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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action has been issued in response to the amendment filed on January 30, 2026.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-13, 15-18 and 20-22 are pending.
Applicant’s arguments have been carefully and respectfully considered. Rejections have been maintained where arguments were not persuasive. Also, new rejections based on the amended claims have been set forth. Accordingly, claims 1-4, 6, 8-13, 15-18 and 20-22 are rejected, and this action is made FINAL, as necessitated by amendment.
Response to Arguments
The amendments to claims 1, 8 and 17 overcome the previous 112(b) rejections. Accordingly, the 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant argues nothing has been identified in the combination that teaches or suggests determining, based on the comparison, whether the at least one electrochemical cell is experiencing a decrease in performance.
Fechalos et al. (US 2011/0298626) discloses the newly added limitation: determining, based on the comparison, whether the at least one electrochemical cell is experiencing a decrease in performance (Par.34-35; The quality state of the batteries is determined based on the comparison of current; a poor-quality state decreases an expected performance.).
Applicant argues, Fechalos is directed to monitoring and comparing currents of battery strings. This is structurally different from the amended claim limitation recitation: a per-cell adjacent-cell current comparison. Fechalos' string-level comparisons in a multi-string backup system do not teach or suggest modifying Katase's per-cell charging control to (i) select a particular "adjacent" cell, (ii) compare the subject cell's charging current to that adjacent cell's charging current in the claimed charging context, and (iii) use that comparison as the basis for a performance-decrease determination for the subject electrochemical cell.
The claim limitation discloses “comparing the charging current to an adjacent charging current of an adjacent electrochemical cell”. The claim utilizes the transitional term “comprising”. Therefore, it does not exclude additional unrecited elements such as multiple adjacent electrochemical cells.
Fechalos teaches comparing the charging current to an adjacent charging current of an adjacent electrochemical cell (Par.34-35; A battery in an adjacent battery string.); and determining, based on the comparison, whether the at least one electrochemical cell is experiencing a decrease in performance (Par.34-35; The quality state of the batteries is determined based on the comparison of current; a poor-quality state decreases an expected performance.).
This interpretation appears consistent with the Specification that recites in Pages 12-13, Par.45 that “the detected charging current may be compared to a respective charging current of other cells within the battery pack and/or other battery packs in similar conditions. For example, an electrochemical cell may be compared to one or more neighboring electrochemical cells in a battery pack”.
Applicant argues depends on hindsight to reconstruct Applicant’s specific logic chain using pieces of unrelated control strategies.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In this case, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had compared the charging current to an adjacent charging current of an adjacent cell and selected a failure mitigation based on the comparison and a determination of decrease in performance in the method of Katase to have had taken a protective action, out of multiple possible actions, (Par.111) based on the seriousness of a battery state (Abstract) thereby preventing a failure of the electrochemical cell and/or the system (Par.34 and 50); and have had provided an indication of the cell health and have had permitted servicing the system prior to failure or protect the system in case of malfunction (Par.34) as taught in Fechalos.
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 1-4, 6, 8-13, 15-18 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katase et al. (US 2020/0044473) in view of Fechalos et al. (US 2011/0298626).
Claim 1: Katase teaches a method (Fig.4), comprising:
charging at least one electrochemical cell to a predetermined voltage of the electrochemical cell (Par.86) (Fig.4, S41) using an external power source (9002) (Fig.9) (Par.215-217, The charging control device of Fig.4 is used in the system of Fig.9. Therefore, the charging power supplied is from an external source.);
monitoring a charging current of the at least one electrochemical cell (Par.86) (Fig.4, S42);
detecting a rate of change in the charging current at the predetermined voltage of the at least one electrochemical cell (Par.87) (Fig.4, S43);
and initiating a failure mitigation action (Stop charging) based on the rate of change in the charging current (Par.87) (Fig.4, S44).
Katase does not explicitly teach comparing the charging current to an adjacent charging current of an adjacent electrochemical cell; determining, based on the comparison, whether the at least one electrochemical cell is experiencing a decrease in performance; selecting a failure mitigation action of a plurality of different failure mitigation actions based on the rate of change in the charging current and the determination that the at least one electrochemical cell is experiencing the decrease in performance; and initiating the selected failure mitigation action.
Fechalos teaches a method comprising: comparing the charging current to an adjacent charging current of an adjacent electrochemical cell (Par.34-35 and 41);
determining, based on the comparison, whether the at least one electrochemical cell is experiencing a decrease in performance (Par.33-35 and 41);
selecting a failure mitigation action of a plurality of different failure mitigation actions (warnings; alarms; disconnection) based on the rate of change in the charging current (current slope) (Par.92-94) and the determination that the at least one electrochemical cell is experiencing the decrease in performance (Par.33-35 and 91; The selection is based on the wear state of the batteries. The selection is based on the charging currents which in turn is used for determining the quality state of the battery; a poor-quality state decreases an expected performance.); and
initiating the selected failure mitigation action (Par.95-101 and 109).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Fechalos in the method of Katase to have had taken a protective action, out of multiple possible actions, (Par.111) based on the seriousness of a battery state (Abstract) thereby preventing a failure of the electrochemical cell and/or the system (Par.34 and 50).
It would have been obvious to compare currents of adjacent electrochemical cells in the system of Katase as disclosed in Fechalos to have had provided an indication of the cell health and have had permitted servicing the system prior to failure or protect the system in case of malfunction (Par.34).
Claim 2: Katase in view of Fechalos teach the limitations of claim 1 as disclosed above. Katase teaches wherein detecting an increase in the charging current comprises determining a rate of increase of the charging current (Par.87) (Fig.4, S43).
Claim 3: Katase in view of Fechalos teach the limitations of claim 2 as disclosed above. Katase teaches wherein the rate of increase of the charging current comprises the rate of increase of the charging current over a predetermined number of charging cycles (Par.87, Two cycles n and n-1) (Fig.4, S43).
Claim 4: Katase in view of Fechalos teach the limitations of claim 1 as disclosed above. Katase does not explicitly teach determining whether the rate of change in the charging current is greater than a predetermined threshold and wherein selecting a failure mitigation action of a plurality of different mitigation actions is based on the rate of change in the charging current being greater than the predetermined threshold.
Fechalos teaches determining whether the rate of change in the charging current is greater than a predetermined threshold and wherein selecting a failure mitigation action of a plurality of different mitigation actions is based on the rate of change in the charging current being greater than the predetermined threshold (Par.41 and 90).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Fechalos in the method of Katase to have had selected an appropriate safety protection item based on a danger level measured (Abstract and 110-111) based on comparison with established threshold values (Par.97, 100, and 117-118).
Claim 6: Katase in view of Fechalos teach the limitations of claim 1 as disclosed above. Katase teaches wherein the failure mitigation action comprises: stopping the charging of the at least one electrochemical cell (Par.87).
Claim 8: Katase teaches a system (Fig.22), comprising:
an external power source (charger) configured to charge at least one electrochemical cell (301a) to a predetermined voltage of the electrochemical cell (301a) (Par.237);
a controller (302/control device) (Par.237) (Par.85 and 235, The system of Fig.22 utilizes the control device of Fig.4 (first embodiment).) configured to:
cause the external power source to charge the at least one electrochemical cell to a predetermined voltage of the electrochemical cell (Par.85-86) (Fig.4, S41);
monitor a charging current of the electrochemical cell (Par.86) (Fig.4, S42);
detect a rate of change in the charging current at the predetermined voltage of the electrochemical cell (Par.87) (Fig.4, S43); and determine that the electrochemical cell is in danger of experiencing a performance decrease based on the detected increase in the charging current (Par.87) (Fig.4, S44);
and initiate a failure mitigation action (Stop charging) based on the rate of change in the charging current (Par.87) (Fig.4, S4).
Katase does not explicitly teach comparing the charging current to an adjacent charging current of an adjacent electrochemical cell; determining, based on the comparison, whether the at least one electrochemical cell is experiencing a decrease in performance; selecting a failure mitigation action of a plurality of different failure mitigation actions based on the rate of change in the charging current and the determination that the at least one electrochemical cell is experiencing the decrease in performance; and initiating the selected failure mitigation action.
Fechalos teaches a method comprising: comparing the charging current to an adjacent charging current of an adjacent electrochemical cell (Par.34-35 and 41);
determining, based on the comparison, whether the at least one electrochemical cell is experiencing a decrease in performance (Par.34-35 and 41);
selecting a failure mitigation action of a plurality of different failure mitigation actions (warnings; alarms; disconnection) based on the rate of change in the charging current (current slope) (Par.92-94) and the determination that the at least one electrochemical cell is experiencing the decrease in performance (Par.33-35 and 91; The selection is based on the wear state of the batteries. The selection is based on the charging currents which in turn is used for determining the quality state of the battery; a poor-quality state decreases an expected performance.);
and initiating the selected failure mitigation action (Par.95-101 and 109).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Fechalos in the method of Katase to have had taken a protective action, out of multiple possible actions, (Par.111) based on the seriousness of a battery state (Abstract) thereby preventing a failure of the electrochemical cell and/or the system (Par.34 and 50).
It would have been obvious to compare currents of adjacent electrochemical cells in the system of Katase as disclosed in Fechalos to have had provided an indication of the cell health and have had permitted servicing the system prior to failure or protect the system in case of malfunction (Par.34).
Claim 9: Katase in view of Fechalos teach the limitations of claim 8 as disclosed above. Katase teaches wherein the controller (302/control device) is configured to: determine a rate of increase of the charging current (Par.87) (Fig.4, S43); and determine that the electrochemical cell is in danger of experiencing a performance decrease based on the detected rate of increase of the charging current (Par.87) (Fig.4, S44).
Claim 10: Katase in view of Fechalos teach the limitations of claim 9 as disclosed above. Katase teaches wherein the rate of increase of the charging current comprises the rate of increase of the charging current over a predetermined number of charging cycles (Par.87, Two cycles n and n-1) (Fig.4, S43).
Claim 11: Katase in view of Fechalos teach the limitation of claim 9 as disclosed above. Katase does not explicitly teach wherein the controller is configured to: determine whether the increase in the charging current is greater than a predetermined threshold; and determine that the at least one electrochemical cell is in danger of experiencing a performance decrease based on the determination that the increase in the charging current is greater than the predetermined threshold.
Fechalos teaches a controller (100) (Fig.1) configured for determining whether an increase in charging current (slope) is greater than a predetermined threshold (Par.90); and determine that the at least one electrochemical cell is in danger of experiencing a performance decrease based on the determination that the increase in the charging current is greater than the predetermined threshold (Par.34 and 92-93, Thermal walkaway or runaway, which affect the performance of the electrochemical cell, are determined based on comparison with various thresholds.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Fechalos in the method of Katase to have had taken a protective action (Par.111) based on a danger level of a battery state (Abstract) thereby preventing a failure of the electrochemical cell and/or the system (Par.34 and 50).
Claim 12: Katase in view of Fechalos teach the limitations of claim 9 as disclosed above. Katase teaches the controller (control device) is configured to initiate at least one failure mitigation action based on the determination that the at least one electrochemical cell is in danger of experiencing a performance decrease (Par.87) (Fig.4, S44).
Claim 13: Katase in view of Fechalos teach the limitations of claim 12 as disclosed above. Katase teaches the failure mitigation action comprises: stopping the charging of the at least one electrochemical cell (Par.87).
Katase does not explicitly teach a plurality of failure mitigation actions.
Fechalos teaches a plurality of failure mitigation actions comprising: stopping the charging of the at least one electrochemical cell (Par.108-109); and sending one or more alerts (Par.96 and 99-100).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Fechalos in the method of Katase to have had taken a protective action, out of multiple possible actions, (Par.111) based on the seriousness of a battery state (Abstract) thereby preventing a failure of the electrochemical cell and/or the system (Par.34 and 50).
Claim 15: Katase in view of Fechalos teach the limitations of claim 8 as disclosed above. Katase teaches wherein the at least one electrochemical cell is disposed in a medical device (Par.235).
Claim 16: Katase in view of Fechalos teach the limitations of claim 8 as disclosed above. Katase teaches further comprising a battery pack (301) (Fig.22), wherein the battery pack (301) comprises: a plurality of electrochemical cells (301a) the plurality of electrochemical cells (301a) comprising the at least one electrochemical cell (Par.237); and a battery management apparatus operatively coupled to the controller (302/control device) comprising one or more sensors to sense a charging current of each of the plurality of electrochemical cells (Par.86) (Fig.4, S42).
Claim 17: Katase teaches a method, comprising:
charging at least one electrochemical cell to a predetermined voltage of the electrochemical cell (Par.86) (Fig.4, S41) using an external power source (9002) (Par.215-217, The charging control device of Fig.4 is used in the system of Fig.9. Therefore, the charging power supplied is from an external source.) (Fig.9);
monitoring a charging current of the at least one electrochemical cell (Par.86) (Fig.4, S42);
detecting a rate of change in the charging current at the predetermined voltage of the at least one electrochemical cell (Par.87) (Fig.4, S43) and the determination that the at least one electrochemical cell is experiencing the decrease in performance (Par.33-35 and 91; The selection is based on the wear state of the batteries. The selection is based on the charging currents which in turn is used for determining the quality state of the battery; a poor-quality state decreases an expected performance.);
and initiating a failure mitigation action (Stop charging) based on the rate of change in the charging current (Par.87) (Fig.4, S4).
Katase does not explicitly teach comparing the charging current to an adjacent charging current of an adjacent electrochemical cell; determining whether the rate of change in the charging current is greater than a predetermined threshold; selecting a failure mitigation action of a plurality of different failure mitigation actions based on the rate of change in the charging current being greater than the predetermined threshold; and initiating the selected failure mitigation action.
Fechalos teaches comparing the charging current to an adjacent charging current of an adjacent electrochemical cell (Par.34-35 and 41);
determining whether the rate in charging current (slope) is greater than a predetermined threshold (Par.90);
determining, based on the comparison, whether the at least one electrochemical cell is experiencing a decrease in performance (Par.34-35 and 41);
selecting a failure mitigation action of a plurality of different mitigation actions is based on the rate of change in the charging current being greater than the predetermined threshold (Par.41 and 90); and
initiating the selected failure mitigation action (Par.95-101 and 109).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Fechalos in the method of Katase to have had taken a protective action (Par.111) based on the seriousness of a battery state (Abstract) thereby preventing a failure of the electrochemical cell and/or the system (Par.34 and 50).
It would have been obvious to compare currents of adjacent electrochemical cells in the system of Katase as disclosed in Fechalos to have had provided an indication of the cell health and have had permitted servicing the system prior to failure or protect the system in case of malfunction (Par.34).
Claim 18: Katase in view of Fechalos teach the limitations of claim 17 as disclosed above. Katase teaches wherein detecting the rate of change in the charging current comprises determining a rate of increase of the charging current (Par.87) (Fig.4, S43).
Claim 20: Katase in view of Fechalos teach the limitations of claim 17 as disclosed above. Katase teaches the failure mitigation action comprises: stopping the charging of the at least one electrochemical cell (Par.87).
Katase does not explicitly teach a plurality of failure mitigation actions.
Fechalos teaches a plurality of failure mitigation actions comprising: stopping the charging of the at least one electrochemical cell (Par.108-109); and sending one or more alerts (Par.96 and 99-100).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Fechalos in the method of Katase to have had taken a protective action, out of multiple possible actions, (Par.111) based on the seriousness of a battery state (Abstract) thereby preventing a failure of the electrochemical cell and/or the system (Par.34 and 50).
Claims 21-22: Katase in view of Fechalos teach the limitations of claim 1 as disclosed above. Katase does not explicitly teach wherein selecting a failure mitigation action of a plurality of different failure mitigation actions based on the rate of change in the charging current comprises: selecting a first failure mitigation action of the plurality of failure mitigation actions based on the rate of change in the charging current being above a first predetermined threshold and below a second predetermined threshold; and selecting a second failure mitigation action of the plurality of failure mitigation actions based on the rate of change in the charging current being above the second predetermined threshold; wherein the first failure mitigation action comprises one or both of stopping the charging of the at least one electrochemical cell and sending one or more alerts and the second failure mitigation action comprises one or both of opening one or more field effect transistors (FETs) associated with the at least one electrochemical cell and blowing one or more fuses associated with the at least one electrochemical cell.
Fechalos teaches wherein selecting a failure mitigation action of a plurality of different failure mitigation actions based on the rate of change in the charging current comprises:
selecting a first failure mitigation action of the plurality of failure mitigation actions based on the rate of change in the charging current being above a first predetermined threshold and below a second predetermined threshold (Par.41 and 90, Different threshold values are set for different mitigation actions.) (Par.97 and 100, Thermal warning if between a first predetermined threshold (1%) and a second predetermined threshold (2%).);
selecting a second failure mitigation action of the plurality of failure mitigation actions based on the rate of change in the charging current being above the second predetermined threshold (Par.41, 90 and 105, The type of action changes based on the current reaching a second predetermined threshold (above 2%).);
wherein the first failure mitigation action comprises sending one or more alerts (Par.90 and 96-101, Alarm or warning.) and
the second failure mitigation action comprises opening one or more switches (50) associated with the at least one electrochemical cell (Par.85, 90 and 109, Isolating the cell by actuating a switch (50).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Fechalos in the method of Katase to have had selected an appropriate safety protection item based on a danger level measured (Abstract and 110-111) based on comparison with established threshold values (Par.97, 100, and 117-118).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Cabot et al. (US 2009/0123814) discloses battery modules (100) containing 1-7 cells (Par.13); and comparing charging parameters of adjacent battery modules (100) (Par.23).
Grant et al. (US 2011/0316545) discloses selecting between a plurality of failure mitigation actions (notification alert, disconnect a cell, stop charging) based on a rate of change of the charging current (dI/dt) (Par.4 and 17).
Hartley et al. (US 2012/0112685) teaches selecting a failure mitigation action based on a rate of change and an adjacent charging current (Par.78-80).
Ionescu et al. (US 2018/0166911) discloses a battery management system protecting against excessive current rates and cell imbalance (Par.5).
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 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, Julian D Huffman can be reached at 571-272-2147. 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
/JULIAN D HUFFMAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights