DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
In the communication dated December 30, 2025, claims 1-21 are pending. Claims 1-4, 7, 9-12, 13 and 16-18 are currently amended and claim 21 is newly added.
Response to Arguments
The applicant argues that Ha does not disclose “to control a current ratio by which the entire current introduced into the battery control system is distributed to the first battery cell and the second battery cell, to be within a predetermined range”.
Although Ha teaches comparing a specified ratio to the fully charged voltage, Ha does not explicitly teach controlling a current ratio. Applicant’s arguments, see page 13, filed December 30, 2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 9 and 16 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Jung et al. US20170133862A1 as detailed further in the rejection 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.
Claims 1-2, 7-10, 14-16 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ha et al. US20200266627A1 in view of Jung et al. US20170133862A1.
Regarding Claim 1: Ha discloses a battery control system (FIG. 3) comprising:
a first battery cell (321);
a second battery cell (322) connected in parallel to the first battery cell (321) (FIG. 3);
a first impedance controller (341) (¶98 – the current is limited, thus, the impedance path is implicitly changed) connected in series to the first battery cell (321) (FIG. 3);
a second impedance controller (342) (¶98 – the current is limited, thus, the impedance path is implicitly changed) connected in series to the second battery cell (322) (FIG. 3); and
a control circuit (188) electrically connected to the first battery cell (321), the second battery cell (322), the first impedance controller (341), and the second impedance controller (342), wherein the control circuit is configured to:
measure a potential difference between the first battery cell and the second battery cell (¶63-64 – measure the voltage; ¶73-74 – voltage difference);
determine whether a magnitude of the potential difference is within a first range (¶92 – first range being under a threshold); and
Although Ha teaches that based on determining that the magnitude of the potential difference is not within the first range (¶92 – the difference is above the threshold), control one of the first impedance controller and the second impedance controller (FIG. 7; ¶94), Ha does not explicitly teach so as to control a current ratio by which the entire current introduced into the battery control system is distributed to the first battery cell and the second battery cell, to be within a predetermined range.
Jung teaches that if the input voltage level is higher than a predetermined threshold to control a current ratio by which the entire current introduced into the battery control system is distributed to the first battery cell and the second battery cell, to be within a predetermined range (¶135 – control a charging current ratio by the first charging circuit and the second charging circuit; ¶188 – when the voltage of the battery is higher than or equal to the predetermined level the charging current ratio is adjusted to reduce the charging current supplied to the circuit; FIG. 11 at 1108; FIG. 14 at 1406).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the control based on the current ratio to the charging of Ha in order to allow for charging control to prevent overheating or overcharging which is known to cause damage to the system (Jung; ¶113).
Regarding Claim 2 and claim 10: Ha discloses that based on determining that the magnitude of the potential difference is within the first range (¶92 – under a threshold), initialize a signal for controlling the first impedance controller or a signal for controlling the second impedance controller (¶93 – a signal that normal charging occurs, thus the current limiters signaled to maintain).
Regarding Claim 7 and claim 14: Ha discloses that based on determining that the magnitude of the potential difference is not within the first range (higher than a threshold ¶92), determine one to be controlled among the first impedance controller and the second impedance controller (¶95 – in the first mode, the processor stops charging the first battery and only charges the second battery) , based on a magnitude comparison between a first voltage applied to the first battery cell and a second voltage applied to the second battery cell (FIG. 8 – magnitude of the first battery is at V1 initially and the magnitude of the second battery is V4), and
the first voltage is obtained by multiplying a current flowing in the first battery cell by an impedance of a conductive path of the first battery cell (in the case of FIG. 8, because there is no current flowing to battery A the first voltage flowing is 0 using Ohm’s law (V=IR)), and the second voltage is obtained by multiplying a current flowing in the second battery cell by an impedance of a conductive path of the second battery cell (FIG. 8; V=IR).
Regarding Claim 8 and claim 15: Ha discloses that an upper limit and a lower limit of the first range are proportional to a magnitude of the entire current introduced into the battery control system (¶85 – current flowing currently and actually in each of the first and second batteries to be proportional to each of the first and second batteries to control the voltages and be substantially the same in the charging operation).
Regarding Claim 9: Ha discloses a battery control method comprising:
measuring a potential difference between a first battery cell (321) and a second battery cell (322) connected in parallel to the first battery cell (¶63-64 – measure the voltage; ¶73-74 – voltage difference);
determining whether a magnitude of the potential difference is within a first range (¶92 – first range being under a threshold); and
Ha teaches that based on determining that the magnitude of the potential difference is not within the first range (¶92 – the difference is above the threshold), controlling one of a first impedance controller (341) (¶98 – the current is limited, thus, the impedance path is implicitly changed) connected in series to the first battery cell (321) (FIG. 3) and a second impedance controller (342) (¶98 – the current is limited, thus, the impedance path is implicitly changed) connected in series to the second battery cell (322) (FIG. 3) (FIG. 7; ¶94).
Ha does not explicitly teach so as to control a current ratio by which an entire current introduced into a battery control system is distributed to the first battery cell and the second battery cell, to be within a predetermined range.
Jung teaches that if the input voltage level is higher than a predetermined threshold so as to control a current ratio by which an entire current introduced into a battery control system is distributed to the first battery cell and the second battery cell, to be within a predetermined range (¶135 – control a charging current ratio by the first charging circuit and the second charging circuit; ¶188 – when the voltage of the battery is higher than or equal to the predetermined level the charging current ratio is adjusted to reduce the charging current supplied to the circuit; FIG. 11 at 1108; FIG. 14 at 1406).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the control based on the current ratio to the charging of Ha in order to allow for charging control to prevent overheating or overcharging which is known to cause damage to the system (Jung; ¶113).
Regarding Claim 16: Ha discloses an electronic device (FIG. 3) comprising:
a housing 310;
a first battery cell (321) disposed in the housing (310);
a second battery cell (322) disposed in the housing (310) and connected in parallel to the first battery cell (321) (FIG. 3); and
a control circuit (188) electrically connected to the first battery cell (321), the second battery cell (322), wherein the control circuit is configured to:
measure a potential difference between the first battery cell and the second battery cell (¶63-64 – measure the voltage; ¶73-74 – voltage difference);
determine a target voltage range within which the potential difference between the first battery cell and the second battery cell is to be adjusted (FIG. 7 at 7220 and 730; ¶92 – a range that is over the threshold voltage);
determine whether a magnitude of the potential difference is within the target voltage range (¶92 – first range being under a threshold); and
Although Ha teaches that based on determining that the magnitude of the potential difference is not within the first range (¶92 – the difference is above the threshold), control one of the first impedance controller and the second impedance controller (FIG. 7; ¶94), Ha does not explicitly teach so as to control a current ratio by which the entire current introduced into the battery control system is distributed to the first battery cell and the second battery cell, to be within a predetermined range.
Jung teaches that if the input voltage level is higher than a predetermined threshold to control a current ratio by which the entire current introduced into the battery control system is distributed to the first battery cell and the second battery cell, to be within a predetermined range (¶135 – control a charging current ratio by the first charging circuit and the second charging circuit; ¶188 – when the voltage of the battery is higher than or equal to the predetermined level the charging current ratio is adjusted to reduce the charging current supplied to the circuit; FIG. 11 at 1108; FIG. 14 at 1406).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the control based on the current ratio to the charging of Ha in order to allow for charging control to prevent overheating or overcharging which is known to cause damage to the system (Jung; ¶113).
Regarding Claim 20: Ha discloses that an upper limit and a lower limit of the target voltage range are proportional to a magnitude of the entire current introduced into the first battery cell and the second battery cell (¶85 – current flowing currently and actually in each of the first and second batteries to be proportional to each of the first and second batteries to control the voltages and be substantially the same in the charging operation).
Regarding Claim 21. Ha does not explicitly disclose that the current ratio is set based on a charge capacity of the first battery cell and a charge capacity of the second battery cell.
Jung discloses that the current ratio is set based on a charge capacity of the first battery cell and a charge capacity of the second battery cell (¶133 – current set according to the capacity of the battery).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the control based on the current ratio to the charging of Ha in order to allow for charging control to prevent overheating or overcharging which is known to cause damage to the system (Jung; ¶113).
Claims 3-6, 11-13 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ha et al. US20200266627A1 in view of Jung et al. US20170133862A1 and further in view of Hu et al. US20140203780A1.
Regarding Claim 3 and claim 11: Ha discloses the control circuit (188) is configured to: based on determining that the magnitude of the potential difference (¶63-64 – measure the voltage; ¶73-74 – voltage difference) is not within the first range(¶92 – the difference is above or under the threshold), control the current limiting circuits to adjust the voltage of the battery (¶92)
Ha does not explicitly disclose that the first impedance controller comprises a first transistor, the second impedance controller comprises a second transistor, and the control circuit is configured to: control a magnitude of a first gate voltage of the first transistor or a magnitude of a second gate voltage of the second transistor.
Hu discloses the first impedance controller (G1) comprises a first transistor (20),
Hu discloses the second impedance controller (G2) comprises a second transistor (26), and
Hu discloses the control circuit (regulator - 30) is configured to:
control a magnitude of a first gate voltage of the first transistor or a magnitude of a second gate voltage of the second transistor (¶30 – signals 31/32 operate the associated transistors 20/26 to regulate the current according to the feedback signal) .
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the components of the discharge/charge system of Hu within the impedance controller of Ha as the system is used to control the impedance of the batteries. Both Ha and Hu are related to controlling the voltage received by the battery.
Regarding Claim 4: Ha discloses that the control circuit (188) is configured to:
based on determining that the magnitude of the potential difference is not within the first range (higher than a threshold ¶92), determine a control step voltage (FIG. 7; ¶94 – the voltage is controlled), and
apply a value obtained by adding the control step voltage to a current or apply a value obtained by adding the control step voltage to a current (¶91/94 - controlling the charging speed of the batteries according to the voltage difference – i.e. performing additional charging on the battery with the lower voltage).
Because Ha does not explicitly disclose a transistor, Ha does not disclose controlling the first gate voltage or the second gate voltage; apply a new first gate voltage or apply a new second gate voltage
However, as discussed with regard to claim 3, Hu teaches a transistor having a control circuit that controls the gate voltage of the transistor, thus teaches controlling the first gate voltage or the second gate voltage and using the gate voltage to apply the new voltage (¶30 – signals 31/32 operate on the transistors thus controlling the current and voltage going to the respective batteries).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the components of the discharge/charge system of Hu within the impedance controller of Ha as the system is used to control the impedance of the batteries. Both Ha and Hu are related to controlling the voltage received by the battery.
Regarding Claim 5: Ha discloses that based on the magnitude of the potential difference being smaller than a lower limit of the first range (FIG. 7 at 720/725); ¶92-93), apply a value obtained by subtracting the control step voltage or apply, a value obtained by subtracting the control step voltage (FIG. 7 after charging in a first or second mode the voltage difference is again determined. If the difference is less than a threshold then normal charging is performed, thus stepping down the voltage from performing the battery balancing; ¶92-93).
Because Ha does not explicitly disclose a transistor, Ha does not disclose apply a new first gate voltage or apply a new second gate voltage
However, as discussed with regard to claim 3, Hu teaches a transistor having a control circuit that controls the gate voltage of the transistor, thus teaches controlling the first gate voltage or the second gate voltage and using the gate voltage to apply the new voltage (¶30 – signals 31/32 operate on the transistors thus controlling the current and voltage going to the respective batteries).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the components of the discharge/charge system of Hu within the impedance controller of Ha as the system is used to control the impedance of the batteries. Both Ha and Hu are related to controlling the voltage received by the battery.
Regarding Claim 6 and claim 13: Ha discloses that in response to alternate detection of, within a predetermined time, a case in which the magnitude of the potential difference is greater than the upper limit of the first range (FIG. 7 at 720/730) and a case in which the magnitude of the potential difference is smaller than the lower limit of the first range (FIG. 7 at 745/750; ¶100-101), reduce a magnitude of the control step voltage (¶101/103 – voltage levels of the first and second batteries are made similar to each other thus the battery that has received the higher charge is reduced to match the charging rate of the other battery).
NOTE: The language of “in response to alternate detection” is interpreted as optional language. Thus, although this feature is taught by Ha, it is not required as the event is not required to have occurred.
Regarding Claim 12: The method of claim 11, wherein the controlling of the ratio of distribution of the entire current to belong to the predetermined range comprises:
based on determining that the magnitude of the potential difference is not within the first range (higher than a threshold ¶92), determining a control step voltage (FIG. 7; ¶94 – the voltage is controlled);
based on the magnitude of the potential difference being greater than an upper limit of the first range (higher than a threshold ¶92; FIG. 7 at 720/730), applying, as a new first voltage, a value obtained by adding the control step voltage to a current first voltage, or applying, as a new second voltage, a value obtained by adding the control step voltage to a current voltage (¶91/94 - controlling the charging speed of the batteries according to the voltage difference – i.e. performing additional charging on the battery with the lower voltage).
based on the magnitude of the potential difference being smaller than a lower limit of the first range (FIG. 7 at 720/725); ¶92-93), apply a value obtained by subtracting the control step voltage or apply, a value obtained by subtracting the control step voltage (FIG. 7 after charging in a first or second mode the voltage difference is again determined. If the difference is less than a threshold then normal charging is performed, thus stepping down the voltage from performing the battery balancing; ¶92-93).
Ha does not explicitly disclose that the ratio is a current ratio.
Jung discloses that when the voltage of the battery is higher than or equal to the predetermined level the charging current ratio is adjusted to reduce the charging current supplied to the circuit (¶188; FIG. 11 at 1108; FIG. 14 at 1406).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the control based on the current ratio to the charging of Ha in order to allow for charging control to prevent overheating or overcharging which is known to cause damage to the system (Jung; ¶113).
Because Ha does not explicitly disclose a transistor, Ha does not disclose apply a new first gate voltage or apply a new second gate voltage
However, as discussed with regard to claim 11, Hu teaches a transistor having a control circuit that controls the gate voltage of the transistor, thus teaches controlling the first gate voltage or the second gate voltage and using the gate voltage to apply the new voltage (¶30 – signals 31/32 operate on the transistors thus controlling the current and voltage going to the respective batteries).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the components of the discharge/charge system of Hu within the impedance controller of Ha as the system is used to control the impedance of the batteries. Both Ha and Hu are related to controlling the voltage received by the battery.
Regarding Claim 17: Ha does not explicitly teach based on determining that the magnitude of the first potential difference is not within the target voltage range (higher than a threshold ¶92), controlling the current ratio by which the entire current introduced into the battery control system is distributed to the first battery cell and the second battery cell to be within a predetermined range; a first transistor connected in series to the first battery cell; and a second transistor connected in series to the second battery cell, wherein the control circuit is configured to: control a magnitude of a first gate voltage of the first transistor or a magnitude of a second gate voltage of the second transistor.
Jung teaches that if the input voltage level is higher than a predetermined threshold based on determining that the magnitude of the first potential difference is not within the target voltage range (¶188 – the voltage of the battery is higher than or equal to the predetermined level, thus not being within a range of below the predetermined level) to control a current ratio by which the entire current introduced into the battery control system is distributed to the first battery cell and the second battery cell, to be within a predetermined range (¶135 – control a charging current ratio by the first charging circuit and the second charging circuit; ¶188 – when the voltage of the battery is higher than or equal to the predetermined level the charging current ratio is adjusted to reduce the charging current supplied to the circuit; FIG. 11 at 1108; FIG. 14 at 1406).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the control based on the current ratio to the charging of Ha in order to allow for charging control to prevent overheating or overcharging which is known to cause damage to the system (Jung; ¶113).
Jung does not explicitly disclose a first transistor connected in series to the first battery cell; and a second transistor connected in series to the second battery cell, wherein the control circuit is configured to: control a magnitude of a first gate voltage of the first transistor or a magnitude of a second gate voltage of the second transistor.
Hu discloses a first transistor (20) connected in series to the first battery cell (4); and
a second transistor (26) connected in series to the second battery cell (10),
Hu discloses to control a magnitude of a first gate voltage of the first transistor or a magnitude of a second gate voltage of the second transistor (¶30 – signals 31/32 operate the associated transistors 20/26 to regulate the current according to the feedback signal) .
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the components of the discharge/charge system of Hu within the impedance controller of Ha as the system is used to control the impedance of the batteries. Both Ha and Hu are related to controlling the voltage received by the battery.
Regarding Claim 18: Ha discloses that based on determining that the magnitude of the first potential difference is within the target voltage range (¶92 – under a threshold), initialize a signal for controlling the first voltage or a signal for controlling the second voltage of the second transistor (¶93 – a signal that normal charging occurs, thus the current limiters signaled to maintain).
Ha does not explicitly teach the controlling the first gate voltage of the first transistor or a signal for controlling the second gate voltage of the second transistor
However, as discussed with regard to claim 17, Hu teaches a transistor having a control circuit that controls the gate voltage of the transistor, thus teaches controlling the first gate voltage or the second gate voltage and using the gate voltage to apply the new voltage (¶30 – signals 31/32 operate on the transistors thus controlling the current and voltage going to the respective batteries).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the components of the discharge/charge system of Hu within the impedance controller of Ha as the system is used to control the impedance of the batteries. Both Ha and Hu are related to controlling the voltage received by the battery.
Regarding Claim 19: Ha discloses that in response to alternate detection of, within a predetermined time, a case in which the magnitude of the potential difference is greater than the upper limit of the target voltage range (FIG. 7 at 720/730) and a case in which the magnitude of the first potential difference is smaller than the lower limit of the target voltage range (FIG. 7 at 745/750; ¶100-101), reduce a magnitude of the voltage (¶101/103 – voltage levels of the first and second batteries are made similar to each other thus the battery that has received the higher charge is reduced to match the charging rate of the other battery).
However, as discussed with regard to claim 17, Hu teaches a transistor having a control circuit that controls the gate voltage of the transistor, thus teaches controlling the first gate voltage or the second gate voltage and using the gate voltage to apply the new voltage (¶30 – signals 31/32 operate on the transistors thus controlling the current and voltage going to the respective batteries).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the components of the discharge/charge system of Hu within the impedance controller of Ha as the system is used to control the impedance of the batteries. Both Ha and Hu are related to controlling the voltage received by the battery.
NOTE: The language of “in response to alternate detection” is interpreted as optional language. Thus, although this feature is taught by Ha, it is not required as the event is not required to have occurred.
Related Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Omagari US20090179650A1 ¶18 teaches monitoring the voltages and using a current proportional to the mirroring current according to current ratio.
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 PAMELA JEPPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-4094. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 AM - 5:00 PM..
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.
/PAMELA J JEPPSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/DREW A DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights