DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
In the communication filed on March 30, 2023, claims 1-14 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the second battery from claims 2 and 12 must be shown or the feature canceled from the claim.. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "battery" in line 1 There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a first battery” in line 2, implying more than one battery. However, line 1 only recites “battery”, which, because it is not the plural, implies only one battery, contradicting the indication that there could be more than one battery.
Claim 1 recites “obtaining an open-circuit voltage OCVn of the first battery at a standing time of ti” in line 6. The time “ti” appears again with reference to the open-circuit voltage OCVm in line 11. Because the m-th charging process occurs after the n-th charging process, it is unclear how they occur at the same ti.
Claim 1 and claim 11 recites an equation in the last line, however, the claim includes no definition of “k”.
Claim 2 recites “the open-circuit voltage OCVn further comprises a pre-stored open-circuit voltage. However, in Claim 1, OCVn is an open-circuit voltage after a time ti. It is uncertain how it is a prestored value and also a measured value that is obtained after performing the charging process.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "battery" in line 3 There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “a first battery” in line 5, implying more than one battery. However, line 2 only recites “ a battery”, which, because it is not the plural, implies only one battery, contradicting the indication that there could be more than one battery.
Claim 11 recites “obtaining an open-circuit voltage OCVn of the first battery at a standing time of ti” in line 9. The time “ti” appears again with reference to the open-circuit voltage OCVm in line 14. Because the m-th charging process occurs after the n-th charging process, it is unclear how they occur at the same ti.
Claim 12 recites “the open-circuit voltage OCVn further comprises a pre-stored open-circuit voltage”. However, in Claim 11, OCVn is an open-circuit voltage after a time ti. It is uncertain how it is a prestored value and also a measured value that is obtained after performing the charging process.
Claims 3-10 and 13-14 are rejected at least for their dependency from a rejected claim.
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 1, 3-9, 11 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumura et al. US20160301226A1 (Cited in the IDS dated 3/30/2023) in view of Ikeda et al. US20170182907A1.
Regarding claim 1. Matsumura discloses a charging method for battery, comprising:
in an n-th charging process, charging a first battery to a charge cut-off voltage Un, and a charge cut-off current In in a first charging manner, wherein n is a positive integer greater than 0 (FIG. 6 at 612 – charge at constant current until cutoff voltage threshold is reached – this occurs in at least the 1st charging process which is greater than 0);
after the n-th charging process is completed, leaving the first battery standing (FIG. 6 at 616 – charging is stopped) and obtaining an open-circuit voltage OCVn, of the first battery at a standing time of ti (FIG. 11; ¶63 - battery 1102 includes sensors that measure OCV and the controller receives the measurements to communicate with the charger; FIG. 6 at 608; ¶20/42 – after the charging process stops it returns to 608 where a new cutoff threshold which is determined by using OCV measurements) ;
in an m-th charging process and subsequent charging processes (FIG. 6 after stopping the charge process, the charging phase 607 is repeated), charging the first battery to the charge cut-off voltage Un and the charge cut-off current In in the first charging manner (FIG. 6 – 612/614), wherein m is a positive integer, and m>n (because this is a repeated charging process, m>n);
after the m-th charging process is completed, leaving the first battery standing (FIG. 6 at 616 – charging process stopped), and obtaining an open-circuit voltage OCVm of the first battery at the standing time of ti (FIG. 11; ¶63 - battery 1102 includes sensors that measure OCV and the controller receives the measurements to communicate with the charger; FIG. 6 at 608; ¶20/42 – after the charging process stops it returns to 608 where a new cutoff threshold which is determined by using OCV measurements).
NOTE: The language “under the condition of” is considered conditional language. Because the system of Matsumura may never reach a condition of OCVn>OCVm, the claim limitation is fully disclosed by Matsumura. However, in the interest of compact prosecution, the conditional language has been examined.
Matsumura does not explicitly disclose that under the condition of OCVn > OCVm continuing to charge the first battery that has been standing in a second charging manner until the charge cut-off current of the first battery is a first current Im, wherein Im=(Un - k x OCVn - (1-k) x OCVm)/(Un-OCVm) x In, and 0<k ≤1.
Ikeda discloses a process of determining the maximum current where the determination unit 56 subtracts a maximum voltage Vc of the battery cell from an upper limit voltage VcMAX. The difference is multiplied by a gain K. The maximum current determination unit limits a multiplication result by an upper limit current Alim to calculate a maximum current AceImax per battery cell (¶41-43; FIG. 10-11 illustrates the cutoff values and the maximum current is determined at S208).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Ikeda to the charging of Matsumura in order to determine a charge cut off current that accurately limit the battery charging (Ikeda; ¶3).
Regarding claim 3. Matsumura discloses that under the condition of OCVn ≤ OCVm in the m-th charging process and the subsequent charging processes, charging the first battery to the charge cut-off voltage Un and the charge cut-off current In in the first charging manner (FIG. 6 – 608- does the cutoff current threshold need to be adjusted [Wingdings font/0xE0] no [Wingdings font/0xE0] 612 – charging occurs without an adjustment; ¶42 – the cutoff occurs due to a degradation of the battery, if OCVm is greater than or equal to OCVn, then no degradation of the battery has occurred and the threshold will remain at the default level).
NOTE: The language “under the condition of” is considered conditional language. Because the system of Matsumura may never reach a condition of OCVn ≤ OCVm , the claim limitation is fully disclosed by Matsumura. However, in the interest of compact prosecution, the conditional language has been examined.
Regarding claim 4 and claim 13. Matsumura discloses that in an (m+b)-th charging process (FIG. 6 after stopping the charge process, the charging phase 607 is continually repeated), charging the first battery to a first voltage Un in the first charging manner (612). wherein the first current Im serves as the charge cut-off current;
after the (m+b)-th charging process and subsequent charging processes are completed, leaving the first battery standing (FIG. 6 at 616 – charging is stopped), and obtaining a voltage OCVm+b of the first battery at the standing time of ti (FIG. 11; ¶63 - battery 1102 includes sensors that measure OCV and the controller receives the measurements to communicate with the charger; FIG. 6 at 608; ¶20/42 – after the charging process stops it returns to 608 where a new cutoff threshold which is determined by using OCV measurements).
NOTE: The language “under the condition of” is considered conditional language. Because the system of Matsumura may never reach a condition of OCVn>OCVm, the claim limitation is fully disclosed by Matsumura. However, in the interest of compact prosecution, the conditional language has been examined.
Matsumura does not explicitly disclose that under the condition of OCVn> OCVm+b, continuing to charge the first battery that has been standing in the second charging manner until the charge cut-off current of the first battery is a second current Im+b, wherein Im+b=(Un - k x OCVn - (1-k) x OCVm+b)/(Un-OCVm+b) x In, and 0<k ≤1.
NOTE: The language “under the condition of” is considered conditional language. Because the system of Matsumura may never reach a condition of OCVn> OCVm+b, the claim limitation is fully disclosed by Matsumura. However, in the interest of compact prosecution, the conditional language has been examined.
Ikeda discloses a process of determining the maximum current where the determination unit 56 subtracts a maximum voltage Vc of the battery cell from an upper limit voltage VcMAX. The difference is multiplied by a gain K. The maximum current determination unit limits a multiplication result by an upper limit current Alim to calculate a maximum current Acelmax per battery cell (¶41-43; FIG. 10-11 illustrates the cutoff values and the maximum current is determined at S208).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Ikeda to the charging of Matsumura in order to determine a charge cut off current that accurately limit the battery charging (Ikeda; ¶3).
Regarding claim 5. Matsumura discloses that under the condition of OCVn≤OCVm+b. in the (m+b)-th charging process and the subsequent charging processes, charging the first battery to the charge cut-off voltage Un in the first charging manner, wherein the first current Im serves as the charge cut- off current (FIG. 6 – 608- does the cutoff current threshold need to be adjusted [Wingdings font/0xE0] no [Wingdings font/0xE0] 612 – charging occurs without an adjustment; ¶42 – the cutoff occurs due to a degradation of the battery, if OCVm+b is greater than or equal to OCVn, then no degradation of the battery has occurred and the threshold will remain at the default level or previous level).
NOTE: The language “under the condition of” is considered conditional language. Because the system of Matsumura may never reach a condition of OCVn≤OCVm+b, the claim limitation is fully disclosed by Matsumura. However, in the interest of compact prosecution, the conditional language has been examined.
Regarding claim 6. Matsumura discloses that the first charging manner comprises N1 charging stages in sequence (FIG. 7 – constant current followed by constant voltage). wherein N1 is a positive integer greater than or equal to 1 (FIG. 7 illustrates at least N1=2) and in the N1-th charging stage, the first battery is charged to the charge cut-off current (712) In constantly with the charge cut-off voltage Un (708).
Regarding claim 7. Matsumura discloses that the second charging manner comprises N2 charging stages in sequence ((FIG. 7 – constant current followed by constant voltage) wherein N2 is a positive integer greater than or equal to 1 (FIG. 7 illustrates at least N1=2) and in the N2-th charging stage, the first battery is charged to the first current Im (712) constantly with the charge cut-off voltage Un (708).
Regarding claim 8 and claim 14. Matsumura discloses that the first charging manner comprises M1 constant-current charging stages in sequence (FIG. 8 at 806/812), wherein M1 is a positive integer greater than or equal to 1 (M1 = 2), the M1 constant-current charging stages are each defined as an i-th charging stage with i = 1, 2,..,M1, (FIG. 8) wherein after the first battery is charged to the charge cut-off voltage Un with a constant current (808), a charging process in each of the constant-current charging stages is cut off by using the charge cut-off voltage Un (814).
Regarding claim 9. Matsumura discloses a charge current of the (i+1)-th charging stage is less than a charge current of the i-th charging stage (FIG. 9 at 906 and 930; ¶50-51 – 906 is a first CC phase and 930 is the second constant current phase after degradation of the battery).
Regarding claim 11. Matsumura discloses an electronic apparatus. comprising:
a battery (1102): and
a processor, configured to execute a charging method for battery (¶144), the charging method comprises:
in an n-th charging process, charging a first battery to a charge cut-off voltage Un, and a charge cut-off current In in a first charging manner, wherein n is a positive integer greater than 0 (FIG. 6 at 612 – charge at constant current until cutoff voltage threshold is reached – this occurs in at least the 1st charging process which is greater than 0);
after the n-th charging process is completed, leaving the first battery standing (FIG. 6 at 616 – charging is stopped) and obtaining an open-circuit voltage OCVn, of the first battery at a standing time of ti (FIG. 11; ¶63 - battery 1102 includes sensors that measure OCV and the controller receives the measurements to communicate with the charger; FIG. 6 at 608; ¶20/42 – after the charging process stops it returns to 608 where a new cutoff threshold which is determined by using OCV measurements) ;
in an m-th charging process and subsequent charging processes (FIG. 6 after stopping the charge process, the charging phase 607 is repeated), charging the first battery to the charge cut-off voltage Un and the charge cut-off current In in the first charging manner (FIG. 6 – 612/614), wherein m is a positive integer, and m>n (because this is a repeated charging process, m>n);
after the m-th charging process is completed, leaving the first battery standing (FIG. 6 at 616 – charging process stopped), and obtaining an open-circuit voltage OCVm of the first battery at the standing time of ti (FIG. 11; ¶63 - battery 1102 includes sensors that measure OCV and the controller receives the measurements to communicate with the charger; FIG. 6 at 608; ¶20/42 – after the charging process stops it returns to 608 where a new cutoff threshold which is determined by using OCV measurements).
NOTE: The language “under the condition of” is considered conditional language. Because the system of Matsumura may never reach a condition of OCVn>OCVm, the claim limitation is fully disclosed by Matsumura. However, in the interest of compact prosecution, the conditional language has been examined.
Matsumura does not explicitly disclose that under the condition of OCVn > OCVm continuing to charge the first battery that has been standing in a second charging manner until the charge cut-off current of the first battery is a first current Im, wherein Im=(Un - k x OCVn - (1-k) x OCVm)/(Un-OCVm) x In, and 0<k ≤1.
Ikeda discloses a process of determining the maximum current where the determination unit 56 subtracts a maximum voltage Vc of the battery cell from an upper limit voltage VcMAX. The difference is multiplied by a gain K. The maximum current determination unit limits a multiplication result by an upper limit current Alim to calculate a maximum current Acelmax per battery cell (¶41-43; FIG. 10-11 illustrates the cutoff values and the maximum current is determined at S208).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Ikeda to the charging of Matsumura in order to determine a charge cut off current that accurately limit the battery charging (Ikeda; ¶3).
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumura et al. US20160301226A1 in view of Ikeda et al. US20170182907A1 in further view of Huber et al. US20190326765A1.
Regarding claim 2 and claim 12. Matsumura discloses that the open-circuit voltage OCVn further comprises a pre-stored open-circuit voltage (FIG. 6 at 606) wherein the open-circuit voltage is an open-circuit voltage of a second battery collected at the standing time of tj in the standing process that follows completion of the n-th charging process (FIG. 11; ¶63 - battery 1102 includes sensors that measure OCV and the controller receives the measurements to communicate with the charger; FIG. 6 at 608; ¶20/42 – after the charging process stops it returns to 608 where a new cutoff threshold which is determined by using OCV measurements);
Matsumura does not explicitly teach that the first battery and the second battery are different batteries in a same battery system.
Huber teaches the first battery and the second battery are different batteries in a same battery system (¶3 – a charger includes a first and second battery pack receptacle for charging multiple batteries).
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide multiple batteries to the charger of Matsumura in order to provide efficient charging for a user.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumura et al. US20160301226A1 in view of Ikeda et al. US20170182907A1 in further view of Park 20150270732A1.
Regarding claim 10. Matsumura discloses that the second charging manner comprises M2 constant-current charging stages in sequence (FIG. 8 – M2=2). wherein M2 is a positive integer greater than or equal to 1 (806/812), the M constant-current charging stages are each defined as a j-th charging stage (806 is the first and 812 is the second charging stage). with j=1, 2,..., M2. wherein a charging process in each of the constant-current charging stages is cut off by using the charge cut-off voltage Un (808/814).
Matsumura does not explicitly teach the first current Im is a minimum charge current of the first battery,
Park teaches, in the constant current mode, to charge the battery with a minimum current (¶66).
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a minimum current, as taught by Park, to the charging of Matsumura in order to prevent overloading which will degrade a battery (Matsumura; ¶66).
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nakatsuji US20090309547A1 – discloses a similar charging pattern as claim 1 – see FIG. 2.
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