DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
In the communication filed on 08/28/2025, claims 1-9 and 11-21 are pending. Claims 1-2, 4-9, and 11-21 are amended. Claim 10 is presently cancelled. No new claims are added.
Response to Arguments
The drawing, specification, and claim objections are withdrawn due to the amendments.
The claim limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is no longer applicable due to the amendments.
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) are withdrawn due to the amendments.
The applicant’s arguments (pages 16-17) regarding independent claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues the amended claim 1 is not taught by the combination of Coe et al. (US 2010/0201320 A1) and Kuphaldt (Lessons in Electric Circuits Volume II – AC, 6th Ed., 2007). The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The applicant specifically argues that Coe cannot disclose the amended subject matter because “Coe is singularly concerned with resonant discharge frequencies”. The examiner understands this argument to be asserting that Coe’s teachings are for discharging and not charging. However, the examiner interprets Coe’s teachings to also be applicable to charging in addition to discharging. Coe’s ¶ [31] clarifies the system is applicable to both charging and discharging, including the specifics of both “resonant charge and discharge frequencies”. Coe’s ¶ [35] further extends this method to repeat the process to identify a new resonant charge frequency or frequencies (fopt'), i.e. second harmonic component, to improve efficiency after applying the first charge frequency (fopt), i.e. first harmonic component, of the charge signal.
The applicant further makes arguments regarding Kuphaldt, but does not argue any teaching that was relied upon for the rejections of either the prior action or the current action.
Applicant extends the arguments of amended claim 1 to the similar amended claims 12 and 19 (page 17), to which the examiner also respectfully disagrees.
Because the examiner disagrees with the applicant’s arguments regarding Coe and Kuphaldt with respect to amended claims 1, 12, and 19, these references are relied upon again for the prior art rejections included infra.
The examiner notes that due to the applicant’s change of scope from original claim 1 to the amended claim 1, this final action is proper and necessitated by amendment. Similar, scope-changing amendments were also made to independent claims 12 and 19.
Drawings
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 following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
“first harmonic component” (claims 1-9, 11-20))
“second harmonic component” (claims 1-9, 11-20))
“third harmonic component” (claim 7)
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) and/or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
The specification does not provide antecedent basis for the term “second harmonic component” (claims 1, 6, 8, 11-12, 14, 17-18).
The specification does not provide antecedent basis for the term “third harmonic component” (claim 7).
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 20, lines 3-4 recite “wherein the parasitic loss based on …”, which should be revised to “wherein the parasitic loss is based on …”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 introduces “a battery” in the preamble. Claim 1 also introduces “an electrochemical device” in both lines 3-4 and line 5. For examination purposes, claim 1 is interpreted such that there is only one “electrochemical device” and that this term is used interchangeably with “battery”. However, the claim 1 language may also be interpreted to introduce one battery and two separate electrochemical devices.
Dependent claims 2-5 also use the terms “battery” and/or “electrochemical device” and are thus also indefinite. The claims need to be revised to clearly introduce the feature(s) once (with “a” or “an”) and then consistently refer to the same term for each feature.
Claim 9 recites “adjusting the harmonic component”, which is indefinite whether the limitation is referring to the “first harmonic component” or the “second harmonic component”. For examination purposes, it is assumed claim 9 is referring to any harmonic component.
Claim 9 recites “a plurality of harmonic components”, which is indefinite whether referring to the “first harmonic component” and/or the “second harmonic component” (assumed for examination), or some other plurality of harmonic components.
Claim 12 introduces “an electrochemical device” in line 5 and “a battery” in line 6. This language is indefinite as to whether these are the same feature. Dependent claims 13-18 also use the terms “battery” and/or “electrochemical device” and are thus also indefinite. The preamble is also noted to include “battery”. For examination purposes, it is assumed the “electrochemical device” and the “battery” are the same feature.
Claims 6-8 and 11 are further rejected for their dependency on other rejected claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coe et al. (US 2010/0201320 A1), in view of the cited Kuphaldt textbook (Lessons in Electric Circuits Volume II – AC, 6th Ed., 2007), hereinafter “Kuph”.
As of the current date, a hyperlink to the Kuph document is:
https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/assets/pdf/alternating-current.pdf
Regarding Claim 1, Coe discloses a method of charging (Abstract: “a method of discharging”; ¶ [31] clarifies the method is applicable to both charging and discharging) a battery (“battery pack 200” containing batteries “201A” and “201B”; Figs. 1-2), the method comprising the following.
Coe further discloses controlling a charge circuit (“charge/discharge module 102”; Fig. 1) to generate a charge signal (¶ [31]: “charging profile … including a pulse charge at the resonant charge frequency”; ¶ [42]: 106 configures “102 to current-source mode and to source a base current”; Fig. 4A).
Coe further discloses the charge signal (“charging profile”) comprising a first harmonic component (“resonant charge frequency 701, fopt”; ¶ [35, 44]) associated with a determined minimum impedance value (per ¶ [34]: the resonant charge frequency is the frequency at which the dynamic internal impedance is smallest; Fig. 7B) of an electrochemical device (200).
Coe further discloses during application of the charge signal (“charging profile”) to an electrochemical device (200), determining, with a processor (“microcontroller” within “control module 106” per ¶ [28]; Fig. 1), the impedance (¶ [5]: “measured response of the battery is … a dynamic internal impedance”; also ¶ [7, 34-35, 43-44, 49, 52]; Fig. 7B; note that justification is included infra that it would be obvious to calculate parasitic loss from impedance) in the electrochemical device (200).
Coe further discloses controlling the charge circuit (102) to adjust (¶ [50]: “retune sequence is repeated at predetermined intervals”) a second harmonic component (¶ [35]: fopt'; ¶ [44]: identified frequency fn') of the charge signal (“charging profile”) to improve the charging efficiency (¶ [31]: “maximize the charge efficiency … by applying a charging profile … including a pulse charge at the resonant charge frequency”; note that justification is included infra that it would be obvious to reduce the parasitic loss).
Though, as addressed supra, Coe discloses determining an impedance, Coe does not explicitly disclose determining “a parasitic loss in the electrochemical device”.
As also addressed supra, Coe discloses controlling the charge circuit to adjust a second harmonic component of the charge signal to improve charging efficiency. However, Coe further does not explicitly disclose this adjustment is intended “to reduce the parasitic loss”.
Kuph teaches the well-known relationship between a complex circuit’s true power, measured in Watts, and its complex impedance (pages 353-355). Kuph’s circuit schematic Figure 11.9 (page 354) indicates a complex circuit’s resistance R is the real portion of a complex impedance (Z = R + jX; Thus, R = real{Z}). In the case of Coe, the complex impedance Z is referred to as the “dynamic internal impedance” of the electrochemical device. Kuph teaches that from a known current I (“charge current” measured by “104A” and/or “104B” in Coe) and a known resistance R (real portion of “dynamic internal impedance” in Coe), one may calculate the true power (“P”; pages 352-355). True power is another term for the claimed parasitic loss.
Kuph teaches the well-known relationship of true power and complex impedance in order to calculate the power dissipated in Watts (Review, pp 355) because it is useful for evaluating heat dissipation and improving efficiency.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the processor disclosed by Coe to determine a parasitic loss from the impedance, as taught by Kuph, for the advantages of understanding the power dissipated in Watts, associated with battery heat dissipation, and improving efficiency.
Reducing the parasitic loss in the battery is an obvious contribution to maximizing the charge efficiency of the battery based on the below mathematical relationship between parasitic power loss (Ploss), input power (Pin), and efficiency (η). The mathematical relationship between power losses and efficiency is well known in the art. Official notice is taken.
η
=
P
i
n
-
P
l
o
s
s
P
i
n
×
100
%
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the adjustment of the second harmonic disclosed by Coe to also reduce the parasitic loss, as based on a well-known mathematical relationship, to improve charging efficiency and reduce heat dissipation.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Coe and Kuph teaches the method of claim 1.
Coe further teaches determining a difference of a plurality of current measurements (¶ [ 43]: “pulsed current profile having a positive and negative pulse magnitude Ipn+, Ipn- is superimposed upon the base current Ibase”; The differences between current levels are used for the impedance calculations at various pulsed frequencies).
Coe further teaches each of the plurality of current measurements (“Ipn+, Ipn-, Ibase”; ¶ [43]) is received from at least one of a plurality of current sensors (¶ [29]: “sensor module 104A, 104B” each include “one or more current sensors”; ¶ [33]: “provides the measured … current information to the control module”; Fig. 1) in electrical communication (“104A” and “104B” shown electrically connected within “200”; Fig. 1) with the electrochemical device (200).
Coe does not explicitly disclose that determining parasitic loss in the battery comprises the above steps. Instead, Coe discloses that determining impedance (¶ [5, 7, 34-35, 43-44, 49, 52], Fig. 7B) in the battery (200) comprises the above steps.
As discussed supra, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the above steps to determine parasitic loss, as taught by Kuphaldt (“P”, pp 352-355), from the battery’s impedance, as determined by Coe, for the advantages of understanding the power dissipated in Watts (Kuphaldt: pp 355), associated with battery heat dissipation, and improving efficiency.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Coe and Kuph teaches the method of claim 2.
Coe further discloses the impedance (¶ [5, 7, 34-35, 43-44, 49, 52], Fig. 7B) in the battery (200) is associated with the determined difference of the plurality of current measurements (¶ [43]: “pulsed current profile having a positive and negative pulse magnitude Ipn+, Ipn- is superimposed upon the base current Ibase”; The differences between current levels are used for impedance calculations at various pulsed frequencies.).
Coe does not explicitly disclose “the parasitic loss in the battery is associated with the determined difference of the plurality of current measurements”.
As discussed supra, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine parasitic loss, as taught by Kuphaldt (“P”, pp 352-355), from the battery’s impedance, as determined by Coe, for the advantages of understanding the power dissipated in Watts (Kuphaldt: pp 355), associated with battery heat dissipation, and improving efficiency.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Coe and Kuph teaches the method of claim 2.
Coe further discloses the plurality of current sensors (104A, 104B) comprises a first current sensor (“sensor module 104A”; Fig. 1) in electrical communication with a first electrode (per ¶ [29]: “104A” is electrically connected to measure both current through and voltage across both electrodes of “201A”; Fig. 1) of the electrochemical device (“battery pack 200” with internal “battery 201A”; Fig. 1).
Coe further discloses the plurality of current sensors (104A, 104B) further comprises a second current sensor (“sensor module 104B”; Fig. 1) in electrical communication with a second electrode (per ¶ [29]: “104A” is electrically connected to measure both current through and voltage across both electrodes of “201A”; Fig. 1) of the electrochemical device (“battery pack 200” with internal “battery 201B”; Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Coe and Kuph teaches the method of claim 1.
Coe discloses the impedance (¶ [5]: “measured response of the battery is … a dynamic internal impedance”; also ¶ [7, 34-35, 43-44, 49, 52]; Fig. 7B) in the electrochemical device (200) is based on a voltage measurement (¶ [6]: “measuring a voltage across the terminals of the battery … and calculating … an internal dynamic impedance of the battery”) of the battery (200).
Coe does not explicitly disclose “the parasitic loss in the electrochemical device is based on a voltage measurement of the battery”.
As previously discussed herein, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine parasitic loss, as taught by Kuphaldt (“P”, pp 352-355), from the electrochemical device’s impedance, as determined by Coe, for the advantages of understanding the power dissipated in Watts (Kuphaldt: pp 355), associated with battery heat dissipation, and improving efficiency.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Coe and Kuph teaches the method of claim 1.
Coe further discloses determining a change in the impedance (¶ [50]: “internal impedance of the battery pack 200 change as the stage of charge changes”) after adjusting the second harmonic component (¶ [35]: fopt'; ¶ [44]: identified frequency fn') of the charge signal (¶ [31]: “charging profile … including a pulse charge at the resonant charge frequency”).
Coe discloses further adjusting (¶ [50]: “retune sequence is repeated at predetermined intervals”) the charge signal (“charging profile”) to maximize the charge efficiency (¶ [31]: “maximize the charge efficiency of the battery pack 200 by applying a charging profile … including a pulse charge at the resonant charge frequency”).
Coe does not explicitly disclose “determining a change in the parasitic loss after adjusting the second harmonic component of the charge signal; and further adjusting the charge signal to reduce the parasitic loss”.
As discussed supra, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine a change in the parasitic loss, as taught by Kuphaldt (“P”, pp 352-355), from the battery’s change in impedance, as determined by Coe, for the advantages of understanding the change in power dissipated in Watts (Kuphaldt: pp 355), associated with battery heat dissipation, and improving efficiency.
As discussed supra, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Coe’s maximization of charge efficiency (¶ [31]), based on a well-known mathematical relationship, to reduce the parasitic loss for the advantage of improving charging efficiency and reducing heat dissipation.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Coe and Kuph teaches the method of claim 6.
Coe further discloses that further adjusting the charge signal (“charging profile”) comprises the following.
Coe further discloses adjusting the charge signal (“charging profile”) to remove a previous adjustment to the first harmonic component (any previous adjustment to “resonant charge frequency 701, fopt” is removed each time the frequency sweep is repeated per ¶ [35]) of the charge signal (“charging profile”).
Coe further discloses adjusting a third harmonic component (another of multiple fopt', in addition to that of the second harmonic component) of the charge signal (“charging profile”) to improve the charging efficiency (¶ [31]: “maximize the charge efficiency … by applying a charging profile … including a pulse charge at the resonant charge frequency”).
Coe does not explicitly disclose this adjustment of the third harmonic is “to reduce the parasitic loss”.
As previously discussed herein, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Coe’s maximization of charge efficiency (¶ [31]), based on a well-known mathematical relationship, to reduce the parasitic loss present for the advantages of improving charging efficiency and reducing heat dissipation.
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Coe and Kuph teaches the method of claim 1.
Coe further discloses adjusting the second harmonic component (¶ [35]: fopt'; ¶ [44]: identified frequency fn') of the charge signal (“charging profile”) comprises the following.
Coe further discloses iteratively adjusting (“701-704” can be iteratively adjusted per ¶ [35]; ¶ [50]: “retune sequence is repeated at predetermined intervals”) a plurality of additional harmonic components (any of “702-704, fopt” other than first component “701” per ¶ [35]) of the charge signal (“charging profile”) different than the first harmonic component (“resonant charge frequency 701, fopt”; ¶ [35, 44]) of the charge signal (“charging profile”).
Coe further discloses determining a change in the impedance (¶ [50]: “internal impedance of the battery pack 200 change as the stage of charge changes”) after each adjustment (“retune sequence”) of the plurality of additional harmonic components (702-704, fopt) of the charge signal (“charging profile”).
Coe further discloses if the impedance is reduced (¶ [43]: “based on a difference between an optimal frequency and an applied frequency, each corresponding to an attempt to reduce impedance and improve charge acceptance”), ending the iterative adjustment (“retune sequence”) of the plurality of additional harmonic components (“702-704, fopt”) of the charge signal (“charging profile”).
After each adjustment, Coe discloses determining a change in impedance. However, Coe does not disclose “determining a change in the parasitic loss”.
If the impedance is reduced, Coe discloses ending the iterative adjustment. However, Coe does not disclose ending the iterative adjustment “if the parasitic loss is reduced”.
As discussed supra, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine a change in the parasitic loss, as taught by Kuphaldt (“P”, pp 352-355), from the battery’s change in impedance, as determined by Coe, for the purposes of understanding the change in power dissipated in Watts (Kuphaldt: pp 355), associated with battery heat dissipation, and improving efficiency.
As discussed supra, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to base the ending on if the parasitic loss, as taught by Kuphaldt (“P”, pp 352-355), is reduced, rather than from the battery’s impedance, as determined by Coe. This modification would be for the advantages of understanding the power dissipated in Watts (Kuphaldt: pp 355), associated with battery heat dissipation, and improving efficiency.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Coe and Kuph teaches the method of claim 1.
Coe further discloses that adjusting the harmonic component (“resonant charge frequency”) of the charge signal (“charging profile”) comprises adjusting a plurality of harmonic components (¶ [35]: “106 identifies the resonant charge … frequencies 701-704, fopt”; Figs. 7A-7B) of the charge signal (“charging profile”) maximize charging efficiency (¶ [31]: “maximize the charge efficiency … by applying a charging profile … including a pulse charge at the resonant charge frequency”).
As discussed supra, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Coe’s maximization of charge efficiency (¶ [31]), based on a well-known mathematical relationship, to reduce the parasitic loss for the advantages of improving charging efficiency and reducing heat dissipation.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coe et al. (US 2010/0201320 A1), in view of the cited Kuphaldt textbook (Lessons in Electric Circuits Volume II – AC, 6th Ed., 2007), hereinafter “Kuph”, and Perry et al. (US 7,209,016 B2).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Coe and Kuph teaches the method of claim 1.
Coe further discloses a second harmonic component (fopt') of the charge signal (“charging profile”).
Coe does not disclose “adjusting a filter circuit to filter the second harmonic component of the charge signal to reduce the parasitic loss”.
Perry teaches a filter circuit (“variable capacitor circuit arrangement 100” with varactors “110”, “112”, “114”; Fig. 2). Perry further teaches the filter circuit (“100”) is adjusted by a control signal (“common control input 116”, “Vcontrol”; Figs. 2, 6-7; col 4, lines 45-64). In this case, Coe discloses control signals (¶ [28]: “control module 106 provides control signals to the charge/discharge module 102”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method disclosed by Coe to incorporate adjusting a filter circuit, as taught by Perry, in order to tune the filter (Perry: col 7, lines 33-36). It would further have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the control signals of Coe (¶ [28]: “106 provides control signals to … 102”) to adjust the filter circuit (Perry: “100”) to filter the harmonic (“resonant charge frequency”) for the purpose of providing adjustable filtering based on the impedance of the battery.
Coe does not explicitly disclose this adjustment is to reduce the parasitic loss. Coe instead discloses this is to maximize charging efficiency (¶ [31]: “maximize the charge efficiency … by applying a charging profile … including a pulse charge at the resonant charge frequency”).
As previously discussed herein, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Coe’s maximization of charge efficiency (¶ [31]), based on a well-known mathematical relationship, to reduce the parasitic loss for the advantages of improving charging efficiency and reducing heat dissipation.
Claims 12-13 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coe et al. (US 2010/0201320 A1), in view of the cited Kuphaldt textbook (Lessons in Electric Circuits Volume II – AC, 6th Ed., 2007), hereinafter “Kuphaldt”.
Regarding Claim 12, Coe discloses a battery charging system (“charge/discharge system 100” for “battery pack 200” containing batteries “201A” and “201B”; Figs. 1-2) comprising a processor (“control module 106”; Fig. 1; ¶ [28]: “106 includes an embedded microcontroller”).
Coe further discloses to control a charge circuit (“charge/discharge module 102”; Fig. 1) to generate a charge signal (¶ [31]: “charging profile … including a pulse charge at the resonant charge frequency”; ¶ [42]: 106 configures “102 to current-source mode and to source a base current”; Fig. 4A).
Coe further discloses the charge signal (“charging profile”) comprising a first harmonic component (“resonant charge frequency 701, fopt”; ¶ [35, 44]) associated with a determined minimum impedance value (per ¶ [34]: the resonant charge frequency is the frequency at which the dynamic internal impedance is smallest; Fig. 7B) of an electrochemical device (200).
Coe further discloses from a charge current (¶ [29]: “sensor module 104A, 104B also includes one or more current sensors … to sense the current flowing through each battery”), determine an impedance (¶ [5]: “measured response of the battery is … a dynamic internal impedance”; also ¶ [7, 34-35, 43-44, 49, 52]; Fig. 7B; note that justification is included infra that it would be obvious to calculate parasitic loss from impedance) when a battery (200) is charged according to a charge signal (¶ [31]: “charging profile … including a pulse charge at the resonant charge frequency”; ¶ [42]: 106 configures “102 to current-source mode and to source a base current”; Fig. 4A).
Coe further discloses that the processor (106) can alter a second harmonic component (¶ [35]: fopt'; ¶ [44]: identified frequency fn') of the charge signal (“charging profile”) responsive to the impedance (¶ [35]: “fopt, at which … the dynamic internal impedance are the smallest”).
Coe does not explicitly disclose that the processing unit includes computer executable instructions.
Though, as addressed supra, Coe discloses to determine an impedance, Coe does not explicitly disclose to determine “a parasitic loss”.
Though, as addressed supra, Coe discloses to alter the second component responsive to the impedance, Coe does not disclose this is responsive to “the parasitic loss”.
It is notoriously well known in the art that a processing unit with a microcontroller can include computer executable instructions for the purpose of enabling it to execute embedded code. Official notice is taken. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the processing unit (“control module 106”; Fig. 1; ¶ [28]: “106 includes an embedded microcontroller”) of Coe to include computer executable instructions for to enable it to execute embedded code.
Kuphaldt teaches the well-known relationship between a complex circuit’s true power, measured in Watts, and its complex impedance (pages 353-355). Kuphaldt’s circuit schematic Figure 11.9 (page 354) indicates a complex circuit’s resistance R is the real portion of a complex impedance (Z = R + jX; Thus, R = real{Z}). In the case of Coe, the complex impedance Z is referred to as the “dynamic internal impedance” of the battery. Kuphaldt teaches that from a known current I (“charge current” measured by “104A” and/or “104B” in Coe) and a known resistance R (real portion of “dynamic internal impedance” in Coe), one may calculate the true power (“P”; pages 352-355). True power is another term for the claimed parasitic loss.
Kuphaldt teaches the well-known relationship of true power and complex impedance in order to calculate the power dissipated in Watts (Review, pp 355) because it is useful for evaluating heat dissipation and improving efficiency. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the processing unit (Coe: “106”), to determine a parasitic loss as taught by Kuphaldt (“P”), from the battery’s impedance as determined by Coe, for the advantages of understanding the power dissipated in Watts, associated with battery heat dissipation, and improving efficiency.
Kuphaldt teaches the well-known relationship between a complex circuit’s true power, measured in Watts, and its complex impedance (pages 353-355). Kuphaldt’s circuit schematic Figure 11.9 (page 354) indicates a complex circuit’s resistance R is the real portion of a complex impedance (Z = R + jX; Thus, R = real{Z}). In the case of Coe, the complex impedance Z is referred to as the “dynamic internal impedance” of the battery. Kuphaldt teaches that from a known current I (“charge current” measured by “104A” and/or “104B” in Coe) and a known resistance R (real portion of “dynamic internal impedance” in Coe), one may calculate the true power (“P”; pages 352-355). True power is another term for the claimed parasitic loss.
Kuphaldt teaches the well-known relationship of true power and complex impedance in order to calculate the power dissipated in Watts (Review, pp 355) because it is useful for evaluating heat dissipation and improving efficiency. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the processor to determine a parasitic loss as taught by Kuphaldt (“P”), from the battery’s impedance as determined by Coe, for the advantages of understanding the power dissipated in Watts, associated with battery heat dissipation, and improving efficiency.
As previously discussed herein, Kuphaldt teaches that parasitic loss (“true power P”) and dynamic internal impedance (“total impedance Z”) are directly related. Kuphaldt teaches this as a well-known mathematical relationship between real power and complex power (pages 352-355). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Coe with the teachings of Kuphaldt to alter the second harmonic component (Coe: fopt') of the charge signal (Coe: “charge profile”) responsive to the parasitic loss (Kuphaldt: “true power P”) for the advantages of understanding the power dissipated in Watts, associated with battery heat dissipation, and improving efficiency.
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Coe and Kuph teaches the battery charging system of claim 12.
Coe further discloses a current sensor (“sensor module 104A”; Fig. 1; ¶ [29]: “one or more current sensors … to sense the current flowing through each battery”; these types of sensors are inherently bidirectional) positioned to measure an input charge current (as in the case of charging) to the battery (“201A”; Fig. 1) and an output current (as in the case of discharging) from the battery (“201A”).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Coe and Kuph teaches the battery charging system of claim 12.
Coe further discloses the processor (“control module 106”; Fig. 1) comprises a microcontroller (¶ [28]: “106 includes an embedded microcontroller”).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Coe and Kuph teaches the battery charging system of claim 12.
Coe further discloses the second harmonic component (fopt') of the charge signal (“charging profile”) is altered (¶ [50]: “retune sequence is repeated at predetermined intervals”) to improve the charging efficiency (¶ [31]: “maximize the charge efficiency … by applying a charging profile … including a pulse charge at the resonant charge frequency”; note that justification is included infra that it would be obvious to reduce the parasitic loss).
Coe the second harmonic component is altered to improve charging efficiency. However, Coe does not explicitly disclose this alteration is intended “to reduce the parasitic loss”.
Reducing the parasitic loss in the battery is an obvious contribution to maximizing the charge efficiency of the battery based on the below mathematical relationship between parasitic power loss (Ploss), input power (Pin), and efficiency (η). The mathematical relationship between power losses and efficiency is well known in the art. Official notice is taken.
η
=
P
i
n
-
P
l
o
s
s
P
i
n
×
100
%
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Coe’s maximization of charge efficiency (¶ [31]) based on a well-known mathematical relationship to alter the second harmonic component to reduce the parasitic loss for the advantages of improving charging efficiency and reducing heat dissipation.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coe et al. (US 2010/0201320 A1), in view of the cited Kuphaldt textbook (Lessons in Electric Circuits Volume II – AC, 6th Ed., 2007), hereinafter “Kuph”, and Madawala et al. (US 2012/0002446 A1; hereinafter “Mada”).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Coe and Kuph teaches the battery charging system of claim 12.
Coe does not disclose “a first switch in communication with the processor, the processor controlling the first switch to alter the first harmonic component and the second harmonic component of the charge signal; a second switch in communication with the first switch at a node, the node operably coupled with a first inductive element.
Mada teaches a first switch (upper right switch in H-bridge; Fig. 2) in communication (“switching signals”; Fig. 2) with the controller (“controller”; Fig. 2).
NOTE: Though Mada’s teachings are with respect to a controller rather than explicitly a processor, one of ordinary skill in the art understands that it is well known to use a processor within a controller to execute digital logic. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that Mada’s teachings are also applicable to the processor
Mada further teaches the controller controlling the first switch (upper right switch in H-bridge) to alter the harmonic component of the charge signal (charge signal represented by current “IO” and voltage “VO” to the load “RL”; Fig. 1). The switching operation of the upper right switch in the H-bridge controls the duty cycle and/or frequency of the voltage “Vin”. This further effects changes in the voltages throughout the circuit. This results in alterations to the phase and/or amplitude of harmonic components of the charge signal at the load “RL”.
NOTE: Though Mada’s teachings are not explicitly with respect to both a first harmonic component and a second harmonic component, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that Mada’s teachings are also applicable to multiple harmonic components.
Mada further teaches a second switch (lower right switch in H-bridge; Fig. 2) in communication with the first switch (upper right switch in H-bridge) at a node (node labeled “VH2”; Fig. 2).
Mada further teaches the node (“VH2”) is operably coupled with a first inductive element (inductor “L2”; Fig. 2). The operable coupling path in Mada includes the circuit connections of low-pass filter circuit elements (“Li”, “C1”, “L1”; Fig. 2) and a magnetic coupling path (“M”, Fig. 2).
Mada teaches this for the advantage of minimizing the required feedback communications in the control of an output voltage (Abstract; ¶ [8]). Mada further teaches this may be applied for battery charging (¶ [2]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery charging system and processor disclosed by the combination of Coe and Kuph to control a first switch to alter the first/second harmonic components and a second switch, as taught by Mada, to minimize the required feedback communications in the control of the charge signal.
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Coe, Kuph, and Mada teaches the battery charging system of claim 14.
Coe does not disclose “a second inductive element coupled with the first inductive element, the battery operably coupled with the second inductive element to receive the charge signal, and a capacitor coupled between the first inductive element and the second inductive element”.
Mada teaches a second inductive element (“Lf”; Fig. 2) coupled with the first inductive element (“L2”; Fig. 2).
Mada further teaches the battery (represented in Fig. 2 by generic load “RL”; ¶ [2, 54] describe the circuit’s application as “battery charging” to indicate the load may be a battery) operably coupled with the second inductive element (“Lf”) to receive the charge signal (charge signal represented by current “IO” and voltage “VO” to the load “RL”; Fig. 1).
Mada further teaches a capacitor (“C2”; Fig. 2) coupled between the first inductive element (“L2”) and the second inductive element (“Lf”).
The Mada Fig. 2 circuit schematic depicts “L2”, “C2”, and “Lf” arranged in a low-pass T-filter arrangement. There is an optional diode drawn in parallel with “C2”, which does not detract from the direct connection of these elements at a single node.
Mada teaches this circuit arrangement for the purpose of filtering the power supplied to the load (¶ [62]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery charging system disclosed by the combination of Coe, Kuph, and Mada to incorporate the arrangement with the second inductive element and a capacitor, as further taught by Mada, to filter the power supplied to the battery.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coe et al. (US 2010/0201320 A1), in view of the cited Kuphaldt textbook (Lessons in Electric Circuits Volume II – AC, 6th Ed., 2007), hereinafter “Kuph”, and Perry et al. (US 7,209,016 B2).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Coe and Kuph teaches the battery charging system of claim 12.
Coe does not disclose “a filter component, wherein the filter component is altered based on the parasitic loss when the battery is charged”.
Perry teaches a filter component (“variable capacitor circuit arrangement 100” with varactors “110”, “112”, “114”; Fig. 2). Perry further teaches the filter component (100) is altered (col 1, lines 50-62: “controlling the capacitances of the variable capacitance elements”).
Perry further teaches the altering of the filter component (100) is based on a control signal (“common control input 116”, “Vcontrol”; Figs. 2, 6-7; col 4, lines 45-64). In this case, Coe discloses control signals (¶ [28]: “control module 106 provides control signals to the charge/discharge module 102”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a filter component which can be altered based on a control signal, as taught by Perry, to the battery charging system of Coe, in order to tune the filter (Perry: col 7, lines 33-36). Coe provides the control signals (Coe ¶ [28]: “106 provides control signals to … 102”) based on the battery’s impedance.
Thus, Coe in view of Perry can teach a filter component (Perry: “100”), wherein the filter component is altered (Perry: “100” is “tunable”; Coe ¶ [28]: “106 provides control signals … to 102”) based on the impedance.
Coe discloses the control signals (from “106”; ¶ [28]) are based on a determined impedance (¶ [5]: “measured response of the battery is … a dynamic internal impedance”; also ¶ [7, 34-35, 43-44, 49, 52]; Fig. 7B) when the battery (200) is charged (¶ [31]: “charging profile”).
Coe does not explicitly disclose the control signals from “106” are based on a determined parasitic loss.
As previously discussed herein, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to base the control signals (Coe: from “106”) on the parasitic loss, as taught by Kuph (“P”, pp 352-355), from the battery’s impedance, as determined by Coe in view of Perry, for the advantages of understanding the power dissipated in Watts (Kuph: pp 355), associated with battery heat dissipation, and improving efficiency.
Claims 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coe et al. (US 2010/0201320 A1), in view of the cited Kuphaldt textbook (Lessons in Electric Circuits Volume II – AC, 6th Ed., 2007), hereinafter “Kuph”.
Regarding Claim 19, Coe discloses a charging system (“charge/discharge system 100”, Fig. 1) comprising at least one component (“control module 106”; Fig. 1) optimized to do the following.
Coe further discloses to control a charge circuit (“charge/discharge module 102”; Fig. 1) to generate a charge signal (¶ [31]: “charging profile … including a pulse charge at the resonant charge frequency”; ¶ [42]: 106 configures “102 to current-source mode and to source a base current”; Fig. 4A) or a discharge signal (may also be a “discharge profile” per ¶ [31]).
Coe further discloses the charge signal (“charging profile”) or the discharge signal (“discharge profile”) comprising a first harmonic component (“resonant charge frequency 701, fopt”; ¶ [35, 44]) associated with a determined minimum impedance value (per ¶ [34]: the resonant charge frequency is the frequency at which the dynamic internal impedance is smallest; Fig. 7B) of an electrochemical device (“battery pack 200” containing batteries “201A” and “201B”; Figs. 1-2).
Coe further discloses to improve the charging efficiency (¶ [31]: “maximize the charge efficiency … by applying a charging profile … including a pulse charge at the resonant charge frequency”; note that justification is included infra that it would be obvious to reduce the parasitic loss) present when the charge signal (“charging profile”) or the discharge signal (“discharge profile”) is present, by controlling the charge circuit (106) to adjust (¶ [50]: “retune sequence is repeated at predetermined intervals”) a second harmonic component (¶ [35]: fopt'; ¶ [44]: identified frequency fn') designed improve the charging efficiency (¶ [34]: “frequencies at which the dynamic internal impedance is smallest”; ¶ [35-37]).
As addressed supra, Coe discloses controlling the charge circuit to adjust a second harmonic component of the charge signal to improve charging efficiency. However, Coe does not explicitly disclose this adjustment is intended “to reduce a/the parasitic loss”.
Reducing the parasitic loss in the battery is an obvious contribution to maximizing the charge efficiency of the battery based on the below mathematical relationship between parasitic power loss (Ploss), input power (Pin), and efficiency (η). The mathematical relationship between power losses and efficiency is well known in the art. Official notice is taken.
η
=
P
i
n
-
P
l
o
s
s
P
i
n
×
100
%
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the adjustment of the second harmonic disclosed by Coe to also reduce the parasitic loss, as based on a well-known mathematical relationship, to improve charging efficiency and reduce heat dissipation.
Regarding Claim 20, Coe (in view of the well-known power efficiency relationship) teaches the charging system of claim 19.
Coe further discloses a processor (“microcontroller” within “control module 106” per ¶ [28]; Fig. 1) to determine the impedance (¶ [5]: “measured response of the battery is … a dynamic internal impedance”; also ¶ [7, 34-35, 43-44, 49, 52]; Fig. 7B; note that justification is included infra that it would be obvious to calculate parasitic loss from impedance) in the electrochemical device (200) when the charge signal (“charging profile”) or the discharge signal (“discharging profile”) is present.
Coe further discloses the impedance is based on at least two current measurements (“applied current levels 705-707”; Figs. 7A-7B; ¶ [34-35]) associated with the electrochemical device (200) (¶ [35]: “repeated at each of the current levels until … within a predetermined tolerance limit”).
As addressed supra, Coe discloses a processor to determine the impedance in the electrochemical device. However, Coe does not explicitly disclose to determine “the parasitic loss”.
As also addressed supra, Coe discloses the impedance is based on at least two current measurements. However, Coe does not discloses this for “the parasitic loss”.
Kuph teaches the well-known relationship between a complex circuit’s true power, measured in Watts, and its complex impedance (pages 353-355). Kuph’s circuit schematic Figure 11.9 (page 354) indicates a complex circuit’s resistance R is the real portion of a complex impedance (Z = R + jX; Thus, R = real{Z}). In the case of Coe, the complex impedance Z is referred to as the “dynamic internal impedance” of the electrochemical device. Kuph teaches that from a known current I (“charge current” measured by “104A” and/or “104B” in Coe) and a known resistance R (real portion of “dynamic internal impedance” in Coe), one may calculate the true power (“P”; pages 352-355). True power is another term for the claimed parasitic loss.
Kuph teaches the well-known relationship of true power and complex impedance in order to calculate the power dissipated in Watts (Review, pp 355) because it is useful for evaluating heat dissipation and improving efficiency.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the processor disclosed by Coe to determine the parasitic loss from the impedance, as taught by Kuph, for the advantages of understanding the power dissipated in Watts, associated with battery heat dissipation, and improving efficiency. Thus, the combination of Coe and