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
Applicant’s amendment filed 12/05/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 7-11, filed 12/05/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 11-14, and 17-18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of previously disclosed prior art Petrakivskyi (US20230035894) in view of previously disclosed prior art Jin (US20230288489) and newly disclosed prior art Kim (US20180292461). Kim teaches the relationship between using the potential drop with the negative electrode with determining the charging limit of batteries in [0051]-[0052] and Figure 3.
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 4-5, 13-14, and 18 are 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.
Independent Claims 1, 11, and 17 detail the amended limitation “the dynamic performance variable selected from at least one of a decay rate of an electrolyte anode concentration and a rate of an anode potential drop.”
Claims 4, 13, and 18 detail the limitation “wherein the dynamic performance variable is selected from at least one of an anode potential and a capacity loss”
It is not clear nor distinct whether Claims 4, 13, and 18 are detailing that the dynamic performance variable is changed to be “at least anode potential and a capacity loss” or if the dynamic performance variable is “at least one of a decay rate of an electrolyte anode concentration and a rate of an anode potential drop” and “an anode potential and a capacity loss”.
Examiner interprets the limitation as the dynamic performance variable is changed to be “at least anode potential and a capacity loss”.
Claim 5 is rejected due to dependence on Claim 4 and Claim 14 is rejected due to dependence on Claim 13.
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, 4-5, 9, 11-14, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petrakivskyi (US20230035894) in view of Jin (US20230288489) and Kim (US20180292461).
In regards to Claims 1, 11, and 17, Petrakivskyi teaches “a memory having computer readable instructions (controller includes memory 330 – [0063]; executable computer-readable code stored in the memory with instructions induced by the processor – [0069]); and
a processing device for executing the computer readable instructions (processor executing the instructions – [0069]), the computer readable instructions controlling the processing device to perform a method including:
acquiring, by a processor electrically connected to the battery system in real time during a charging process (controller 210, i.e. processor, connected to battery charging circuit, i.e. battery system – [0059]-[0060], Figure 2), a set of charging parameter measurements, the charging parameter measurements including a voltage, a current applied to the battery system during the charging process and a temperature of the battery system (charging of the battery by a target charging capacity during a target charging time, i.e. in real time – [0053]; battery charging circuit includes a sensor, the sensor measures current, voltage, and temperature – [0076]);
estimating a dynamic performance variable in real time, the dynamic performance variable related to an electrochemical phenomenon occurring within the battery system during the charging process (battery charging device charges the battery using a battery model, where the battery charging device fast charges the battery using a multi-step charging manner that minimizes charging aging by using an estimate of the internal state of the battery based on the battery model, where the internal state of the battery includes any one or any combination of factors which include anode lithium-ion concentration distribution, anode potential – [0043]);
determining a charging limit based on the dynamic performance variable and a model of the battery system (battery charging device divides the charging process into several charging stages with a charging current and voltage corresponding to each charging stage and for each of the charging stages, a charging limit condition for limit charging of the battery to a target charging capacity during a target charging time to prevent aging of the battery – [0044]; the charging limit condition includes internal state conditions of the battery, where the internal state conditions are defined by the electrochemical model based on at least one internal state that affects the aging of the battery, where the internal state conditions include anode overpotential condition, cathode overpotential condition, anode surface lithium ion concentration condition, cathode surface lithium ion concentration condition, cell voltage condition, and state of charge condition – [0045]; charging limit condition may include a maximum charging time for the respective charging stages, with the charging limit condition includes anode potential limits for the respective charging stages, with the anode potential of the battery decreases as the battery is charged – [0051]-[0052]);
generating a target current profile based on the charging limit, the target current profile configured to maintain the dynamic performance variable within the charging limit (the battery mode is an electrochemical model to which aging parameters of the battery are applied to estimate state information of the battery by modeling physical phenomena including potential and ion concentration distribution in the battery – [0043]; controller obtains state information of the battery where the state information includes an SOC that is a parameter indicating the SOC of the battery – [0085]; controller estimates the internal state of the battery based on the battery model – [0086]); and
controlling the current applied to the battery system based on the target current profile (controller determines charging profile based on the state information – [0087]; charging profile is the charging steps for charging the battery with a charging current and voltage – [0091])”
Petrakivskyi is silent with regards to the language of “predicting a future state of the battery system, and generating a target current profile based on the future state and the charging limit”
Jin teaches “predicting a future state of the battery system, and generating a target current profile based on the future state and the charging limit (vehicle performance manager arranged to issue a command to the vehicle to modify a charging characteristic of the battery in dependence on the predicted state of health profile and the charging characteristic may comprise at least one of: limiting a charging rate of the battery, limiting a maximum state of charge of the battery, limiting fast charging of the battery, and another other appropriate characteristic which may reduce battery degradation during charging – [0025])”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Petrakivskyi to incorporate the teaching of Jim to predict the state of health for the battery and to adjust the charging characteristic based on that prediction. By predicting the state of health of the battery and adjusting the charging process this improves the life of the battery.
Petrakivskyi in view of Jin is silent with regards to the language of “the dynamic performance variable selected from at least one of decay rate of an electrolyte anode concentration and a rate of an anode potential drop.”
Kim teaches “the dynamic performance variable selected from at least one of decay rate of an electrolyte anode concentration and a rate of an anode potential drop (“To more accurately find the Li-plating occurrence point, a dV/dQ graph is obtained as shown in FIG. 4 and a point at which a negative electrode potential gradient is changed, i.e., a point at which the speed of dropping the negative electrode potential is changed (an inflection point), is set as a charge limit at which Li-plating occurs” – [0051]; “As such, a point at which the negative electrode potential is not dropped but starts to be constant and at which the speed of dropping the negative electrode potential is changed (a point at which a negative electrode potential gradient is changed (an inflection point)) in the result of step s 2 , i.e., the negative electrode potential graph based on the SOC, is set as the Li-plating occurrence point, i.e., the charge limit, in the present disclosure (s 3 )” – [0052], Figure 3).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Petrakivskyi in view of Jin to incorporate the teaching of Kim to utilize the rate at which the negative electrode potential changes (i.e. drops) to evaluate the charge limit of the battery. By utilizing the negative electrode potential changes for the evaluation of the charge limit of the battery this is an improvement that prevents damage to the battery and increases the lifetime of the battery.
In regards to Claims 2 and 12, Petrakivskyi in view of Jin and Kim discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Petrakivskyi further teaches “wherein the model is a mathematical model configured to simulate electrochemical processes in the battery system (the battery model is an electrochemical model which aging parameters of the battery are applied to estimate state information by modeling physical phenomena – [0043]).”
In regards to Claims 4 and 13, Petrakivskyi in view of Jin discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Petrakivskyi further teaches “wherein the dynamic performance variable is selected from at least one of an anode potential, and a capacity loss (battery charging device charges the battery using a battery model, where the battery charging device fast charges the battery using a multi-step charging manner that minimizes charging aging by using an estimate of the internal state of the battery based on the battery model, where the internal state of the battery includes any one or any combination of factors which include anode lithium-ion concentration distribution, anode potential – [0043]).”
In regards to Claims 5 and 14, Petrakivskyi in view of Jin and Kim discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Petrakivskyi further teaches “wherein the charging limit includes a performance variable limit being at least one of: a capacity loss limit, an anode potential limit, and a limit to the electrolyte ion concentration at the anode side of the battery cell (charging limit condition may include a maximum charging time for the respective charging stages, with the charging limit condition includes anode potential limits for the respective charging stages, with the anode potential of the battery decreases as the battery is charged – [0051]-[0052]).”
In regards to Claim 9, Petrakivskyi in view of Jin and Kim discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Petrakivskyi further teaches “wherein the dynamic performance variable includes an aging parameter (“example, the battery charging device 120 may fast charge the battery 110 in a multi-step charging manner that minimizes charging aging by using an estimate of the internal state of the battery based on the battery model. Here, the battery model may be an electrochemical model to which aging parameters of the battery 110 are applied to estimate state information of the battery 110 by modeling physical phenomena such as potential and ion concentration distribution in the battery 110 . In addition, the internal state of the battery 110 may include any one or any combination of factors such as, for example, a cathode lithium-ion concentration distribution, an anode lithium-ion concentration distribution, an electrolyte lithium-ion concentration distribution, a cathode potential, and an anode potential of the battery 110 . For example, the aging parameters may include any one or any combination of an electrode balance shift, a capacity for cathode active material, and an anode surface resistance of the battery 110 , but are not limited thereto” - [0043]).”
In regards to Claim 18, Petrakivskyi in view of Jin and Kim discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Petrakivskyi further teaches “wherein the dynamic performance variable is selected from at least one of an anode potential and a capacity loss (battery charging device charges the battery using a battery model, where the battery charging device fast charges the battery using a multi-step charging manner that minimizes charging aging by using an estimate of the internal state of the battery based on the battery model, where the internal state of the battery includes any one or any combination of factors which include anode lithium-ion concentration distribution, anode potential – [0043]), and the charging limit includes a performance variable limit being at least one of: a capacity loss limit, and an anode potential limit (charging limit condition may include a maximum charging time for the respective charging stages, with the charging limit condition includes anode potential limits for the respective charging stages, with the anode potential of the battery decreases as the battery is charged – [0051]-[0052]).”
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petrakivskyi in view of Jin and Kim as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Wang (US20240053403).
In regards to Claim 3, Petrakivskyi in view of Jin and Kim discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Petrakivskyi in view of Jin is silent with regards to the language of “wherein generating the target current profile and controlling the current is performed by a model predictive controller (MPC).”
Wang teaches “wherein generating the target current profile and controlling the current is performed by a model predictive controller (MPC) (Figure 8 is a flow diagram illustrating method of operating the model predictive controller to produce a charge current constraint accounting for predicted anode overpotential, predicted battery temperature, and predicted battery voltage – [0041]).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Petrakivskyi in view of Jin and Kim to incorporate the teaching of Wang to utilize a model predictive controller. By utilizing a model predictive controller this is an improvement to reduce the time needed to recharge the battery, improves the battery performance, and reduces the degradation of the battery from charging.
Claims 6, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petrakivskyi in view of Jin and Kim as applied to claim 1, 11, and 17 above, and further in view of Preindl (US20170214252).
In regards to Claims 6, 15, and 19, Petrakivskyi in view of Jin and Kim discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Petrakivskyi in view of Jin is silent with regards to the language of “wherein predicting the future state and generating the target current profile is performed based on the model and a cost function configured to minimize a cost associated with charge time.”
Preindl teaches “wherein predicting the future state and generating the target current profile is performed based on the model and a cost function configured to minimize a cost associated with charge time (the controller predicts a subsequent system charge state based on the initial system charge state and the power to be transferred by the converters 112 . Accordingly, the controller may calculate a plurality of potential system charge states based on the initial system charge state and a plurality of potential power transmission sets for the voltage converters. Each potential system charge state may represent an estimate of the subsequent system charge state that would result if the voltage converters transmitted power according to the corresponding potential power transmission set. The controller may then select one of the potential power transmission sets based on a preferred potential system charge state (in terms of balancing and/or charging the energy storage system). The selected power transmission set may then be used to define control inputs for the voltage converters 112 . The control inputs may be applied to the voltage converters 112 to adjust the power level being transmitted by at least one of the voltage converters. The controller may repeat the process continually to control operation of the energy storage system – [0139]; “The controller 802 may use a cost function to determine the power transmission sets to be applied to the voltage converters 112 in order to optimize one or both of the balance and or charging states of the system 100 . The controller may minimize the cost function to determine a set of power transmission levels that should be applied to the voltage converters 112 . The cost function may be defined using a transformed system charge state, such as that described above with reference to Equation (13)” – [0142]; minimizing the cost function at multiple sampling times – [0146]).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Petrakivskyi in view of Jin and Kim to incorporate the teaching of Preindl to minimize a cost function to optimize the charging of the battery. By minimizing the cost function to optimizing the battery charging this is an improvement that yields predictable results to improve the life of the battery.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petrakivskyi in view of Jin, Kim, and Preindl as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Zhang (CN114179781A).
In regards to Claim 7, Petrakivskyi in view of Jin, Kim, and Preindl discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Petrakivskyi in view of Jin, Kim, and Preindl is silent with regards to the language of “wherein the charging limit is determined based on minimizing a state of charge (SOC) tracking error.”
Zhang teaches “wherein the charging limit is determined based on minimizing a state of charge (SOC) tracking error (objective function construction module is used to construct an objective function with the normalized model constraints…with the goal of minimizing the weighted sum of the engine fuel consumption and the SOC tracking error – [n0032]; model constraints include the upper limits on the engine power, generator power, battery pack excitation current, and the lower limit of battery pack excitation current – [n0082]).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Petrakivskyi in view of Jin, Kim, and Preindl to incorporate the teaching of Zhang to utilizing an objective function that minimizes the weighted sum of the engine fuel consumption and the SOC tracking error for model constraints in relation to the charging limit. By utilizing the minimization of the objective function this is an improvement to the real time control of charging battery in a vehicle.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petrakivskyi in view of Jin and Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Guha (US20210247460).
In regards to Claim 8, Petrakivskyi in view of Jin and Kim discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Petrakivskyi in view of Jin and Kim is silent with regards to the language of “wherein the processor is configured to receive a pre-specified current profile, and update the pre-specified current profile with the target current profile.”
Guha teaches “wherein the processor is configured to receive a pre-specified current profile, and update the pre-specified current profile with the target current profile (The parameters constituting the constant current charging profile are generally assumed to be constant throughout the lifetime of the battery, but may not be correct, and such assumptions might accelerate the degradation mechanisms within the battery as time progresses. Therefore, the parameters need to be updated periodically to generate an optimal charging current profile to minimize the degradation and maximize the deliverable capacity – [0003]; In the present disclosure, battery ageing dynamics comprising charge current profile has been considered for improving the SoH of rechargeable batteries such as lithium-ion batteries. One of the objectives is to generate an optimal charge current profile during constant current phase of charging to reduce the level of degradation, thereby, increasing the capacity and enhance the lifetime of rechargeable batteries. Firstly, charging current profile parameters effecting the degradation along with the resistance of the SEI layer of a battery are estimated based on an Extended Kalman Filtering (EKF) framework. Thereafter, the estimated parameters are used to configure the charging current profile by minimizing battery capacity loss using a nonlinear constraint optimization algorithm. The current profile configured based on the estimated parameters offers significant improvement over the constant current charging profile in terms of increased battery capacity by minimizing the battery capacity loss- [0021]; battery management system determine and apply a new charging current profile – [0027]).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Petrakivskyi in view of Jin and Kim to incorporate the teaching of Guha to perform iterative updates to the current profile. By performing iterative updates to the current profile while charging the battery, this yields predictable results to the improvement to the state of health of rechargeable batteries.
Claims 10, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petrakivskyi in view of Jin and Kim as applied to claim 9, 11, and 17 above, and further in view of Simonis (US20230213587).
In regards to Claim 10, Petrakivskyi in view of Jin and Kim discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Petrakivskyi in view of Jin and Kim is silent with regards to the language of “wherein the processor is configured to periodically update the model to reflect effects of aging of the battery system, wherein the periodic update is performed locally or at a remote location.”
Simonis teaches “wherein the processor is configured to periodically update the model to reflect effects of aging of the battery system, wherein the periodic update is performed locally or at a remote location (the cpu provides for each battery to monitor the cell aging states and the models are updated as soon as cell-operating value curves are available for the respective battery cell to allow for updating the internal state and the cell aging state associated with the battery cell – [0033]; models are continuously updated based on the operating values – [0069]).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Petrakivskyi in view of Jin and Kim to incorporate the teaching of Simonis to provide continuous updates of the model with relation to the internal state and cell aging state of the battery. By providing continuous updates to the model this is an improvement that yields predictable results to the prediction of the aging state of battery devices.
In regards to Claims 16 and 20, Petrakivskyi in view of Jin and Kim discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Petrakivskyi further teaches “wherein the dynamic performance variable includes an aging parameter (“example, the battery charging device 120 may fast charge the battery 110 in a multi-step charging manner that minimizes charging aging by using an estimate of the internal state of the battery based on the battery model. Here, the battery model may be an electrochemical model to which aging parameters of the battery 110 are applied to estimate state information of the battery 110 by modeling physical phenomena such as potential and ion concentration distribution in the battery 110 . In addition, the internal state of the battery 110 may include any one or any combination of factors such as, for example, a cathode lithium-ion concentration distribution, an anode lithium-ion concentration distribution, an electrolyte lithium-ion concentration distribution, a cathode potential, and an anode potential of the battery 110 . For example, the aging parameters may include any one or any combination of an electrode balance shift, a capacity for cathode active material, and an anode surface resistance of the battery 110 , but are not limited thereto” - [0043]).”
Petrakivskyi in view of Jin and Kim is silent with regards to the language of “the method further comprising periodically updating the model to reflect effects of aging of the battery system, wherein the periodic update is performed locally or at a remote location.”
Simonis teaches “the method further comprising periodically updating the model to reflect effects of aging of the battery system, wherein the periodic update is performed locally or at a remote location (the cpu provides for each battery to monitor the cell aging states and the models are updated as soon as cell-operating value curves are available for the respective battery cell to allow for updating the internal state and the cell aging state associated with the battery cell – [0033]; models are continuously updated based on the operating values – [0069]).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Petrakivskyi in view of Jin and Kim to incorporate the teaching of Simonis to provide continuous updates of the model with relation to the internal state and cell aging state of the battery. By providing continuous updates to the model this is an improvement that yields predictable results to the prediction of the aging state of battery devices.
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 YOSSEF KORANG-BEHESHTI whose telephone number is (571)272-3291. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 6:30 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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/YOSSEF KORANG-BEHESHTI/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights