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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1 – 24 are pending. Claim 14 was amended.
Response to Arguments
35 USC §102
Applicant's arguments filed 1 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (see page 8): First, Liu is silent regarding the rate of the discharge compared to the rate of the charge. Merely stating that the peak
discharge current may be larger than the charge current is not the same as decreasing the state of charge of the battery from the intermediate-cycle state of charge to a final-cycle state of charge at a discharge rate faster than the charge rate as claimed.
Examiner submits that Lee describes a rate of discharge that is “between 25 and 1000 kilowatts (kW)” during the discharge pulse, and a charging rate that is set by a “constant current 54 [that] may be between 0.5 to 12 C”. Claim 3 includes the limitation that “second time is longer than the first time by a factor of at least 3”. Referring to the annotated version of figure 3, below, the magnitude of the charge current is illustrated as greater than the magnitude of the discharge current. Next, the duration of the discharge current is illustrated as significantly less than the duration of the charge current. Thereof, using a broadest reasonable interpretation, the total charge gained during the charging interval appears to significantly exceed the total charge lost during the discharging interval.
In addition, claims 5 and 14 of Liu include the limitation “a peak current of the discharge stage and the constant current of the charge stage have a ratio of 0.5 to 2”. In the case where the ratio of the discharge current to the charge current is 2, then the discharge rate will be twice as fast as the charge rate.
PNG
media_image1.png
408
438
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant argues (see page 9): Merely observing the longer charge time compared to the discharge time is not the same as increase of the state of charge is at least twice as much as the decrease of the state of charge.
Examiner submits that, as a first order approximation, the amount of charge added to a battery is the product of the applied current and the duration that the current tis applied to the battery. As illustrated in Fig 3 of Liu, the charging current is supplied to the battery for roughly 20 times longer than the discharging current is removed from the battery. In addition, claims 5 and 19 of Liu state that “the second time is longer than the first time by a factor of at least 3.”, and claims 5 and 14 of Liu include the limitation “a peak current of the discharge stage and the constant current of the charge stage have a ratio of 0.5 to 2. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the a peak current of the discharge stage is twice the constant current of the charge stage, the fact that the discharge time is at most 3 times less than the charge time indicates that the charge removed during the discharge would be 2/3 the charge added during the charging interval, and therefore the increase of the state of charge would be 1.5 times as much as the decrease of the state of charge, in this worst case scenario. However, as Liu contemplates a ratio as low as 0.5, the increase of the state of charge would become 6 times as much as the decrease of the state of charge, and a greater difference would be observed if the 20x interval of charging to discharging shown in Fig 3 is used. Therefore, using a broadest reasonable interpretation, Liu teaches an “increase of the state of charge is at least twice as much as the decrease of the state of charge”
35 USC §103
Applicant's arguments filed 1 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (see page ): Applicant reiterates the comments made above with regard to the failure of Liu to teach all of the features of independent claims 1, 10, and 18. Neither Mikhaylik, nor Ghantous, alone or in combination with Liu, remedy the deficiencies clearly present in the rejection based on Liu.
Examiner submits that the rejection of claims 1, 10, and 18 are maintained, as discussed above, rendering this argument moot.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 10, 14, 18, 21, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu et al., US 2021/0362619 (hereinafter 'Liu').
Regarding claim 1: Liu teaches a method of charging a battery ([0019]: “an improved charging profile 50 that provides fast charging without reducing battery longevity”) comprising:
charging a battery to a predetermined threshold state of charge using a plurality of charge cycles ([0020, 0026; Fig 4]: discloses repeating a series of charge stages until a battery is “sufficiently charged”), each of the plurality of charge cycles comprising:
charging the battery to increase a state of charge of the battery from an initial-cycle state of charge to an intermediate-cycle state of charge at a charge rate ([0020; Fig 3]: discloses a charging stage 104 that begins immediately after a discharge state has ended, and increases the charge of the battery by charging for “2 to 30 minutes or more particularly 2 to 10 minutes”); and
discharging the battery to decrease the state of charge of the battery from the intermediate-cycle state of charge to a final-cycle state of charge at a discharge rate faster than the charge rate, wherein the increase of the state of charge is at least twice as much as the decrease of the state of charge ([0020, 0021; Fig 3]: discloses a discharge stage 102 that decreases the state of charge of the battery, lasting 0.05 to 30 seconds, where “the peak of the discharge current 102 may be larger than the charge current 104.” The Examiner interprets the much longer charging duration will increase the state of charge of the battery by more than twice the discharging duration decreases the charge).
While Liu discloses starting the initial cycle with a discharge, the Examiner notes that the steady-state as illustrated in Fig 3 comprises a charging period followed by a discharging period, repeated a number of times until the battery reaches the desired state of charge ([0020]).
Regarding claim 2: Liu teaches the method of claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the method of charging the battery further comprises:
comparing the final-cycle state of a most recent charge cycle of the plurality of charge cycles to the predetermined state of charge ([0020]: discloses a charging process that terminates when the battery has achieved a desired state of charge, as “The profile 100 repeatedly performs the discharge stage 102 and the charge stage 104 until the battery is sufficiently charged”).; and
charging the battery using another charge cycle of the plurality of charge cycles in response to the final-cycle state of charge of the most recent charge cycle being less than the predetermined state of charge ([0020]: discloses “The profile 100 repeatedly performs the discharge stage 102 and the charge stage 104 until the battery is sufficiently charged”).
Regarding claim 10: Liu teaches a battery charging apparatus comprising:
a charger to charge one or more batteries ([0013, 0014; Fig 1]: charger 24);
a discharger to discharge the one or more batteries ([0024; Fig 1]: discloses a discharge into the power grid via the charging station 34, or alternatively a discharge into the electrical grid); and
a computing apparatus comprising one or more processors operably coupled to the charger and the discharger and configured to charge a battery to a predetermined threshold state of charge using a plurality of charge cycles ([0014, 0025; Fig 1]: controller 36 “is configured to control a charging profile used to charge the battery 22”), each of the plurality of charge cycles comprising:
charging the one or more batteries to increase a state of charge of the battery from an initial-cycle state of charge to an intermediate-cycle state of charge at a charge rate using the charger ([0020; Fig 3]: discloses a charging stage 104 that begins immediately after a discharge state has ended, and increases the charge of the battery by charging for “2 to 30 minutes or more particularly 2 to 10 minutes”); and
discharging the one or more batteries to decrease the state of charge of the battery from the intermediate-cycle state of charge to a final-cycle state of charge at a discharge rate faster than the charge rate using the discharger, wherein the increase of the state of charge is at least twice as much as the decrease of the state of charge ([0020, 0021; Fig 3]: discloses a discharge stage 102 that decreases the state of charge of the battery, lasting 0.05 to 30 seconds, where “the peak of the discharge current 102 may be larger than the charge current 104.” The Examiner interprets the much longer charging duration will increase the state of charge of the battery by more than twice the discharging duration decreases the charge).
While Liu discloses starting the initial cycle with a discharge, the Examiner notes that the steady-state as illustrated in Fig 3 comprises a charging period followed by a discharging period, repeated a number of times until the battery reaches the desired state of charge ([0020]).
Regarding claim 14: Liu teaches the apparatus of claim 10, as discussed above, wherein to charge the battery to the predetermined threshold state of charge the computing apparatus is further configured to:
compare the final-cycle state of a most recent charge cycle of the plurality of charge cycles to the predetermined state of charge ([0020]: discloses a charging process that terminates when the battery has achieved a desired state of charge, as “The profile 100 repeatedly performs the discharge stage 102 and the charge stage 104 until the battery is sufficiently charged”); and
charge the one or more batteries using another charge cycle of the plurality of charge cycles in response to the final-cycle state of charge of the most recent charge cycle being less than the predetermined state of charge ([0020]: discloses “The profile 100 repeatedly performs the discharge stage 102 and the charge stage 104 until the battery is sufficiently charged”).
Regarding claim 18: Liu teaches a system comprising:
a charging apparatus for charging one or more batteries ([0013, 0014; Fig 1]: charger 24);
a discharge apparatus for discharging the one or more batteries ([0024; Fig 1]: discloses a discharge into the power grid via the charging station 34, or alternatively a discharge into the electrical grid); and
a battery operatively coupled to the charging apparatus, the battery comprising one or more electrochemical cells ([0013; Fig 1]: battery 22); and
a battery management system comprising one or more processors operably coupled to the one or more electrochemical cells and configured to charge the battery to a predetermined threshold state of charge using a plurality of charge cycles ([0014, 0025; Fig 1]: controller 36 “is configured to control a charging profile used to charge the battery 22”), each of the plurality of charge cycles comprising:
charging the battery to increase a state of charge of the battery from an initial-cycle state of charge to an intermediate- cycle state of charge at a charge rate ([0020; Fig 3]: discloses a charging stage 104 that begins immediately after a discharge state has ended, and increases the charge of the battery by charging for “2 to 30 minutes or more particularly 2 to 10 minutes”); and
discharging the battery to decrease the state of charge of the battery from the intermediate-cycle state of charge to a final-cycle state of charge at a discharge rate faster than the charge rate, wherein the increase of the state of charge is at least twice as much as the decrease of the state of charge ([0020, 0021; Fig 3]: discloses a discharge stage 102 that decreases the state of charge of the battery, lasting 0.05 to 30 seconds, where “the peak of the discharge current 102 may be larger than the charge current 104.” The Examiner interprets the much longer charging duration will increase the state of charge of the battery by more than twice the discharging duration decreases the charge).
While Liu discloses starting the initial cycle with a discharge, the Examiner notes that the steady-state as illustrated in Fig 3 comprises a charging period followed by a discharging period, repeated a number of times until the battery reaches the desired state of charge ([0020]).
Regarding claim 21: Liu teaches the system of claim 18, as discussed above, wherein to charge the battery to the predetermined threshold state of charge the battery management system is further configured to:
compare the final-cycle state of a most recent charge cycle of the plurality of charge cycles to the predetermined state of charge ([0020]: discloses a charging process that terminates when the battery has achieved a desired state of charge, as “The profile 100 repeatedly performs the discharge stage 102 and the charge stage 104 until the battery is sufficiently charged”); and
charge the battery using another charge cycle of the plurality of charge cycles in response to the final-cycle state of charge of the most recent charge cycle being less than the predetermined state of charge ([0020]: discloses “The profile 100 repeatedly performs the discharge stage 102 and the charge stage 104 until the battery is sufficiently charged”).
Regarding claim 24: Liu teaches the system of claim 18, as discussed above, wherein the battery one or more electrochemical cells are lithium metal electrochemical cells ( [0012]: discloses that the “cells may be lithium-ion or other chemistry”).
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 3 – 6, 9, 11, 13, 15 – 17, 19, 20, 22, 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Mikhaylik et al., US 2021/0135294 (hereinafter 'Mikhaylik')
Regarding claims 3 and 15: Liu teaches the method of claim 1 and the apparatus of claim 10, as discussed above.
Liu is silent with respect to wherein
the charge rate of a first charge cycle of the plurality of charge cycles is greater than the charge rate of a last charge cycle of the plurality of charge cycles.
Mikhaylik teaches an electrochemical cell management system ([Abstract]) that includes
the charge rate of a first charge cycle of the plurality of charge cycles is greater than the charge rate of a last charge cycle of the plurality of charge cycles ([0050, 0051]: discloses decreasing the rate of current used in charging and discharging the battery from one cycle to the next cycle)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, to modify Liu in view of Mikhaylik to improve the “cycle life of a … battery, and consequently the longevity and performance of the … battery [0039]”.
Regarding claims 4, 16, and 23: Liu teaches the method of claim 1, the apparatus of claim 10, and the system of claim 18, as discussed above.
Liu is silent with respect to wherein each of the plurality of charge cycles further comprises:
determining the initial-cycle state of charge based on a current state of charge of the battery or the final-cycle state of charge of a most recent charge cycle; and
determining the charge rate based on the initial-cycle state of charge.
Mikhaylik teaches an electrochemical cell management system ([Abstract]) that includes
determining the initial-cycle state of charge based on a current state of charge of the battery or the final-cycle state of charge of a most recent charge cycle ([0067]: discloses determining the battery State of Charge while determining the internal impedance of the battery); and
determining the charge rate based on the initial-cycle state of charge ([0069]: discloses determining how to charge the battery based at least partially on the state of charge of the battery).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, to modify Liu in view of Mikhaylik to improve the “cycle life of a … battery, and consequently the longevity and performance of the … battery [0039]”.
Regarding claims 5, 17, and 22: Liu teaches the method of claim 1, the apparatus of claim 10, and the system of claim 18, as discussed above, wherein the discharge rate is [larger than] the charge rate ([0021]: the peak of the discharge current 102 may be larger than the charge current 104.)
Liu is silent with respect to wherein the discharge rate is at least twice as fast as the charge rate.
Mikhaylik teaches an electrochemical cell management system ([Abstract]) that includes
the discharge rate is at least twice as fast as the charge rate ([0049; Fig 1B]: discloses a controller that causes a battery to be discharge at a rate twice as fast, or more, than it is charged “(i.e., the charging rate or current is half as fast as the discharging rate or current)”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, to modify Liu in view of Mikhaylik to improve the “cycle life of a … battery, and consequently the longevity and performance of the … battery [0039]”.
Regarding claim 6: Liu teaches the method of claim 1, as discussed above.
Liu is silent with respect to wherein
the increase of the state of charge is at least 10 percent of a maximum capacity of the battery and no greater than 40 percent of the maximum capacity of the battery.
Mikhaylik teaches an electrochemical cell management system ([Abstract]) that includes
the increase of the state of charge is at least 10 percent of a maximum capacity of the battery and no greater than 40 percent of the maximum capacity of the battery ([0051, 0053]: discloses a variety of charge rates utilized by the charging algorithm, ranging from 10% to 75% of the cell’s capacity, which is interpreted as a charging rate varying from 0.01C up to 0.75C, as determined by the charging algorithm).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, to modify Liu in view of Mikhaylik to improve the “cycle life of a … battery, and consequently the longevity and performance of the … battery [0039]” by avoiding the application of current more quickly than warranted given the resistance of the battery cell.
Regarding claim 9: Liu teaches the method of claim 1, as discussed above.
Liu is silent with respect to wherein
a difference between the charge rate of any one of the plurality of charge cycles and any other of the plurality of charge cycles is less than 0.5C.
Mikhaylik teaches an electrochemical cell management system ([Abstract]) that includes
a difference between the charge rate of any one of the plurality of charge cycles and any other of the plurality of charge cycles is less than 0.5C ([0051, 0053]: discloses a variety of charge rates utilized by the charging algorithm, ranging from 10% to 75% of the cell’s capacity, which is interpreted as a charging rate varying from 0.01C up to 0.75C, as determined by the charging algorithm).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, to modify Liu in view of Mikhaylik to improve the “cycle life of a … battery, and consequently the longevity and performance of the … battery [0039]” by avoiding the application of current more quickly than warranted given the resistance of the battery cell.
Regarding claim 11: Liu teaches the apparatus of claim 10, as discussed above, wherein the discharger comprises:
a load ([0024; Fig 1]: discloses a “discharge load for the discharge pulse” provided by a 0discharge into the power grid via the charging station 34, or alternatively a discharge into the electrical grid); and
a switch operatively coupled to the load and the computing apparatus to selectively allow discharge of the one or more batteries through the load ([0024, 0025]: discloses that the charger has a bi-directional capability, with the direction of current flow managed by controller 36);
wherein the computing apparatus is configured to operate the switch at a duty cycle during discharge of the one or more batteries ([Fig 3]: discloses a duty cycle used for battery charge and discharge cycles).
Liu is silent with respect to
the duty cycle based on a resistance of the load and the discharge rate.
Mikhaylik teaches an electrochemical cell management system ([Abstract]) that includes
the duty cycle based on a resistance of the load and the discharge rate ([0068 – 0070]: discloses that the charge/discharge pulses “should not be applied faster than a rate equal to about double or triple RC time constants”, where resistance of the cell is interpreted as “R” in “RC time constants” ).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, to modify Liu in view of Mikhaylik to improve the “cycle life of a … battery, and consequently the longevity and performance of the … battery [0039]” by avoiding the application of current more quickly than warranted given the resistance of the battery cell.
Regarding claim 13: Liu teaches the apparatus of claim 10, as discussed above.
Liu is silent with respect to wherein the discharger comprises:
a plurality of loads; and
a switching network comprising a plurality of switches, the switching network operatively coupled to the plurality of loads and the computing apparatus and configured to selectively allow discharge of the one or more batteries through one or more of the plurality of loads;
wherein the computing apparatus is further configured to operate the switch network during discharge based on a resistance of each of the plurality of loads and the discharge rate.
PNG
media_image2.png
278
427
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Mikhaylik teaches an electrochemical cell management system ([Abstract]) that includes
a plurality of loads ([0091, 0092, 0095; Fig 3A]: teaches a plurality of battery cells ad an eternal load, where each battery can serve as a load during a cell rebalancing operation); and
a switching network comprising a plurality of switches, the switching network operatively coupled to the plurality of loads and the computing apparatus and configured to selectively allow discharge of the one or more batteries through one or more of the plurality of loads ([0092; Fig 3A]: teaches a plurality of switches that “may connect the cell blocks (e.g., 321-325) in the series, parallel, serial/parallel, or any other suitable topology”);
wherein the computing apparatus is further configured to operate the switch network during discharge based on a resistance of each of the plurality of loads and the discharge rate ([0068 – 0070]: discloses that the charge/discharge pulses “should not be applied faster than a rate equal to about double or triple RC time constants”, where resistance of the cell is interpreted as “R” in “RC time constants” ).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, to modify Liu in view of Mikhaylik to extend the battery control methodology to be used with the multi-pack, multi-array arrangements used in traction batteries of vehicles ([00843]).
Regarding claim 19: Liu teaches the system of claim 18, as discussed above, wherein the discharger comprises:
a load ([0024; Fig 1]: discloses a “discharge load for the discharge pulse” provided by a 0discharge into the power grid via the charging station 34, or alternatively a discharge into the electrical grid); and
a switch operatively coupled to the load and the computing apparatus to selectively allow discharge of the one or more batteries through the load ([0024, 0025]: discloses that the charger has a bi-directional capability, with the direction of current flow managed by controller 36).
Liu is silent with respect to wherein
the battery management system is configured to operate the switch at a duty cycle during discharge of the battery, the duty cycle based on a resistance of the load and the discharge rate.
Mikhaylik teaches an electrochemical cell management system ([Abstract]) that includes
a duty cycle based on a resistance of the load and the discharge rate ([0068 – 0070]: discloses that the charge/discharge pulses “should not be applied faster than a rate equal to about double or triple RC time constants”, where resistance of the cell is interpreted as “R” in “RC time constants” ).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, to modify Liu in view of Mikhaylik to improve the “cycle life of a … battery, and consequently the longevity and performance of the … battery [0039]” by avoiding the application of current more quickly than warranted given the resistance of the battery cell.
Regarding claim 20: Liu teaches the system of claim 18, as discussed above
Liu is silent with respect to wherein the discharger comprises:
a plurality of loads; and
a switching network comprising a plurality of switches, the switching network operatively coupled to the plurality of loads and the battery management system and configured to selectively allow discharge of the battery through one or more of the plurality of loads;
wherein the battery management system is further configured to operate the switch network during discharge based on a resistance of each of the plurality of loads and the discharge rate.
Mikhaylik teaches an electrochemical cell management system ([Abstract]) that includes
a plurality of loads ([0091, 0092, 0095; Fig 3A]: teaches a plurality of battery cells ad an eternal load, where each battery can serve as a load during a cell rebalancing operation); and
a switching network comprising a plurality of switches, the switching network operatively coupled to the plurality of loads and the computing apparatus and configured to selectively allow discharge of the one or more batteries through one or more of the plurality of loads ([0092; Fig 3A]: teaches a plurality of switches that “may connect the cell blocks (e.g., 321-325) in the series, parallel, serial/parallel, or any other suitable topology”);
wherein the battery management system is further configured to operate the switch network during discharge based on a resistance of each of the plurality of loads and the discharge rate ([0068 – 0070]: discloses that the charge/discharge pulses “should not be applied faster than a rate equal to about double or triple RC time constants”, where resistance of the cell is interpreted as “R” in “RC time constants” ).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, to modify Liu in view of Mikhaylik to extend the battery control methodology to be used with the multi-pack, multi-array arrangements used in traction batteries of vehicles ([00843]).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Ghantous et al., US 2019/0072618 (hereinafter 'Ghantous').
Regarding claim 7: Liu teaches the method of claim 1, as discussed above.
Liu is silent with respect to wherein
the increase of the state of charge of a charge cycle of the plurality of charge cycles is greater than the increase of the state of charge of another charge cycle of the plurality of charge cycles.
PNG
media_image3.png
325
461
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Ghantous teaches an apparatus for charging a battery using a set of “charge packets” ([0046; Fig 2]) that includes the increase of the state of charge of a charge cycle of the plurality of charge cycles is greater than the increase of the state of charge of another charge cycle of the plurality of charge cycles ([0080; Fig 5c]: displays how the charging current is varied based on the state of charge of the battery, where the amount of increase in state of charge for each step is different from another step in the charging process).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, to modify Liu in view of Ghantous to avoid extra decay to the battery or to improve the battery’s cycle life ([0044]).
Regarding claim 8: Liu teaches the method of claim 1, as discussed above, further comprising charging the battery using constant voltage charging ([0022]: the charging profile may include a constant voltage stage)
Liu is silent with respect to charging the battery using constant voltage charging in response to the final-cycle state of charge of a most recent charge cycle of the plurality of charge cycles being equal to or greater than the predetermined threshold state of charge.
Ghantous teaches an apparatus for charging a battery using a set of “charge packets” ([0046; Fig 2]) that includes using constant voltage charging in response to the final-cycle state of charge of a most recent charge cycle of the plurality of charge cycles being equal to or greater than the predetermined threshold state of charge ([0070; Fig 3a-3d]: disclose a charging process that switches from a series of charge packets to “a constant voltage (CV) phase … upon charging the battery/cell to a predetermined state of charge).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, to modify Liu in view of Ghantous to avoid extra decay to the battery or to improve the battery’s cycle life ([0044]).
Claim 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Mikhaylik in view of Ghantous.
Regarding claim 12: Liu in view of Mikhaylik teaches the apparatus of claim 11, as discussed above/
Liu in view of Mikhaylik wherein
the switch includes a pulse width modulator.
Ghantous teaches an apparatus for charging a battery using a set of “charge packets” ([0046; Fig 2]) that includes a pulse width modulator ([0069, Fig 2]: illustrates a variety of different charge pulses followed by discharge pulses, that are modulated as compared to each other).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, to modify Liu in view of Ghantous to avoid extra decay to the battery or to improve the battery’s cycle life ([0044]).
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 Brent A Fairbanks whose telephone number is (408)918-7532. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00AM - 5:30PM PDT.
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.
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.
/Brent A. Fairbanks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights