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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 16, paragraph 2, regarding Zeiler failing to disclose which surface of the collector plate the heating strip is disposed on, filed 04/07/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 & 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's remaining arguments filed 04/07/2026, regarding Claim 20, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Zeiler and Xu fail to teach calculating an estimated temperature of a plurality of battery cells using temperature readings from a temperature sensor of the PCBA. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As presented in the previous rejection, Zeiler teaches the BMS 222 takes readings from connected thermistors. The communication between the BMS and the thermistor indicates they are “temperature sensors of a printed circuit board assembly” and given the lack of a one-to-one ratio of temperature sensors to batteries, as shown in Fig.6, it would be understood that the temperature reading is an estimated temperature reading of the battery pack, and therefore the plurality of battery cells. Furthermore, Xu is not relied upon to teach a plurality of heaters nor is it relied upon to teach more than one lithium battery. Xu is referenced to teach a method ran by a processor of heating and charging a battery in response to its temperature.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeiler in view of Xu.
Regarding Claim 20, Zeiler teaches a method of charging a plurality of lithium-ion battery cells of a battery assembly, the method comprising:
coupling a power source configured to charge the plurality of lithium-ion battery cells to the battery assembly (¶0024: external power may be used to run the heating elements, from a charger);
calculating, using a processor of the battery assembly, an estimated temperature of the plurality of battery of cells using temperature readings from a temperature sensor of a printed circuit board assembly (PCBA) of the battery assembly adjacent to the plurality of Lithium-ion battery cells (¶0026: BMS 222 takes readings from connected thermistors adjacent to battery cells to determine temperature);
comparing, using the processor, the estimated temperature of the plurality of battery cells to a threshold temperature value (¶0026: under temperature conditions indicates a threshold comparison);
Zeiler fails to explicitly teach in response to determining that the estimated temperature of the plurality of battery cells is greater than the threshold temperature value, initiating a charging program, by the processor, to deliver electrical power from the power source to the plurality of Lithium-ion battery cells for charging; and
in response to determining that the estimated temperature of the plurality of battery cells is less than the threshold temperature value:
initiating a heating program, by the processor, in which the processor delivers the electrical power from the power source to a heater disposed on the PCBA to raise the temperature of the plurality of cells,
calculating during the heating program, by the processor, the estimated temperature of the plurality of battery cells using temperature readings from the temperature sensor, and
comparing, by the processor, the estimated temperature of the plurality of battery cells calculated during the heating program to the threshold temperature value,
in response to determining that the estimated temperature of the plurality of battery of cells calculated during the heating program is greater than the threshold temperature value, ending the heating program, by the processor, in which the processor stops delivering the electrical power from the power source to the plurality of heaters and
in response to ending the heating program, initiating the charging program, by the processor, in which the processor delivers the electrical power from the power source to the plurality of battery cells for charging.
However, Xu teaches a heating program for a battery which activates a heating program in response to the measured temperature of the battery being less than or equal to a predetermined temperature threshold (Pg.2, Para.11: when current temperature is less than or equal to the battery temperature, heating device is started), which continues to determine the temperature of the battery during the heating program and ends the heating program when the temperature of the battery exceeds the predetermined temperature threshold (Pg.2, Para.12: “when the current temperature” indicates continued monitoring of the temperature, and heating device is stopped when the current temperature is greater than the battery temperature), and which starts the charging of the battery in response to terminating the heating program (Pg.2, Para.12: charging is started after the heating device is stopped).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Zeiler with Xu to include the steps for activating the heating program, terminating the heating program, and starting the charging of the battery cells in response to the termination of the heating program. Doing so helps prolong the service life of the battery by ensuring charging does not occur at low temperature conditions, and by reducing the precipitation of lithium metal on the electrode surfaces.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-19 & 21, 24, & 25 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a temperature sensor configured to obtain temperature readings and disposed on a first surface of the collector plate facing the first array of battery cells, a plurality of heaters configured to generate heat using electrical power and disposed on the first surface of the collector plate” in combination with all other limitations recited in the claim. The prior art of record fails to explicitly teach or suggest this limitation in combination with all other limitations recited in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “a temperature sensor configured to obtain temperature readings and disposed on a first surface of the collector plate facing the first array of battery cells, a plurality of heaters configured to generate heat using electrical power and disposed on the first surface of the collector plate”. The prior art of record fails to explicitly teach or suggest this limitation in combination with all other limitations recited in the claim.
Claims 1-9, 21, & 25 depend from claim 1 and claims 11-19 & 24 depend from claim 10 and are therefore allowable for the same reasons.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 P ONDRASIK whose telephone number is (703)756-1963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
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 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.
/JOHN P ONDRASIK/Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/JULIAN D HUFFMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights