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 03/02/2026 claims 1-9 and 11-14 are pending. Independent claims 1, 13, and 14 are amended to address the 35 USC 101 rejection and by adding the limitations of cancelled claim 10.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, see pages 15-19 of the Remarks, filed 03/02/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-2 and 10-14 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of a combination of Choe with a newly found prior art.
The remaining arguments are moot as the applicant’s arguments for the remaining claims were based on dependency of the independent claims.
The drawing objections and the specification objections are withdrawn due to the amendments made by the applicant.
The 35 USC 101 Rejections are withdrawn due to the amendments made by the applicant.
This Office Action is made Final due to the amendments.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
With respect to claim 14, the limitations are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 1-2 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choe et al. (USPGPN 20210013731) and further in view of Stewart et al. (USPGPN 20210111446).
With respect to independent claims 1, 13, and 14, Choe teaches a battery charging system and method performed by a computing apparatus comprising at least one processor (Figs. 1-19; battery charging system and method performed by a computing apparatus comprising at least one processor, see ¶ [122]).
Choe teaches a battery pack comprising a battery (Fig. 1; secondary battery 20).
Choe teaches a sensor configured to detect a battery current, a battery voltage, and a battery temperature of the battery (Fig. 1; sensing unit 110 includes a current measuring means 111, a voltage measuring means 112, and a temperature measuring means 113 of the battery 20, see ¶ [118]).
Choe teaches a battery management unit comprising a memory and at least one processor to manage the battery (Fig. 1; a charging apparatus 100 comprising a memory unit 130 and a control unit 120, see ¶ [115]).
Choe teaches obtaining a reference charging current and a reference lithium dendrite growth rate at the reference charging current (Fig. 12; illustrates obtaining a reference charging current and surface ion concentrations and side reaction rates at the charging current are used as reference values. One of ordinary skill understands that surface ion concentrations and side reaction rates are closely linked to dendrite growth rates).
Choe teaches detecting a battery voltage, a battery current, and a battery temperature of a battery in utilization (Fig. 1; sensing unit 110 includes a current measuring means 111, a voltage measuring means 112, and a temperature measuring means 113 of the battery 20, see ¶ [118]).
Choe teaches based on the battery current, the battery voltage, and the battery temperature, estimating an internal electrochemical parameter of the battery (Fig. 12; current, voltage, and temperature are used to estimate internal electrochemical parameters of the battery).
Choe teaches based on the internal electrochemical parameter, calculating an overpotential distribution of an active material-electrolyte interface according to a charging current of the battery (Fig. 2; the overpotential η--- of the anode interface and the overpotential ηside of the side-reaction at the anode-electrolyte interface are calculated as shown in ¶ [143, 146] which are based on internal electrochemical parameters according to a charging current of the battery).
Choe teaches based on the overpotential distribution, calculating a lithium dendrite growth rate according to the charging current of the battery (Fig. 12; the applied charging current is used by the ROM-EKF to update internal electrochemical parameters from which interfacial overpotential are calculated to determine the side-reaction rate which one of ordinary skill understands is linked to dendrite growth).
Choe teaches based on the reference lithium dendrite growth rate and the lithium dendrite growth rate according to the charging current, determining a charging current value of the battery (Fig. 12; the system uses the reference values and the actual values of the side-reaction rates to regulate the charger by updating it with a charging current value).
Choe teaches utilizing the charging current value of the battery to charge the battery (Fig. 12; the charging current value is used to charge the secondary battery).
Choe teaches wherein the charging current value of the battery is determined based on a value of the charging current at which the lithium dendrite growth rate according to the charging current is compared to the reference lithium dendrite growth rate (Fig. 12; the charging current is regulated due to the feedback mechanism comparison which considers the side-reaction rates).
However, Choe fails to explicitly teach a steady-state distribution; regulating the charging current based on the lithium dendrite growth rate is equal to the reference lithium dendrite growth rate.
Stewart teaches regulating the charging current based on the lithium dendrite growth rate is equal to the reference lithium dendrite growth rate (¶[50]; teaches regulating charging current based on a degradation rate by defining charging conditions as a function of a maximum allowable side reaction loss rate).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to have adapted Stewart’s physics-based model of the battery system to Choe’s battery charging system in order to account for regulating the charging current based on the lithium dendrite growth rate is equal to the reference lithium dendrite growth rate. The advantage of this being a BMS which better balances the operational requirements demanded of the battery while minimizing, e.g., aging effects of the battery would be beneficial. It would be further beneficial if the user of the system could influence the manner in which the BMS controlled battery operation to account for operational desires of the user for the overall system (see ¶[12] of Stewart).
Choe discloses the claimed invention except for a steady-state distribution. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to evaluate the steady-state version of the overpotentials, concentrations, and reaction-rates since it has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious.
With respect to claim 2, Choe teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Choe teaches wherein the obtaining of the reference charging current and the reference lithium dendrite growth rate comprises: obtaining the reference charging current of a battery; calculating an overpotential steady-state distribution of an active material-electrolyte interface of the new battery according to the reference charging current; based on the overpotential steady-state distribution of the active material-electrolyte interface of the battery, calculating the reference lithium dendrite growth rate at the reference charging current (Fig. 12; using the charging current as a reference to be used by the ROM-EKF to update internal electrochemical parameters from which interfacial overpotential are calculated to determine the side-reaction rate which one of ordinary skill understands is linked to dendrite growth).
Choe discloses the claimed invention except for a new battery and applying the method using the new battery. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to obtain the reference charging current and reference lithium dendrite growth rate by applying the methods of Choe to a different battery, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art.
With respect to claim 11, Choe teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Choe teaches further comprising transmitting the charging current value to a charging apparatus (Fig. 12; the charging current value is transmitted to the charger).
With respect to claim 12, Choe teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 12. Further, Choe teaches a computer program stored in a medium for executing the battery charging method on a computing apparatus (¶ [122, 124]; the memory 130 stores a program that is executable by the control unit 120 to perform the methods on computing apparatuses such as ASICs, DSPs, DSPDs, PLDs, FPGAs, and microprocessors).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Guha et al. (USPGPN 20210247460) teaches a method and a system for improving the state of health (SoH) of rechargeable batteries. The method comprises receiving a plurality of battery parameters during charging of a battery and estimating model parameters of the battery using a mathematical model.
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