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 .
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgement is made of the amendment filed on 04/29/2026 in which claims 1, 3, 5, 9, and 14-15 were amended and claim 2 canceled. Therefore, claims 1 and 3-15 are pending for examination below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-12 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda et al. [US 2022/0289065] in view of Pryor [US 2008/0007202] and Shimawaki et al. [US 2023/0221683].
With respect to claims 1, 14-15, Matsuda discloses a method for charging a battery, comprising: a) acquiring real-time information about the battery [Fig. 4; see items 43-45, note this forms the battery charging circuitry]; c) by using a capacity charging model of the battery, calculating a charging current for the battery based on the real-time information [Fig. 2; item 111, see at least par. 0056-0059; note these comprise processors which implicitly include instruction in order to carry out the functions]; d) charging the battery using the calculated charging current during a charging period [see Fig. 5]; and e) calibrating the capacity charging model based on information of the battery gathered during the charging period [Fig. 2; item 112, see also par. 0071, 0076, 0078, 0083], wherein the capacity charging model is a programmable model [i.e. processors are programmable with instructions] of the battery which is built based on a plurality of charging profiles of the battery [par. 0058; i.e. constant current CC and constant current- constant voltage CC-CV], however, while Matsuda discloses the charging model uses a charging termination time he fails to disclose it is input from a user and wherein the capacity charging model is a programmable model specific to the battery.
Pryor relates to optimizing charging of a battery and teaches b) receiving an on-site input from a user, the on-site input comprising at least one of a user available time in which the battery is to be charged and a target State of Charge (SoC) to which the battery is to be charged [Fig. 4; see item 148 and par. 0022, note the user inputting means includes 120].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Matsuda to allow for the user to enter the time as taught by Pryor for the benefit of allowing the user to tailor the charging constraints to their needs.
Furthermore, Shimawaki relates to remaining capacity estimation model generation and teaches utilizing capacity modeling specific to the battery [par. 0059].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Matsuda to model specific to the battery as taught by Shimawaki for the benefit of improving estimation accuracy as explicitly stated by Shimawaki.
With respect to claim 3, Matsuda further discloses wherein the plurality of charging profiles of the battery comprise a constant voltage (CV) mode capacity profile, and a constant current (CC) mode voltage profile [par. 0058].
With respect to claim 4, Matsuda further discloses wherein in the capacity charging model, the CC mode capacity profile is ahead of the CV mode voltage profile in time [par. 0058; i.e. “CC-CV”].
With respect to claims 5 and 6, Matsuda further discloses wherein the capacity charging model comprises a plurality of capacity-time correlations each defined under a condition including a CC mode current and a CV mode voltage and wherein the plurality of capacity-time correlations is described by a set of parameters that are derived from the plurality of charging profiles of the battery [see Fig. 5 which shows a plurality of capacity (SOC) versus time of the model that utilizes the CC-CV charging process, including an updated/corrected model that is derived from the charging profiles, see par. 0065-0071].
With respect to claim 7, Matsuda further discloses wherein Step a) further comprises recording the following information of the battery: real-time SoC and real-time voltage [12].
With respect to claim 8, Matsuda as applied above in view of Pryor further discloses wherein the charging current is for a CC charging stage of the battery according to the on-site input [par. 0058]; Step c) further comprising steps of: f) identifying, from a plurality of capacity-time correlations in the capacity charging model, an optimal correlation that meets the user available time and/or the target SoC [par. 0058-0062 the creating unit 111 creates/derives the charging plan based on SOC, among other variables]; and g) choosing an optimal current that is associated with the optimal correlation, as the charging current [par. 0062 “creates a charging plan that contributes to suppression of degradation of the secondary battery, based on the required charging amount and the target charging completion time. A charging method using an algorithm suitable for quick charging can be used.”].
With respect to claim 9, Matsuda further discloses wherein each one of the plurality of capacity-time correlations is further associated with a charging voltage for a CV charging stage of the battery [par. 0058; i.e. the CV part of the charging operation].
With respect to claim 10, Matsuda further discloses wherein Step e) further comprises steps of: h) recalling, from a memory device, one or more recent charging profiles which are associated with recent charging cycles and stored in the memory device [i.e. recording unit 12]; i) conducting an analysis to the one or more recent charging profiles to identify a set of updated parameters for the capacity charging model [updating unit 112]; and j) calibrating the capacity charging model using the set of updated parameters [creating unit 111, i.e. see Fig. 5 where the charging plan is updated].
With respect to claim 11, Matsuda further discloses wherein the one or more recent charging profiles comprises latest charging profiles of the battery gathered during the charging period which are stored to the memory device after Step d) [par. 0071-0085; i.e. the updating unit utilizes the current charging information].
With respect to claim 12, Matsuda further discloses wherein the one or more recent charging profiles further comprises previous charging profiles of the battery gathered during charging periods associated with previous charging cycles of the battery [par. 0071-0085; i.e. the charging efficiency of a particular charger of the multiple chargers, which is used in the updating unit].
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda et al. [US 2022/0289065], Pryor [US 2008/0007202], and Shimawaki et al. [US 2023/0221683] as applied above, and further in view of Biletska et al. [US 2016/0202324].
With respect to claim 13, Matsuda fails to disclose wherein the analysis comprises a non-linear regression analysis. However, non-linear regression analysis is well-known in the art. For example, Biletska relates to estimating parameters of a battery and teaches using modeling with non-linear regression [par. 0027, 0093].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify Matsuda to use non-linear regression type modeling for the benefit of utilizing high flexibility in curve fitting and improved predictive accuracy.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 2 and 3 that the creating unit does not satisfy the claim language because it is not a capacity model and addition no charging plan is created.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection cites par. 0056-0059 for a capacity charging model which discloses creating a charging amount based on the SOC from input values. Also paragraphs 0071, 0076, 0078, 0083 are cited for calibrating, which discloses an updating unit for the creating unit. There, the controller create a charging plan as claimed.
Additionally, Applicant argues that Matsuda’s controllers are themselves not capacity charging models. Besides the fact the new reference definitely discloses capacity charging models, under BRI Matsuda’s creating and updating component are equating to a type of modeling.
The arguments against the new amendments are moot in view of the new reference to Shimawaki being applied above.
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 NATHANIEL R PELTON whose telephone number is (571)270-1761. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 5pm.
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.
/NATHANIEL R PELTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights