DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
In the communication dated July 22, 2026, claims 1-21 are pending. Claims 1, 7-9, 11-12, 14-17 and 20 are currently amended.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 22, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The applicant argues that Jung fails to disclose a current ratio between a first current supplied to the first battery cell and a second current supplied to a second battery cell is controlled to be within a predetermined range.
The reference of Jung is withdrawn, however, the reference of Hu, as secondarily cited in previous actions is newly cited with respect to the independent clams as further detailed in the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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ha et al. US20200266627A1 in view of Hu et al. US20140203780A1.
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 to control a current ratio between a first current supplied to the first battery cell and a second current supplied to the second battery cell to be within a predetermined range.
Hu teaches to control a current ratio between a first current supplied to the first battery cell and a second current supplied to the second battery cell (¶24 – regulate the ratio of the first and second currents) to be within a predetermined range (¶24 – the ratios are adjusted according to the ratio of the first and second battery pack capacities which define a range).
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 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 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 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 the first 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 the second 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 an 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 between a first current supplied to the first battery cell and a second current supplied to the second battery cell to be within a predetermined range.
Hu teaches to control a current ratio between a first current supplied to the first battery cell and a second current supplied to the second battery cell (¶24 – regulate the ratio of the first and second currents) to be within a predetermined range (¶24 – the ratios are adjusted according to the ratio of the first and second battery pack capacities which define a range).
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 12: Ha discloses controlling of the ratio 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.
Hu discloses adjusting a current ratio (¶24)
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.
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 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 to control a current ratio between a first current supplied to the first battery cell and a second current supplied to the second battery cell to be within a predetermined range.
Hu teaches to control a current ratio between a first current supplied to the first battery cell and a second current supplied to the second battery cell (¶24 – regulate the ratio of the first and second currents) to be within a predetermined range (¶24 – the ratios are adjusted according to the ratio of the first and second battery pack capacities which define a range).
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 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; based on determining that the magnitude of the first potential difference is not within the target voltage range, controlling the current ratio system is distributed to the first battery cell and the second battery cell to be within a predetermined range.
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),
based on determining that the magnitude of the first potential difference is not within the target voltage range, control a first gate voltage of the first transistor and a second gate voltage of the second transistor through a signal for controlling the first gate voltage or a signal for controlling the second gate voltage (¶22 – sensing a voltage representing a current flow through the sensing component; ¶30 – signals 31/32 operate the associated transistors 20/26 to regulate the current according to the feedback signal), thereby controlling the current ratio to be within a predetermined range (¶24 – the ratios are adjusted according to the ratio of the first and second battery pack capacities which define a range).
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.
Regarding Claim 20: Ha discloses that an upper limit and a lower limit of the target voltage range are proportional to a magnitude of an 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.
Hu 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 (¶24 – regulate according to the capacities).
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.
Related Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chang US20220155376A1 discloses measuring the ratio of the currents of the batteries.
Conclusion
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