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 .
Status of the Claims
In the communication filed on 02/16/2026 claims 1-17 and 19-21 are pending. Claims 1, 4, 12, and 15 are amended to correct claim objections and/or antecedent basis issues. Claim 18 is cancelled. Claim 21 is newly added.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues in pages 6-9 of the Remarks dated 02/16/2026 that Keene and/or Sun fail to teach the limitations “determine a voltage of the lithium-ion battery is below a cut-off voltage; determine a number of cycles the lithium-ion battery has been charged based on the voltage being less than the cut-off voltage”. The applicant states that Sun’s “second reference voltage” is silent about being a cut-off voltage and therefore fails to meet the teaching, however, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, Sun is not relied upon to teach a cut-off voltage but rather Keene does as cited in pages 5-6 and 8-9 of the Office Action dated 11/17/2025.
Furthermore, in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
The remaining arguments are moot as the applicant’s arguments for the remaining claims were based on dependency of the independent claims.
The claim objections are withdrawn due to the amendments.
This Office Action is made Final.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5-10, and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keene et al. (USPGPN 20230187716) and further in view of Sun et al. (USPGPN 20240410952).
With respect to independent claim 1, Keene teaches a system comprising: a lithium-ion battery comprising an anode having a silicon anode material (Fig. 1A/B; a lithium-ion battery 100 comprising an anode 101 having a silicon anode material, see ¶ [20]).
Keene teaches a battery management subsystem electrically coupled to the lithium-ion battery, wherein the battery management subsystem comprises one or more processors (Fig. 1B; a BMS 140 electrically coupled to the lithium-ion battery 100 comprising a processor 141).
Keene teaches determine a number of cycles the lithium-ion battery has been charged (Figs. 4-6; cycle number depicting the amount of times the lithium-ion battery 100 has been charged).
Keene teaches a cut-off voltage (Fig. 6; cutoff voltage).
Keene teaches modify the cut-off voltage to a modified cut-off voltage for the lithium-ion battery based on the number of cycles undergone by the lithium-ion battery (Fig. 6; the cutoff voltage is modified to a decreased (i.e., modified) cutoff voltage as illustrated by the lower cutoff voltage line plot. In ¶ [50] the voltage is modified when the cycles exceed a certain threshold such as every 5 cycles, 10 cycles, 20 cycles, 25 cycles, 50 cycles, or 100 cycles or cycle equivalents).
However, Keene fails to explicitly teach determine a voltage of the lithium-ion battery is below a cut-off voltage; and determine a number of cycles the lithium-ion battery has been charged based on the voltage being less than the cut-off voltage.
Sun teaches determine a voltage of the lithium-ion battery is below a reference voltage (Fig. 4; in step S120 the controller determines if the voltage is abnormal when less than or equal to a second reference voltage, see ¶ [60]).
Sun teaches determine a number of cycles the lithium-ion battery has been charged based on the voltage being less than the reference voltage (Fig. 4; in step S130 a second cycle count value is obtained representing the charge cycles with respect to the amount of times the voltage of the battery is less than or equal to a second reference voltage, see ¶ [61]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply Sun’s cycle count based on the voltage dropping below a threshold to Keene’s method for modifying the cut-off voltage, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious.
With respect to claim 3, Keene teaches the invention as discussed in claim 1 above. Further, Keene teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Keene teaches wherein the modified cut-off voltage comprises less than the cut-off voltage (Fig. 6; the decreased cutoff voltage is less than the cutoff voltage before).
With respect to claim 5, Keene teaches the invention as discussed in claim 1 above. Further, Keene teaches wherein the modified cut-off voltage is configured to increase a cell capacity of the lithium-ion battery between 15% to 19% as compared to not modifying the cut-off voltage (¶ [84] Table 1; improvements in capacity shown between 115% - 119%. One of ordinary skill understands otherwise these improvements in capacity would not occur).
Keene discloses the claimed invention except for increasing a cell capacity of the lithium-ion battery between 3% to 20%. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the cutoff voltage such that increasing a cell capacity of the lithium-ion battery falls between 3% to 20%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
With respect to claim 6, Keene teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Keene teaches wherein the lithium-ion battery comprises a cathode having a lithium transition metal oxide or lithium transition metal phosphate material (¶ [72]; the cathode materials may comprise LCO, LMO, NMC, NCA, and spinel which are lithium transition metal oxides or LFP which is a lithium transition metal phosphate).
With respect to claim 7, Keene teaches the invention as discussed in claim 1 above. Further, Keene teaches wherein the modified cut-off voltage comprises between 2.75 volts and 2.9 volts (Fig. 6; the modified cutoff voltage comprises between 2.75 volts – 2.9 volts).
With respect to claim 8, Keene teaches the invention as discussed in claim 1 above. Further, Keene teaches wherein the modified cut-off voltage comprises between 2.5 volts and 3.2 volts (Fig. 6; the modified cutoff voltage comprises between volts 2.5 – 3.2 volts).
Keene discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the modified cut-off voltage comprises between 1.5 volts and 3.2 volts. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to determine that the modified cut-off voltage comprises between 1.5 volts and 3.2 volts, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
With respect to claim 9, Keene teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Keene teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to modify the cut-off voltage by periodically decreasing the cut-off voltage based on the number of cycles undergone by the lithium-ion battery (Fig. 6; the cutoff voltage is periodically decreased based on the number of cycles undergone by the lithium-ion battery 100).
With respect to independent claim 10, Keene teaches a method, comprising determining, via one or more processors of an electronic device, a voltage of a lithium-ion battery of the electronic device, wherein the lithium-ion battery comprises a silicon anode material (Figs. 1A/B and 6; a method comprising determining via processor 141 of package 150, a voltage of a lithium-ion battery 100 of the package 150, wherein the lithium-ion battery comprises a silicon anode material, see ¶ [20]).
Keene teaches a cut-off voltage (Fig. 6; cutoff voltage).
Keene teaches decreasing, via the one or more processors, the cut-off voltage based on the number of times the lithium-ion battery has been charged being greater than a threshold (Fig. 6; the cutoff voltage is modified to a decreased (i.e., modified) cutoff voltage as illustrated by the lower cutoff voltage line plot. In ¶ [50] the voltage is modified when the cycles exceed a certain threshold such as every 5 cycles, 10 cycles, 20 cycles, 25 cycles, 50 cycles, or 100 cycles or cycle equivalents).
However, Keene fails to explicitly teach determining that the voltage is less than a cut-off voltage; and determining a number of times the lithium-ion battery has been charged based on the voltage being less than the cut-off voltage.
Sun teaches determining that the voltage is less than a reference voltage (Fig. 4; in step S120 the controller determines if the voltage is abnormal when less than or equal to a second reference voltage, see ¶ [60]).
Sun teaches determining a number of times the lithium-ion battery has been charged based on the voltage being less than the reference voltage (Fig. 4; in step S130 a second cycle count value is obtained representing the charge cycles with respect to the amount of times the voltage of the battery is less than or equal to a second reference voltage, see ¶ [61]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply Sun’s cycle count based on the voltage dropping below a threshold to Keene’s method for modifying the cut-off voltage, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious.
With respect to claim 13, Keene teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 10. Further, Keene teaches wherein the cut-off voltage is decreased periodically based on the number of times the lithium-ion battery has been charged being greater than the threshold (Fig. 6; the cutoff voltage is periodically decreased based on the number of cycles undergone by the lithium-ion battery 100).
With respect to claim 14, Keene teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 10. Further, Keene teaches wherein the threshold is greater than 60 times the lithium-ion battery has been charged (Fig. 6 and ¶ [50]; the cycle threshold may be greater than 60 times the lithium-ion battery 100 has been charged).
However, Keene fails to explicitly teach based on the voltage being less than the cut-off voltage.
Sun teaches based on the voltage being less than the reference voltage (Fig. 4; in step S120 the controller determines if the voltage is abnormal when less than or equal to a second reference voltage, see ¶ [60]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply Sun’s cycle count based on the voltage dropping below a threshold to Keene’s method for modifying the cut-off voltage, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious.
With respect to independent claim 15, Keene teaches a battery management system electrically coupled to a lithium-ion battery, wherein the lithium-ion battery comprises a silicon anode material, and wherein the battery management system comprises one or more processors (Figs. 1A/B; a BMS 140 electrically coupled to a lithium-ion battery 100, wherein the lithium-ion battery 100 comprises a silicon anode material (see ¶ [20]), and wherein the BMS 140 comprises a processor 141).
Keene teaches modify the cut-off voltage for the lithium-ion battery based on the number of cycles to increase a cell capacity of the lithium-ion battery by greater than 3% as compared to not modifying the cut-off voltage (Fig. 6; the cutoff voltage is modified to a decreased (i.e., modified) cutoff voltage as illustrated by the lower cutoff voltage line plot to improve capacity as depicted in ¶ [84] Table 1 where improvements in capacity shown between 115% - 119% which are greater than 3%. One of ordinary skill understands otherwise these improvements in capacity would not occur).
However, Keene fails to explicitly teach determine a voltage of the lithium-ion battery is below a cut-off voltage; and determine a number of cycles undergone by the lithium-ion battery in response to determining that the voltage of the lithium-ion battery is below the cut-off voltage.
Sun teaches determine a voltage of the lithium-ion battery is below a reference voltage (Fig. 4; in step S120 the controller determines if the voltage is abnormal when less than or equal to a second reference voltage, see ¶ [60]).
Sun teaches determine a number of cycles undergone by the lithium-ion battery in response to determining that the voltage of the lithium-ion battery is below the reference voltage (Fig. 4; in step S130 a second cycle count value is obtained representing the charge cycles with respect to the amount of times the voltage of the battery is less than or equal to a second reference voltage, see ¶ [61]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply Sun’s cycle count based on the voltage dropping below a threshold to Keene’s method for modifying the cut-off voltage, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious.
With respect to claim 16, Keene teaches the invention as discussed in claim 15 above. Further, Keene teaches wherein the modified cut-off voltage comprises between 2.5 volts and 3.2 volts (Fig. 6; the modified cutoff voltage comprises between volts 2.5 – 3.2 volts).
Keene discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the modified cut-off voltage comprises between 1.5 volts and 2.75 volts. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to determine that the modified cut-off voltage comprises between 1.5 volts and 2.75 volts, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
With respect to claim 17, Keene teaches the invention as discussed in claim 15 above. Further, Keene teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to modify the cut-off voltage for the lithium-ion battery to increase the cell capacity of the lithium-ion battery by greater than 5% as compared to not modifying the cut- off voltage (Fig. 6; the cutoff voltage is modified to a decreased (i.e., modified) cutoff voltage as illustrated by the lower cutoff voltage line plot to improve capacity as depicted in ¶ [84] Table 1 where improvements in capacity shown between 115% - 119% which are greater than 5%. One of ordinary skill understands otherwise these improvements in capacity would not occur).
With respect to claim 19, Keene teaches the invention as discussed in claim 15 above. Further, Keene teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to modify the cut-off voltage by receiving a charge cycle threshold (In ¶ [50] the voltage is modified when the cycles exceed a certain threshold such as every 5 cycles, 10 cycles, 20 cycles, 25 cycles, 50 cycles, or 100 cycles or cycle equivalents).
Keene teaches decreasing the cut-off voltage based on the number of cycles being less than or equal to the charge cycle threshold (Fig. 6; the cutoff voltage is modified to a decreased (i.e., modified) cutoff voltage as illustrated by the lower cutoff voltage line plot and as taught in ¶ [50] when a certain threshold is met).
Claims 2, 4, 11, 12, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keene et al. (USPGPN 20230187716), in view of Sun et al. (USPGPN 20240410952), and further in view of Maleki et al. (USPGPN 20140077769).
With respect to claim 2, Keene teaches the invention as discussed in claim 1 above. However, Keene fails to explicitly teach wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the battery management subsystem to power down a device powered by the lithium-ion battery based on the voltage of the lithium-ion battery being below the cut-off voltage.
Maleki teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the battery management subsystem to power down a device powered by the lithium-ion battery based on the voltage of the lithium-ion battery being below the cut-off voltage (Fig. 7; when the voltage falls to the voltage discharge limit then the circuit opens the discharge flow path to the load, see ¶ [78]. One of ordinary skill understands functionally this is the equivalent of powering down a device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply Maleki’s overdischarge protection to turn off power flow to the load to Keene’s apparatus, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious.
With respect to claim 4, Keene teaches the invention as discussed in claim 1 above. However, Keene fails to explicitly teach wherein the one or more processors are configured to, at a subsequent time: determine the number of cycles undergone by the lithium-ion battery based on the voltage of the lithium-ion battery being below the modified cut-off voltage; and increase the modified cut-off voltage for the lithium-ion battery based on the number of cycles undergone by the lithium-ion battery.
Sun teaches at a subsequent time determine the number of cycles undergone by the lithium-ion battery based on the voltage of the lithium-ion battery being below the modified cut-off voltage (Figs. 4-5; in step S130 a second cycle count value is obtained representing the charge cycles with respect to the amount of times the voltage of the battery is less than or equal to a second reference voltage, see ¶ [61]. One of ordinary skill understands the iterative nature of a process would result in determining the number of cycles that have occurred since a prior iteration at a subsequent time).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply Sun’s cycle count based on the voltage dropping below a threshold to Keene’s method for modifying the cut-off voltage, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious.
However, Keene fails to explicitly teach increase the modified cut-off voltage for the lithium-ion battery based on the number of cycles undergone by the lithium-ion battery.
Maleki teaches increase the modified cut-off voltage for the lithium-ion battery based on the number of cycles undergone by the lithium-ion battery (Fig. 7; the voltage discharge limit is increased based on the amount of cycles, see ¶ [57-59]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply Maleki’s increase to the voltage discharge limit (i.e., the cutoff voltage) to Keene’s apparatus, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious.
With respect to claim 11, Keene teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 10. However, Keene fails to explicitly teach comprising powering down, via the one or more processors, the electronic device based on the voltage of the lithium-ion battery being approximately equal to the decreased cut-off voltage.
Maleki teaches comprising powering down, via the one or more processors, the electronic device based on the voltage of the lithium-ion battery being approximately equal to the decreased cut-off voltage (Fig. 7; when the voltage falls to the voltage discharge limit then the circuit opens the discharge flow path to the load, see ¶ [78]. One of ordinary skill understands functionally this is the equivalent of powering down a device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply Maleki’s overdischarge protection to turn off power flow to the load to Keene’s apparatus, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious.
With respect to claim 12, Keene teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 10. Further, Keene teaches subsequent to decreasing the cut-off voltage (Fig. 6 illustrates subsequent operations of decreasing the cut-off voltage).
However, Keene fails to explicitly teach determining, via the one or more processors, an additional number of times the lithium-ion battery has been charged based on the voltage being less than the modified cut-off voltage; and increasing, via the one or more processors, the modified cut-off voltage based on the additional number of times the lithium-ion battery has been charged being greater than the threshold.
Sun teaches determining, via the one or more processors, an additional number of times the lithium-ion battery has been charged based on the voltage being less than the modified cut-off voltage (Figs. 4-5; in step S130 a second cycle count value is obtained representing the charge cycles with respect to the amount of times the voltage of the battery is less than or equal to a second reference voltage, see ¶ [61]. One of ordinary skill understands the iterative nature of a process would result in determining the number of cycles that have occurred since a prior iteration at a subsequent time).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply Sun’s cycle count based on the voltage dropping below a threshold to Keene’s method for modifying the cut-off voltage, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious.
However, Keene fails to explicitly teach increasing, via the one or more processors, the modified cut-off voltage based on the additional number of times the lithium-ion battery has been charged being greater than the threshold.
Maleki teaches increasing, via the one or more processors, the modified cut-off voltage based on the additional number of times the lithium-ion battery has been charged being greater than the threshold (Fig. 7; the voltage discharge limit is increased based on the amount of cycles, see ¶ [57-59]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply Maleki’s increase to the voltage discharge limit (i.e., the cutoff voltage) to Keene’s apparatus, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious.
With respect to claim 20, Keene teaches the invention as discussed in claim 15 above. However, Keene fails to explicitly teach wherein the silicon anode material comprises silicon nanoparticles, silicon nanowires, crystalline silicon, amorphous silicon, silicon oxide, silicon carbon composites, silicon metal alloy or any combination thereof.
Maleki teaches wherein the silicon anode material comprises silicon nanoparticles, silicon nanowires, crystalline silicon, amorphous silicon, silicon oxide, silicon carbon composites, silicon metal alloy or any combination thereof (In ¶ [35] the silicon-based anode includes materials such as silicon-carbon composites and silicon alloying metals).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply Maleki’s silicon anode materials to Keene’s apparatus, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious.
With respect to claim 21, Keene teaches the invention as discussed in claim 15 above. However, Keene fails to explicitly teach determine an additional number of cycles undergone by the lithium-ion battery based on the voltage of the lithium-ion battery being below the modified cut-off voltage; and increase the modified cut-off voltage for the lithium-ion battery based on the number of cycles undergone by the lithium-ion battery.
Sun teaches determine an additional number of cycles undergone by the lithium-ion battery based on the voltage of the lithium-ion battery being below the modified cut-off voltage (Figs. 4-5; in step S130 a second cycle count value is obtained representing the charge cycles with respect to the amount of times the voltage of the battery is less than or equal to a second reference voltage, see ¶ [61]. One of ordinary skill understands the iterative nature of a process would result in determining the number of cycles that have occurred since a prior iteration at a subsequent time).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply Sun’s cycle count based on the voltage dropping below a threshold to Keene’s method for modifying the cut-off voltage, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious.
However, Keene fails to explicitly teach increase the modified cut-off voltage for the lithium-ion battery based on the number of cycles undergone by the lithium-ion battery.
Maleki teaches increase the modified cut-off voltage for the lithium-ion battery based on the number of cycles undergone by the lithium-ion battery (Fig. 7; the voltage discharge limit is increased based on the amount of cycles, see ¶ [57-59]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply Maleki’s increase to the voltage discharge limit (i.e., the cutoff voltage) to Keene’s apparatus, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Christensen et al. (USPGPN 20170338666) teaches a battery management system comprising a processor and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the battery management system to estimate one or more states of the battery by applying a battery model to account for physical parameters of a chemical composition of the battery based on one or more measured characteristics of the battery and the one or more estimated characteristics of the battery and regulate a first charging mode of the battery based on the estimation of the one or more states of the one or more battery cells and switch between the first charging mode and a second charging mode based on the estimation of the one or more states of the battery to allow for rapid charging of the battery.
The following was identified by the applicant in the information disclosure statement (IDS) and/or was cited in a Foreign Office Action, however, was not relied upon by the examiner for citation purposes:
US 11063306 B2
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 Frank A Silva whose telephone number is (703)756-1698. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 09:30 am -06:30 pm 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, Drew Dunn can be reached at 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.
/FRANK ALEXIS SILVA/Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/DREW A DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights