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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 06/12/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 7, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bhardwaj et al. (US 2011/0037439), hereinafter Bhardwaj.
As to claims 7 and 10, Bhardwaj discloses in figure 1, a charging system for a vehicle, including:
a charger [Voltage source, and current source are charger]: and a battery management system (BMS) [battery controller (320)] , wherein the charger supplies energy in constant current mode to at least one battery for a pre-determined duration when a state-of-charge (SOC) of the at least one battery is less than a pre-determined battery state of charge (BSOC) [see ¶0049] , and
supplies energy in a constant voltage (CV) mode when the SOC of the at least one battery reaches or exceeds the pre-determined BSOC. the BMS to monitors the SOC of the at least one battery continuously and determines a charging mode of the charger [see ¶0049],
the BMS instructs the charger to change to the CV mode when the SOC of the at least one battery being monitored reaches or exceeds the predetermined BSOC, the charger stops charging when the SOC is equal to full charge capacity of the at least one battery, and during the CV mode, a charging current decreases over time as the SOC of the at least one battery approaches the full charge capacity [noted that constant current charging is performed until the battery reaches 93% capacity and the constant voltage charging is performed after the battery reaches 93% of capacity and continue until battery reaches 100% capacity, the constant current decreases ruing constant voltage charging duration; see ¶0049].
As to claim 12, Bhardwaj discloses in figure 1, wherein the full charge capacity of the at least one battery is a predetermined standard maximum charge value equal to 100 percent state of charge of the at least one battery [see ¶0049].
As to claims 10 and 12, the method merely recites the steps of using the elements of the device as disclosed above and since each element must be present to perform the steps, the method as claimed would be inherent in view of the device as disclosed by Bhardwaj.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhardwaj in view of Machine Translation of CN102157759A, hereinafter 759’.
As to claim 8, Bhardwaj discloses all of the claim limitations except, wherein the pre-determined BSOC is a parameter for transitioning from constant current mode to constant voltage mode (CV) and a value of the pre-determined BSOC is in range from 95 percent to 99.5 percent of rated maximum voltage of the at least one battery.
759’ discloses in figure 1, wherein the pre-determined BSOC of the at least one battery is in a range of 95 percent to 99.5 percent of rated maximum voltage of the at least one battery [the constant charging current mode transitions into constant charging voltage when battery rated voltage is 95% or more; see ¶0011].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Bhardwaj’s Charing and set charging transition point at 95% of rated battery voltage as taught by 759’ in order to avoid battery damage due to overcharging.
As to claim 11, Bhardwaj discloses all of the claim limitations except, wherein the pre-determined BSOC of the at least one battery is in a range of 95 percent to 99.5 percent of rated maximum voltage of the at least one battery.
759’ discloses in figure 1, wherein the pre-determined BSOC of the at least one battery is in a range of 95 percent to 99.5 percent of rated maximum voltage of the at least one battery [the constant charging current mode transitions into constant charging voltage when battery rated voltage is 95^ or more; see ¶0011].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Bhardwaj’s Charing and set charging transition point at 95% of rated battery voltage as taught by 759’ in order to avoid battery damage due to overcharging.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to use appropriate SOC value for charging mode turning point in Nakamura’s apparatus in order to protect battery over-charging/ over-heating, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
It is also noted that all the claimed elements of applicant' s inventions were known in the prior art (e.g. constant current charging mode, constant voltage mode, charging mode transition point, charger circuit, constant current charging time, constant voltage charging time, voltage detector, voltage gradient calculator, battery life judging means etc.,) and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, proper motivation/rationale to combine is as given in the office action. See KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhardwaj in view of Yokoyama et al. (US 6,329,791), hereinafter Yokoyama.
As to claim 9 , Bhardwaj discloses all of the claim limitations except, wherein constant voltage of the charger corresponds to a rated maximum voltage of the at least one battery.
Yokoyama discloses in figure 1, wherein constant voltage of the charger corresponds to a rated maximum voltage of the at least one battery [see Abstract, Col. 2, lines 55-60; Col. 4, lines 36-39].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention n was made to use rated voltage of the battery during constant charging voltage of Bhardwaj’s as taught by Yokoyama in order to avoid battery deterioration due to higher charging voltage.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL BERHANU whose telephone number is (571)272-8430. The examiner can normally be reached M_F.
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 A. Huffman can be reached at Julian.Huffman@uspto.gov. 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.
/SAMUEL BERHANU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
