greater than the manufacturer rated maximum [see claim objection interpretation] charging current (Dong teaches the C rate for the stage is above 1C [approximately 4/1.25=3.2C], Kano also teaches the 1 st stage is above 1C [1.8C], with the 2 nd stage at 0.1C lower, or 1.7C, see ¶’s [34, 38, 39]) Dependent Claims 3 and 1 7 , the combination of Dong and Kano teaches stepping down the charging current to a third charging current level, wherein the third charging current level is less than the manufacturer rated maximum [see claim objection interpretation] charging current (Kano: see around 30 minutes into the program is below the 1C rating of ~2.9A). Dependent Claim 4 , Dong is silent to a charging time of the one or more battery cells is less than 1500 seconds. It is well known within the art that charging time is dependent on charging current. Therefore, it would have been obvious to try, an obvious design choice, and well known to one of ordinary skill in the art that adjusting the charging current will result in a different charging time enabling one to select a preferred charging time based on the charging current. Dependent Claim 5 , Dong is silent to the manufacturer rated maximum [see claim objection interpretation] charging current is at least 6 Amperes. However, Panasonic does demonstrate the rated charging current for the cell as being 0.88A, which means 8 or more of these cells in parallel in a single battery pack would demonstrate a manufacturer rated charging current for the pack of at least 6 amperes. While Dong is silent to the cell assembly having either parallel or serial connections, it is Dong has left it open for a battery pack with 2+ cells in ¶’s [27, 07]. It would be a design choice to have the pack have that high of a current rating, esp. for large loads requiring large currents, where these 8+ parallel cells would be able to provide larger currents than 1 cell. Official notice taken that battery packs with more than 8 cells in parallel are well known in the art for the purpose of being able to reliably power large loads requiring large amounts of current (esp. for being able to provide power to multiple loads). Dependent Claims 6 and 1 8 , the combination of Dong and Kano teaches the second charging current level is less than the manufacturer rated maximum [see claim objection interpretation] charging current (Kano: see around 30 minutes into the program is below the 1C rating of ~2.9A) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 7- 10, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong in view of Kano, further in view of Nishino et al (USPGPN 20140375279), as evidenced by Panasonic, Suzuki, Yang, and Suzuki2 Dependent claim 7 , the combination of Dong and Kano teaches the method of claim 1, including currents with respect to a manufacturer’s rated maximum [see claim objection interpretation] charging current. Dong is silent to stepping up the charging current to a third charging current level, the third charging current level is greater than the first charging current. Nishino teaches a charging method for batteries including at least three consecutive charging stages. Nishino teaches stepping up the charging current to a third charging current level (see ¶[31] “The constant current charging includes at least three consecutive charging stages. The at least three consecutive charging stages include consecutive first, second, and third charging stages. The second charging stage has a set current value which is set lower than set current values of the first and third charging stages.”). The second charging current level is lower than the first to decrease the amount of damage done to the battery, while the third charging current level is brought to higher level again to decrease the charging time required for the battery while mitigating loss of battery life (¶[22]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Dong in view of Kano with Nishino by charging the battery with a charging profile that will both decrease charging time while still mitigating damage done to the battery. Dependent claim 8 , the combination of Dong and Kano teaches the method of claim 1. Dong fails to explicitly teach the stepping up the charging current to the third charging current level being based on a parameter of the battery pack. Nishino teaches the stepping up the charging current to the third charging current level being based on a parameter of the battery pack (see ¶[44], teaches changing the current level based on the state of charge of the battery). Dependent claim 9 , the combination of Dong and Kano teaches the method of claim 1. Dong fails to explicitly teach the parameter including at least one of a state-of-charge, a temperature, a cell age, a cell health, and a charge acceptance based differential voltage. Nishino teaches the parameter including at least one of a state-of-charge, a temperature, a cell age, a cell health, and a charge acceptance based differential voltage (see ¶0044) citing specifically the state-of-charge as the parameter. Dependent claim 10 , the combination of Dong and Kano teaches the method of claim 1. Dong fails to explicitly teach a charging time of the one or more battery cells less than 1700 seconds. It is well known within the art that charging time is dependent on charging current. Therefore, it would have been obvious to try, an obvious design choice, and well known to one of ordinary skill in the art that adjusting the charging current will result in a different charging time enabling one to select a preferred charging time based on the charging current. Dependent claim 19 , Dong in view of Kano teaches the apparatus of claim 15, including currents with respect to a manufacturer’s rated maximum [see claim objection interpretation] charging current. Dong fails to explicitly disclose stepping up the charging current to a third charging current level, the third charging current level is greater than the a second charging current. Nishino teaches a charging method for batteries including at least three consecutive charging stages. Nishino teaches stepping up the charging current to a third charging current level (see ¶[31] “The constant current charging includes at least three consecutive charging stages. The at least three consecutive charging stages include consecutive first, second, and third charging stages. The second charging stage has a set current value which is set lower than set current values of the first and third charging stages.”). The second charging current level is lower than the first to decrease the amount of damage done to the battery, while the third charging current level is brought to higher level again to decrease the charging time required for the battery while mitigating loss of battery life (¶[22]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Dong in view of Kano with Nishino by charging the battery with a charging profile that will both decrease charging time while still mitigating damage done to the battery. Dependent Claim 20 , the combination of Dong and Kano teaches the method of claim 1. Dong fails to explicitly teach the step up of the charging current to the third charging current level being based on a parameter of the battery pack; and the parameter including at least one of a state-of-charge, a temperature, a cell age, a cell health, and a charge acceptance based differential voltage. Nishino teaches the step up of the charging current to the third charging current level is based on a parameter of the battery pack; and the parameter includes at least one of a state-of-charge, a temperature, a cell age, a cell health, and a charge acceptance based differential voltage (see ¶[44]) citing specifically the state-of-charge as the parameter . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong (USPGPN 20150162758) in view of Weicker et al (USPGPN 20180131204) , as evidenced by Panasonic ( “Lithium Ion UR18650SA,” Panasonic Sanyo Energy USA Corporation, Version 13.02 R1, Published 2012, www.megacellmonitor.com/pdf/vendor_specs/SPEC_SANYO_UR18650SA.pdf ) and Weicker et al (USPGPN 20180131204) . Dependent Claim 12 , Dong teaches the predetermined maximum charging voltage limit is 4.2 volts (Panasonic provides evidence that the limit is 4.2 V); While Dong may be silent to the voltage exceeding the predetermined maximum charging voltage limit is at least 4.4 volts, Dong teaches a voltage of 4.36V or 4.38V, which is very close to 4.4V (and Fig. 6 shows it at approximately at 4.4V). Stopping the charging operation at or above 4.4 volts would be a design/operational choice by the user/designer of the method for the purposes of addressing a higher resistance measurement (¶[63]) or to satisfy a user (¶[21] of Weicker). Or in the alternative, if the applicant argues the design choice is not obvious, Weicker teaches the voltage exceeding the predetermined maximum charging voltage limit is at least 4.4 volts (¶[21]), which is performed to meet a users desires (i.e. improving the convenience/ satisfaction for a user to be able to set their own level, see analogous steps sin Figs. 2-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Dong with Weicker to provide improved convenience and satisfaction . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong (USPGPN 20150162758), as evidenced by Panasonic ( “Lithium Ion UR18650SA,” Panasonic Sanyo Energy USA Corporation, Version 13.02 R1, Published 2012, www.megacellmonitor.com/pdf/vendor_specs/SPEC_SANYO_UR18650SA.pdf ) . Dependent Claim 13 , Dong is silent to the manufacturer rated maximum [see claim objection interpretation] charging current is at least 6 Amperes. However, Panasonic does demonstrate the rated charging current for the cell as being 0.88A, which means 8 or more of these cells in parallel in a single battery pack would demonstrate a manufacturer rated charging current for the pack of at least 6 amperes. While Dong is silent to the cell assembly having either parallel or serial connections, it is Dong has left it open for a battery pack with 2+ cells in ¶’s [27, 07]. It would be a design choice to have the pack have that high of a current rating, esp. for large loads requiring large currents, where these 8+ parallel cells would be able to provide larger currents than 1 cell. Official notice taken that battery packs with more than 8 cells in parallel are well known in the art for the purpose of being able to reliably power large loads requiring large amounts of current (esp. for being able to provide power to multiple loads). Dependent claim 14 , Dong teaches the method of claim 11. Dong fails to explicitly teach a charging time of the one or more battery cells less than 600 seconds. It is well known within the art that charging time is dependent on charging current. Therefore, it would have been obvious to try, an obvious design choice, and well known to one of ordinary skill in the art that adjusting the charging current will result in a different charging time enabling one to select a preferred charging time based on the charging current. Conclusion 07-40 AIA Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL . See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. 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 Application/Control Number: 17/379,717 Page 2 Art Unit: 2859 Application/Control Number: 17/379,717 Page 3 Art Unit: 2859 Application/Control Number: 17/379,717 Page 4 Art Unit: 2859 Application/Control Number: 17/379,717 Page 5 Art Unit: 2859 Application/Control Number: 17/379,717 Page 6 Art Unit: 2859 Application/Control Number: 17/379,717 Page 7 Art Unit: 2859 Application/Control Number: 17/379,717 Page 8 Art Unit: 2859 Application/Control Number: 17/379,717 Page 9 Art Unit: 2859 Application/Control Number: 17/379,717 Page 10 Art Unit: 2859 Application/Control Number: 17/379,717 Page 11 Art Unit: 2859 Application/Control Number: 17/379,717 Page 12 Art Unit: 2859 Application/Control Number: 17/379,717 Page 13 Art Unit: 2859 Application/Control Number: 17/379,717 Page 14 Art Unit: 2859 Application/Control Number: 17/379,717 Page 15 Art Unit: 2859 Application/Control Number: 17/379,717 Page 16 Art Unit: 2859 Application/Control Number: 17/379,717 Page 17 Art Unit: 2859 Application/Control Number: 17/379,717 Page 18 Art Unit: 2859 Application/Control Number: 17/379,717 Page 19 Art Unit: 2859 Application/Control Number: 17/379,717 Page 20 Art Unit: 2859
Prosecution Insights