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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/14/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Newly applied prior art Aronov et al. (US 2020/0343735) discloses the amended limitations: control throttling down of maximum charging power based on a type of cell (Par.40), wherein the throttling down of maximum power is done before reaching full charge (Par.26, 29 and 43), wherein the controlling comprises delaying the throttling for a first type of cell relative to a second type of cell, wherein the delaying comprises throttling down from the maximum charging power at a higher state of charge for the first type of cell relative to the second type of cell (Fig.3B), and wherein the delaying is configured to shorten a time needed for the first type of cell, relative to the second type of cell, to reach a same charge level (Par.26, 36 and 40; A first type of cell (metalloid-based) receives maximum power up to medium and high SOCs; while a second type of cell (graphite-based) receives maximum power only in low SOCs. The first type of cell (metalloid-based) has faster charging.).
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.
Claims 1, 7, 9, 11, 17-18 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanfield (US 2018/0297477) in view of Aronov et al. (US 2020/0343735).
Claims 1 and 20: Stanfield teaches an electric vehicle charging station (10) (Fig.1), the charging station (10) comprising:
fuel pumps (12) (Par.39), electric vehicle supply equipment (EV charger/12) (Par.39), and a charge buffer (26), the charge buffer (26) being operable to receive electric current from an electricity supply grid (40) (Par.47) and supply current to the electric vehicle supply equipment (EV charger/12) (Par.44); and
the electric vehicle supply equipment (EV charger/12) configured to control maximum charging power (Par.58 and 62).
Stanfield does not explicitly teach wherein the electric vehicle supply equipment is configured to control throttling down of maximum charging power based on a type of cell, wherein the throttling down of maximum power is done before reaching full charge, wherein the controlling comprises delaying the throttling for a first type of cell relative to a second type of cell, wherein the delaying comprises throttling down from the maximum charging power at a higher state of charge for the first type of cell relative to the second type of cell, and wherein the delaying is configured to shorten a time needed for the first type of cell, relative to the second type of cell, to reach a same charge level; the same charge level is full charge.
Aronov teaches control throttling down of maximum charging power based on a type of cell (Par.40), wherein the throttling down of maximum power is done before reaching full charge (Par.26, 29 and 43), wherein the controlling comprises delaying the throttling for a first type of cell relative to a second type of cell, wherein the delaying comprises throttling down from the maximum charging power at a higher state of charge for the first type of cell relative to the second type of cell (Fig.3B), and wherein the delaying is configured to shorten a time needed for the first type of cell, relative to the second type of cell, to reach a same charge level (Par.40; A first type of cell (metalloid-based) receives maximum power (boosted) up to medium and high SOCs; while a second type of cell (graphite-based) receives maximum power only in low SOCs. The first type of cell (metalloid-based) has faster charging.); the same charge level is full charge (Par.26 and 36, An initial high rate of charge is provided based on the battery type up to 95% SOC. After this SOC the batteries are charged at a lower rate.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Anton in the system of Stanfield to have had charged different battery cells based on their battery chemistry characteristics to shorten charging time (Par.40) to have had improved charging efficiency (Par.21).
Claim 7: Stanfield in view of Anton teach the limitations of claim 1 as disclosed above. Stanfield teaches wherein electric vehicle supply equipment (EV charger/12) supplies power greater than 120 kW (Par.65, 350kW).
Claim 9: Stanfield in view of Anton teach the limitations of claim 1 as disclosed above. Stanfield teaches wherein the charge buffer (26) comprises an array of batteries (Par.46).
Claims 11 and 21: Stanfield teaches a method of charging electric vehicles, the method comprising: in a charging station (10) comprising fuel pumps (12) (Par.39), electric vehicle supply equipment (EV charger/12) (Par.39), and a charge buffer (26): receiving electric current in the charge buffer (26) from an electricity supply grid (40) (Par.47); supplying current to the electric vehicle supply equipment (EV charger/12) from the charge buffer (26) (Par.44); and charging one or more batteries in an electric vehicle using the electric vehicle supply equipment (EV charger/12) (Par.39).
Stanfield does not explicitly teach wherein the electric vehicle supply equipment is configured to control throttling down of maximum charging power based on a type of cell, wherein the throttling down of maximum power is done before reaching full charge, wherein the controlling comprises delaying the throttling for a first type of cell relative to a second type of cell, wherein the delaying comprises throttling down from the maximum charging power at a higher state of charge for the first type of cell relative to the second type of cell, and wherein the delaying is configured to shorten a time needed for the first type of cell, relative to the second type of cell, to reach a same charge level; wherein the same charge level is full charge.
Aronov teaches control throttling down of maximum charging power based on a type of cell (Par.40), wherein the throttling down of maximum power is done before reaching full charge (Par.26, 29 and 43), wherein the controlling comprises delaying the throttling for a first type of cell relative to a second type of cell, wherein the delaying comprises throttling down from the maximum charging power at a higher state of charge for the first type of cell relative to the second type of cell, and wherein the delaying is configured to shorten a time needed for the first type of cell, relative to the second type of cell, to reach a same charge level (Par.40; A first type of cell (metalloid-based) receives maximum power (boosted) up to medium and high SOCs; while a second type of cell (graphite-based) receives maximum power only in low SOCs. The first type of cell (metalloid-based) has faster charging.); the same charge level is full charge (Par.26 and 36, An initial high rate of charge is provided based on the battery type up to 95% SOC. After this SOC the batteries are charged at a lower rate.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Anton in the system of Stanfield to have had charged different battery cells based on their battery chemistry characteristics to shorten charging time (Par.40) to have had improved charging efficiency (Par.21).
Claim 17: Stanfield in view of Anton teach the limitations of claim 11 as disclosed above. Stanfield teaches wherein electric vehicle supply equipment (EV charger/12) supplies power greater than 120 kW (Par.65, 350kW).
Claim 18: Stanfield in view of Anton teach the limitations of claim 11 as disclosed above. Stanfield teaches wherein the charge buffer (26) comprises an array of batteries (Par.46).
Claims 2-4 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanfield (US 2018/0297477) in view of Anton et al. (US 2013/0093399) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Yang et al. (US 2016/0020618).
Claims 2-4 and 12-14: Stanfield in view of Anton teach the limitations of claims 1 and 11 as disclosed above. Stanfield does not explicitly teach wherein the electric vehicle supply equipment charges batteries at a rate greater than 4C; wherein the electric vehicle supply equipment charges batteries at a rate greater than 5.6C; wherein the electric vehicle supply equipment charges batteries at a rate greater than 10C.
Yang teaches an electric vehicle supply equipment (38) charges batteries (24) at a rate greater than 10C (15C) (Par.4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Yang in the system of Stanfield to have had fast charged the battery, fully charging it in less than an hour (Par.40).
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanfield (US 2018/0297477) in view of Anton et al. (US 2013/0093399) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Kawakami (US 2017/0200943).
Claims 5 and 15: Stanfield in view of Anton teach the limitations of claims 1 and 11 as disclosed above. Stanfield does not explicitly teach wherein the electric vehicle supply equipment is configured to charge batteries comprising silicon-dominant anodes comprising active material of 50% or more elemental silicon.
Kawakami discloses batteries of electric vehicles (Par.3) comprising silicon-dominant anodes comprising active material of 50% or more elemental silicon (Par.51).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Kawakami in the system of Stanfield to have had high energy density batteries (Par.51) that can release large amounts of lithium ions (Par.26) suitable for supplying power to electric vehicles (Par.3).
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanfield (US 2018/0297477) in view of Anton et al. (US 2013/0093399) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Startchik (US 2017/0117593).
Claims 6 and 16: Stanfield in view of Anton teach the limitations of claims 1 and 11 as disclosed above. Stanfield teaches the charge buffer (26) is located in an underground tank (Par.44) (Fig.1).
Stanfield does not explicitly teach the underground tank is a former fuel tank.
Startchik discloses a charge buffer (array of batteries) located in a former fuel tank (15) (Par.31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Startchik in the system of Stanfield to have had provided for recharging a car battery utilizing existing infrastructure (Par.5).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanfield (US 2018/0297477) in view of Anton et al. (US 2013/0093399) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Veda et al. (US 2017/0155253).
Claim 8: Stanfield in view of Anton teach the limitations of claim 1 as disclosed above. Stanfield does not explicitly teach wherein the charge buffer comprises an array of capacitors.
Veda teaches an electric vehicle charging station (10), the charging station (10) (Fig.1) comprising: a charge buffer (30) comprising an array of capacitors (Par.29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Veda in the system of Stanfield to have had a known energy storage system to reduce overall peak load by supplementing the primary supply of electrical energy coming from the grid (Par.29).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art, Yang et al. (US 2016/0020618) teaches an electric vehicle supply equipment (38) is configured to apply a voltage to batteries above their battery voltage limit (Par.42); Kase et al. (US 2004/0180263) discloses charge conducted at a maximum charging voltage above the maximum voltage of normal use of the battery (Par.12); and Rolfes (US 2002/0033691) discloses permitting overcharging conventional flooded batteries allowing higher voltage limits (Par.50), does not disclose alone or in combination:
“wherein the electric vehicle supply equipment is configured to apply a voltage to batteries above their battery voltage limit when beginning charging”, as recited in claims 10 and 19 in combination with all additional elements of the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Snyder et al. (US 2009/0212626) discloses throttling down from a maximum charging power (710) before a full charge (Fig.7) to prevent damage to the energy storage receiving the charging power (Par.136-139, The charging current is reduced from max when a state of charge reaches 95%.).
Beeson et al. (US 2009/0008368) discloses a charging routine comprising ramping up to an initial charge current and gradually reducing the charge current as the battery being to reach a fully charged state based on battery type (Par.35).
Eaves (US 2018/0123360) discloses throttling down from a maximum power at different throttle down points based on type of cell (Par.72); different throttle down (cutoff) points correspond to different charge states (Fig.9).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHALI ALEJANDRA TORRES RUIZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1262. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00am-6:00pm.
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, Taelor Kim can be reached on 571-270-7166. 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.
/JOHALI A TORRES RUIZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/TAELOR KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights