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 filed 12/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Li fails to teach or suggest commencing charging of the first and second battery subpack, powering an accessory load of the vehicle using the first battery subpack while the first battery subpack is charging, and switching an accessory load off the first battery subpack and other the second battery subpack. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Li teaches charging both the first and second battery packs (Fig.4, VOMs 1-5), powering an accessory load of the vehicle using either battery while the battery is charging (Fig.4, VOM1: SA1/SA2 are closed while SA3 is closed), and suggests switching an accessory load off the first battery subpack and other the second battery subpack (¶0037-38: either battery pack may be used to energize the electrical load to reduce the chances of a charge imbalance; controller may balance the respective SOCs).
Applicant further argues that Kim does not teach or suggest connecting a first battery subpack to a first charge port and a second battery subpack to a second charge port. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner relies on Kim to teach the use of two charge ports providing power to a battery, as explained in the rejection of claim 6 presented in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 09/09/2025. The combination of Li with Kim would then teach the claimed language of connecting a first battery subpack to a first charge port and a second battery subpack to a second charge port.
Applicant further argues that Nguyen does not teach or suggest disconnecting the first battery pack once the first battery subpack is fully charged. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As disclosed in the rejection of claim 3 presented in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 09/09/2025, Nguyen teaches disconnecting a battery from a charger once it reaches a designated voltage, which examiner interprets to be a full voltage (Fig.2D; Col.9, lines 18-21: battery 20A is disconnected from the charger once it reaches a predetermined charge level).
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).
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.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 10, 11, 17, & 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (USPGPN 2021/0078429 A1 – published Mar. 18, 2021), in view of Kim et al. (USPGPN 2013/0088197 A1 – published Apr. 11, 2013), Nguyen et al. (US Patent 10,978,887 B2 – published Apr. 4, 2021), and Goedken et al. (US Patent 5,057,762 A – published 1991).
Regarding Claim 1, Li (Fig.3) teaches a method of charging a battery, comprising:
connecting a first battery subpack (12A) of the electric vehicle to a charge port (30);
connecting a second battery subpack (12B) of the electric vehicle to the charge port (30), wherein the first battery subpack has a greater state of charge than the second battery subpack (¶0039: determining lower of the two battery packs);
commencing charging of the first battery subpack and the second battery subpack (Fig.4, VOM 1 & 2 charge both battery packs);
detecting a first state of charge of the first battery subpack (¶0039: determining lower of the two battery packs means the state of charge of 12A is detected);
detecting a second state of charge of the second battery subpack (¶0039: determining lower of the two battery packs means the state of charge of 12B is detected);
determining a selected battery subpack from the first battery subpack and the second battery subpack having a greater state of charge based on a comparison of the first state of charge and the second state of charge (¶0039: lower state of charge, indicates the greater state of charge is also determined); and
powering an accessory load of the vehicle using the first battery subpack, while the first battery subpack is charging (¶0039: either battery pack can power a connected electrical load while pack 12A is charging).
Li fails to explicitly teach first and second charge ports respectively connected to first and second battery subpacks; disconnecting the first battery pack once the first battery subpack is fully charged; and switching the accessory load off the first battery subpack and onto the second battery subpack.
However, Kim teaches a battery charging method for a vehicle which uses two charger ports electrically connected to each other (Fig.1; ¶0014: battery is charged through the first and second charge connecting unit).
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 method taught by Li with Kim to include a second charge port electrically connected to the first charge port, which would provide a first charge port connected to the first battery subpack while charging the first battery subpack and a second charge port connected to the second battery subpack while charging the second battery subpack. Doing so allows for faster charging of an electric vehicle, as evidenced by Kim.
Moreover, Nguyen teaches that a battery can be disconnected from a charger connection once it reaches a full voltage (Fig.2D; Col.9, lines 18-21: battery 20A is disconnected from the charger once it reaches a predetermined charge level, examiner interprets to be a full charge voltage).
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 Li, with Nguyen to disconnect the battery from the charger, and therefore from the electrical load, when it reaches a full charge voltage. Doing so helps maintain the fully charged state of the selected battery subpack.
Moreover, Goedken teaches a battery charging method where batteries are charged sequentially (Col.11, lines 31-34: second battery is charged after the first battery).
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 further modified the method taught by Li with Goedken to charge the other battery subpack after fully charging the selected battery subpack. Doing so ensures both batteries will reach a full charge state, and preserves the full charge of the selected battery subpack.
Lastly, Li suggests a either battery may be connected to power auxiliary loads while a single battery is under charge (Fig.4, VOM (5) CV1-B: SA1/SA2 are on and SA3-5 are off while SB1/SB2 are off and SB3 & SB4 are on).
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 Li to include switching off the auxiliary load from the first battery when it is not being charged and onto the second battery being charged. Doing so would allow the controller to reduce the chances of a charge imbalance between the battery packs, by not allowing a continued power draw from the first battery while only the second battery is being charged to a full charge level, as suggested by Li (¶0037-38: reduces the chances of a charge imbalance; controller may balance the respective SOCs).
Regarding Claim 3, Li, as modified, further teaches providing power from the selected battery subpack to an accessory load while the selected battery subpack is being charged and switching the accessory load off the selected battery subpack once the selected battery subpack is fully charged (as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding Claim 5, Li, as modified, further teaches switching the accessory load further comprises pre-charging another battery subpack prior to connecting the accessory load to the other battery subpack (¶0033: pre-charging is performed prior to connecting or disconnecting the batteries).
Regarding Claim 6, Li, as modified, further teaches wherein the first charge port and the second charge port are electrically connected (as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above).
Li, as modified, fails to explicitly teach the selected battery subpack is selected by determining which of the first battery subpack and the second battery subpack has a greater state of charge.
However, Goedken teaches a battery charging method for prioritizing charging a battery with a higher state of charge over a battery with a lower state of charge (Col.11, lines 29-31: battery with the highest amount of charge is fully charged in the least amount of time).
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 further modified the method taught by Li, in view of Kim, Nguyen, and Goedken, with Goedken to select the battery subpack with the greater state of charge rather than the lower state of charge. Doing so ensures the battery with the highest state of charge reaches a fully charged state in the least amount of time.
Regarding Claim 7, Li, as modified, further teaches pre- charging the selected battery subpack and coupling the selected battery subpack to the first charge port and the second charge port (¶0033: pre-charging is performed prior to connecting or disconnecting the batteries) prior to connecting another battery subpack to the first charge port and the second charge port (as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1, sequential charging).
Regarding Claims 8 & 15, Li (Figs. 1, 2, & 3) teaches a system for charging an electric vehicle (20), comprising:
a first battery subpack (120A) connectable to a charge port (30);
a second battery subpack (120B) connectable to the charge port (30), wherein the first battery subpack has a greater state of charge than the second battery subpack (¶0039: determining lower of the two battery packs);
a processor (50) configured to:
commence charging of the first battery subpack and the second battery subpack (Fig.4, VOM 1 & 2 charge both battery packs);
determine a selected battery subpack from the first battery subpack and the second battery subpack having a greater state of charge based on a comparison of a first state of charge of the first battery subpack a second state of charge of the second battery subpack (¶0039: lower state of charge, also indicates the greater state of charge is determined); and
power an accessory load of the vehicle using the first battery subpack, while the first battery subpack is charging (¶0039: either battery pack can power a connected electrical load while pack 12A is charging).
Li fails to explicitly teach first and second charge ports respectively connected to first and second battery subpacks; disconnecting the first battery pack once the first battery subpack is fully charged; and switching the accessory load off the first battery subpack and onto the second battery subpack.
However, Kim teaches a battery charging method for a vehicle which uses two charger ports electrically connected to each other (Fig.1; ¶0014: battery is charged through the first and second charge connecting unit).
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 method taught by Li with Kim to include a second charge port electrically connected to the first charge port, which would provide a first charge port connected to the first battery subpack while charging the first battery subpack and a second charge port connected to the second battery subpack while charging the second battery subpack. Doing so allows for faster charging of an electric vehicle, as evidenced by Kim.
Moreover, Nguyen teaches that a battery can be disconnected from a charger connection once it reaches a full voltage (Fig.2D; Col.9, lines 18-21: battery 20A is disconnected from the charger once it reaches a predetermined charge level, examiner interprets to be a full charge voltage).
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 Li, with Nguyen to disconnect the battery from the charger, and therefore from the electrical load, when it reaches a full charge voltage. Doing so helps maintain the fully charged state of the selected battery subpack.
Moreover, Goedken teaches a battery charging method where batteries are charged sequentially (Col.11, lines 31-34: second battery is charged after the first battery).
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 further modified the method taught by Li with Goedken to charge the other battery subpack after fully charging the selected battery subpack. Doing so ensures both batteries will reach a full charge state, and preserves the full charge of the selected battery subpack.
Lastly, Li suggests a either battery may be connected to power auxiliary loads while a single battery is under charge (Fig.4, VOM (5) CV1-B: SA1/SA2 are on and SA3-5 are off while SB1/SB2 are off and SB3 & SB4 are on).
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 Li to include switching off the auxiliary load from the first battery when it is not being charged and onto the second battery being charged. Doing so would allow the controller to reduce the chances of a charge imbalance between the battery packs, by not allowing a continued power draw from the first battery while only the second battery is being charged to a full charge level, as suggested by Li (¶0037-38: reduces the chances of a charge imbalance; controller may balance the respective SOCs).
Regarding Claims 10 & 17, Li, as modified, further teaches the processor configured to provide power from the selected battery subpack to an accessory load while the selected battery subpack is being charged and switching the accessory load off the selected battery subpack once the selected battery subpack is fully charged (as disclosed in the rejection of claims 8 & 15 above).
Regarding Claims 12 & 19, Li, as modified, further teaches the processor pre-charging another battery subpack prior to connecting the accessory load to the other battery subpack (¶0033: pre-charging is performed prior to connecting or disconnecting the batteries).
Regarding Claims 13 & 20, Li, as modified, further teaches wherein the first charge port and the second charge port are electrically connected (as disclosed in the rejection of claims 8 & 15 above).
Li, as modified, fails to explicitly teach the selected battery subpack is selected by determining which of the first battery subpack and the second battery subpack has a greater state of charge.
However, Goedken teaches a battery charging method for prioritizing charging a battery with a higher state of charge over a battery with a lower state of charge (Col.11, lines 29-31: battery with the highest amount of charge is fully charged in the least amount of time).
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 further modified the method taught by Li, in view of Kim, Nguyen, and Goedken, with Goedken to select the battery subpack with the greater state of charge rather than the lower state of charge. Doing so ensures the battery with the highest state of charge reaches a fully charged state in the least amount of time.
Regarding Claim 14, Li, as modified, further teaches pre- charging the selected battery subpack and coupling the selected battery subpack to the first charge port and the second charge port (¶0033: pre-charging is performed prior to connecting or disconnecting the batteries) prior to connecting another battery subpack to the first charge port and the second charge port (as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1, sequential charging).
Regarding Claim 21, Li, as modified, further teaches witching the accessory load off the second battery subpack and onto the first battery subpack once the second battery subpack is fully charged (as disclosed in the rejection of claim 6 above, sequentially charging the batteries in an instance where the second battery has a greater starting SOC would result in the accessory load being switched from the second battery to the first battery, based on the obviousness modification applied in claim 1).
Regarding Claims 22 & 23, Li, as modified, further teaches the processor is further configured to switch the accessory load off the second battery subpack and onto the first battery subpack once the second battery subpack is fully charged (as disclosed in the rejections of claims 13 & 20 above, sequentially charging the batteries in an instance where the second battery has a greater starting SOC would result in the accessory load being switched from the second battery to the first battery, based on the obviousness modification applied in claims 8 & 15).
Claim(s) 2, 9, & 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, in view of Kim, Nguyen, and Goedken, as applied in the rejections of claims 1, 8, & 15 above, and further in view of Takami et al. (USPGPN 2007/0284159 A1 – published 2007).
Regarding Claim 2, Li, as modified, fails to explicitly teach charging the selected battery subpack in a constant current charging mode until a cell voltage of a battery cell of the selected battery subpack reaches a voltage threshold and charging the selected battery subpack using a constant voltage charging mode when the cell voltage of the battery cell is greater than the voltage threshold.
However, Takami teaches that it is common in the art for batteries to be charged with constant current followed by constant voltage (¶0040: CCCV charging is CC charging until a particular voltage than CV charging).
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 method taught by Li, in view of Kim, Nguyen, and Goedken, with Takami to charge the battery using the CCCV method for improved cycle life.
Regarding Claims 9 & 16, Li, as modified, fails to explicitly teach the processor is further configured to charge the selected battery subpack in a constant current charging mode until a cell voltage of a battery cell of the selected battery subpack reaches a voltage threshold and charging the selected battery subpack using a constant voltage charging mode when the cell voltage of the battery cell is greater than the voltage threshold.
However, Takami teaches that it is common in the art for batteries to be charged with constant current followed by constant voltage (¶0040: CCCV charging is CC charging until a particular voltage than CV charging).
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 method taught by Li, in view of Kim, Nguyen, and Goedken, with Takami to charge the battery using the CCCV method for improved cycle life.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hendrix et al. (USPGPN 2019/0052119) teaches a system for simultaneously charging two batteries from two different charging ports.
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