DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
In the communication dated October 29, 2025, claims 1-4 are pending. Claims 1 and 3 are currently amended.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 10, 2025 was filed after the mailing date of the non-final office action on 7/30/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
The applicant argues that the auxiliary charge starting voltage VRSTRT cannot be reasonably interpreted as a lower limit SOC that ranges from 5-30%.
However, VRSTRT is designated as a third voltage as the battery is discharged (Jung; ¶80), thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to discharge the battery to a minimum voltage as taught by newly cited reference Yamaai, as detailed below.
Thus, this argument is not persuasive.
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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. US20180262027A1 in view of Yamaai et al. US20180331397A1.
Regarding claim 1, Jung discloses a battery control device (601), comprising:
a discharge controller (688-1) which controls a discharge from a battery (689) (¶106 – may perform a charging and discharging operation); and
a charge controller (688-1) which controls a charge to the battery (689) (¶106 – may perform a charging and discharging operation),
wherein the discharge controller (688-1) is configured to be capable of performing at least a constant current discharge from the battery to a lower limit voltage (¶78; Vrstrt) determined in advance which is higher than a pre-charge voltage (see FIG. 5 which illustrates VPQLB) determined in advance (The lower limit SOC, as interpreted in the action below, is a threshold value. Vrstrt an amount that the battery is discharged to before it enters an auxiliary charging section (see ¶80 of Jung), thus being a lower limit voltage) wherein the pre-charge SOC ranges from SOC 0% to SOC 15% (at 510- “precharge section” where the battery has been over discharged into a “dead-battery” prequalification which has little to no charge; ¶77-78),
Jung discloses that the charge controller (688-1) is configured to
constant current charge the battery at a second charge rate that is lower than a first charge rate determined in advance when a voltage of the battery is lower than the pre-charge voltage (see FIG. 5 – when the battery voltage is below VPQLB the charging rate is lower – prequalification section 510)
constant current charge the battery at the first charge rate which is higher than the second charge rate over an entire range from when the voltage of the battery is equal to or higher than the pre-charge voltage (VPQLB) (the entire charge rate in the constant current section 520 is a rate higher than that of the prequalification section 510) and less than or equal to the lower limit SOC (continuous up to Vstrt) to an upper limit SOC, wherein the upper limit SOC ranges from SOC 80% to SOC 95% (¶79 – pre-specified second voltage Vbatreg; ¶100 – second fully charged voltage slightly less than the first – 4.2V/4.4V = 95%), and wherein .
Jung discloses that the lower limit voltage is a lower limit value of the voltage when the battery is discharged by a constant current discharge (the region between the constant voltage section 530 and the auxiliary charge section 540 includes a discharge region where the battery is discharged to Vrstrt - this is illustrated to be a constant current section – see annotated FIG. 5 of Jung below) and the upper limit SOC is an upper limit value of the SOC when the battery is charged by a constant current charge (FIG. 5 at 520 – constant current charging to Vbatreg).
PNG
media_image1.png
368
456
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Although Jung does not explicitly teach a SOC, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the SOC may also be interpreted as the voltage of the battery. This is evidenced by the applicant’s specification in ¶36 which states “In the following description, a SOC can be replaced with a voltage value. For example, the present SOC 70 (refer to FIG. 2), the upper limit SOC 71, and the lower limit SOC 72 can be respectively replaced with a present voltage value of the battery 52 (hereinafter, referred to as a voltage value of the battery 52), the upper limit voltage value V71, and the lower limit voltage value V72”. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would know to replace the voltage value of Jung with a state of charge.
Jung does not explicitly teach the lower limit SOC ranges from SOC 5% to SOC 30%,.
Yamaai teaches different threshold levels X1, X2 and X3 where X3 is a value that is determined to be an amount greater than the empty state – being 10-20% of the total capacity of the battery (¶78) which is within the lower limit SOC ranges from SOC 5% to SOC 30%.
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a discharge limit in order to prevent overdischarging which can cause degradation of the battery (¶78).
Regarding claim 2, Jung does not provide specific values to determine a difference between the pre-charge SOC and the lower limit SOC ranges from SOC 5% to SOC 30%.
However, using the teaching of Jung and Yamaii where the pre-charge SOC is 0 or near 0 and the lower limit is between 10-20%, the difference between the pre-charge SOC and the lower limit SOC ranges from SOC 5% to SOC 30%
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a discharge limit in order to prevent overdischarging which can cause degradation of the battery (¶78).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. US20180262027A1 (as cited in the IDS) in view of Ito US20130015702A1 and Yamaai et al. US20180331397A1.
Regarding claim 3, Jung discloses a mobile battery, comprising:
a casing (the boundary of the electronic device 601);
a battery (689) which is arranged inside the casing that can be fast charged (¶106);
a power transmission unit which is arranged inside the casing (¶111 – includes a communication unit that is not illustrated); and
a battery control device (688) which is connected to the battery and to the power transmission unit (¶94 – processor measures a charge current and leakage state of a battery through the power management module and provides information corresponding to the leakage state through a communication unit),
wherein the battery control device includes:
a discharge controller (688-1) which controls a discharge from a battery (689) (¶106 – may perform a charging and discharging operation); and
a charge controller (688-1) which controls a charge to the battery (689) (¶106 – may perform a charging and discharging operation),
wherein the discharge controller (688-1) is configured to be capable of performing at least a discharge from the battery to a lower limit voltage (¶78; the voltage of a battery is discharged to below a specified first voltage VPQLB) determined in advance which is higher than a pre-charge voltage (see FIG. 5 which illustrates VPQDB) determined in advance, and
Jung discloses that the charge controller (688-1) is configured to
wherein the discharge controller (688-1) is configured to be capable of performing at a constant current discharge from the battery to a lower limit voltage (¶78; Vrstrt – see annotated FIG. 5 below) determined in advance which is higher than a pre-charge voltage (see FIG. 5 which illustrates VPQLB) determined in advance, wherein the pre-charge SOC ranges from SOC 0% to SOC 15% (at 510- “precharge section” where the battery has been over discharged into a “dead-battery” prequalification which has little to no charge; ¶77-78), and the lower limit SOC ranges from SOC 5% to SOC 30%, and
PNG
media_image1.png
368
456
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Jung discloses that the charge controller (688-1) is configured to
Constant current charge the battery at a second charge rate that is lower than a first charge rate determined in advance when a voltage of the battery is lower than the pre-charge voltage (see FIG. 5 – when the battery voltage is below VPQLB the charging rate is lower – prequalification section 510)
Constant current charge the battery at the first charge rate which is higher than the second charge rate over an entire range from when the voltage of the battery is equal to or higher than the pre-charge voltage (the entire charge rate in the constant current section 520 is a rate higher than that of the prequalification section 510) and less than or equal to the lower limit SOC (continuous up to Vstrt) to an upper limit SOC wherein the upper limit SOC ranges from SOC 80% to SOC 95%.(¶79 – pre-specified second voltage Vbatreg; ¶100 – second fully charged voltage slightly less than the first – 4.2V/4.4V = 95%)
Jung discloses that the lower limit voltage is a lower limit value of the voltage when the battery is discharged by a constant current discharge (the region between the constant voltage section 530 and the auxiliary charge section 540 includes a discharge region where the battery is discharged to Vrstrt - this is illustrated to be a constant current section – see annotated FIG. 5 of Jung below) and the upper limit SOC is an upper limit value of the SOC when the battery is charged by a constant current charge (FIG. 5 at 520 – constant current charging to Vbatreg).
Although Jung does not explicitly teach a SOC, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the SOC may also be interpreted as the voltage of the battery. This is evidenced by the applicant’s specification in ¶36 which states “In the following description, a SOC can be replaced with a voltage value. For example, the present SOC 70 (refer to FIG. 2), the upper limit SOC 71, and the lower limit SOC 72 can be respectively replaced with a present voltage value of the battery 52 (hereinafter, referred to as a voltage value of the battery 52), the upper limit voltage value V71, and the lower limit voltage value V72”. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would know to replace the voltage value of Jung with a state of charge.
Jung does not specifically teach a battery which can be charged at a charge rate equal to or higher than 5C and the lower limit SOC ranges from SOC 5% to SOC 30%,.
Ito teaches a battery which can be charged at a charge rate equal to or higher than 5C (¶99 – current value I includes 10 C and 20 C which is greater than 5C).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide the control of Ito to the system of Jung in order to reduce the effects of deterioration in a battery.
Ito does not explicitly teach that the lower limit SOC ranges from SOC 5% to SOC 30%.
Yamaai teaches different threshold levels X1, X2 and X3 where X3 is a value that is determined to be an amount greater than the empty state – being 10-20% of the total capacity of the battery (¶78) which is within the lower limit SOC ranges from SOC 5% to SOC 30%.
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a discharge limit in order to prevent overdischarging which can cause degradation of the battery (¶78).
Regarding claim 4, Jung teaches that the power transmission unit includes a wireless power transmission device (¶98 - because there is a wireless charging device it follows that there must be a wireless power transmission device included).
Conclusion
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 PAMELA JEPPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-4094. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 AM - 5:00 PM..
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 on 571-272-2312. 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.
/PAMELA J JEPPSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/DREW A DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859