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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Claims 1-8 are withdrawn in the application.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of a method for heating a mixed chemistry battery in the reply filed on 01/15/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious search burden for the examiner. This is not found persuasive because the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Applicant argues that both inventions are directed to the same technical field. This is not found persuasive because, while the inventions are in a similar technical field, the inventions require different fields of search, including the different classification areas as mentioned in the original restriction requirement. Different text strings are also required to search both inventions that will give different results from one another.
Applicant also argues that the apparatus and method claims do not require materially different, non-overlapping searches. This is not found persuasive as since the inventions are in two separate statutory categories, different classifications are required to search for each invention which will give different search results. The text search strings for the apparatus will be broader than the text search strings of the method, which will also give a wider array of applicable results.
Applicant also argues that the specification does not disclose mutually exclusive embodiments. This is not found persuasive as while the embodiments are not mutually exclusive, the apparatus as claimed is structurally different from the method as it can be used in a materially different process as to the process in the method claim, such as connecting the heating system to only the second battery cell based on a determination that the temperature is below a first threshold value. Different prior art can be used to read on the apparatus claim than on the method claim, and the prior arts may be in separate areas of classification.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 01/15/2026.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 9, 11, and 15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, and 6 of copending Application No. 18/330,704 in view of Hermann (US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0227568).
‘704 claims a method for heating a mixed chemistry battery (claim 1) having a first battery cell having a first chemistry and a second battery cell having a second chemistry that is different than the first chemistry (claim 4). The method includes monitoring a temperature of the mixed chemistry battery (claim 1), and based on a determination that the temperature is below a first threshold value, connecting a heating system to only the first battery cell (claim 1). Based on a determination that the temperature is above a maximum threshold value, the heating system is deactivated (claim 6).
‘704 does not claim that based on a determination that the temperature is at least the first threshold value, connecting the heating system to the first battery cell and to the second battery cell.
Hermann teaches a method for heating a mixed chemistry battery having a first battery cell having a first chemistry and a second battery cell having a second chemistry that is different than the first chemistry (abstract and [0035]). The method includes that based on a determination that the temperature is at least the first threshold value (threshold), connecting the heating system to the first battery cell and to the second battery cell ([0059], [0061], and fig. 3 ref. #324 and #325).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the step of connecting the heating system to both the first and second battery when the temperature is above a determined threshold. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include this step as to utilize the available power from both batteries once they are within a temperature range which allows for the second battery to function ([0004]).
‘704 does not claim the first battery cell is connected to the second battery cell in series.
Hermann also teaches the first battery cell being connected to the second battery cell in series ([0070] and fig. 10 ref. #1010 and #1040). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to connect the first battery cell and second battery cell in series as taught by Hermann. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the connection in this manner to allow for increased voltage output from both battery cells.
Claim 10 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 4 of copending Application No. 18/330,704 in view of Hermann et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0227568) further in view of Myers et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0379051).
‘704 and Hermann are relied upon as described above.
‘704 and Hermann do not explicitly teach the first chemistry is nickel-manganese cobalt and the second chemistry is lithium iron phosphate.
Myers teaches an energy delivery system that combines multiple energy storage sources/systems of different chemical compositions (abstract). Myers specifically teaches a two-battery system in which the first chemistry is nickel-manganese cobalt and the second chemistry is lithium iron phosphate ([0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to use nickel-manganese cobalt and lithium iron phosphate for the first and second batteries as taught by Myers in the mixed chemistry battery system of ‘704 and Hermann. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use these two specific chemistries as the use of both allows for both the advantage of lithium iron phosphate batteries having longer life and enhanced safety characteristics, while nickel-manganese cobalt has the advantage of reduced relative cost and higher energy density resulting in smaller batteries ([0038]).
Claim 12 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 4 of copending Application No. 18/330,704 in view of Hermann et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0227568) further in view of Bauer et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0403284)
‘704 and Hermann are relied upon as described above.
‘704 and Hermann do not explicitly teach the heating system includes one or more resistive heating layers disposed adjacent to the second battery cell.
Bauer teaches a heating device for a prismatic battery cell of a high-voltage battery of a motor vehicle (title). The heating device includes one or more resistive heating layers ([0010]) disposed adjacent to the battery cell (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to use the resistive heating layers as taught by Bauer in place of the heating system of ‘704 and Hermann. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this change as the eating elements can be integrated into the battery modules in a particularly simple way and without high costs ([0004]).
Claims 13 and 14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 4 of copending Application No. 18/330,704 in view of Hermann et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0227568) further in view of Shang et. al. (Chinese Patent Application Publication No. 112820978). For prior art discussion see English translation for CN-112820978-A
‘704 and Hermann are relied upon as described above.
‘704 and Hermann do not explicitly teach the heating system includes a cooling plate disposed adjacent to the first battery cell and the second battery cell, nor the cooling plate being liquid cooled and including one or more valves that are controlled by the battery monitoring system based upon the temperature of the mixed chemistry battery.
Shang teaches a battery box liquid cooling heat dissipation system (title). The liquid cooling plate is located adjacent to the battery cell ([0012]). The cooling system includes a battery monitoring system to monitor the temperature of the battery ([0018]). One or more valves that are controlled by the battery monitoring system based upon the temperature of the mixed chemistry battery ([0012] and [0014]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to include the cooling plate as taught by Shang in the battery system of ‘704 and Hermann. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this addition as a cooling plate stops the battery from overheating and reduces fire-risk ([0005]).
Claims 16 and 17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, and 6 of copending Application No. 18/330,704 in view of Hermann et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0227568) and Robertson et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0004804).
‘704 claims a method for heating a mixed chemistry battery (claim 1) having a first battery cell having a first chemistry and a second battery cell having a second chemistry that is different than the first chemistry (claim 4). The method includes monitoring a temperature of the mixed chemistry battery, monitoring a first state of charge of the first battery cell, and monitoring a second state of charge of the second battery cell (claim 1). Based on a determination that the temperature is below a first threshold value, connecting a heating system to only the first battery cell (claim 1). Based on a determination that the temperature is above a maximum threshold value, the heating system is deactivated (claim 6).
‘704 does not claim that based on a determination that the temperature is above an intermediate threshold value, connecting the heating system to only the second battery cell.
Hermann teaches a method for heating a mixed chemistry battery having a first battery cell having a first chemistry and a second battery cell having a second chemistry that is different than the first chemistry (abstract and [0035]). Hermann also teaches that, based on a determination that the temperature is above an intermediate threshold value (threshold value), connecting the heating system to only the second battery cell ([0060], and fig 3 ref. #327).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to connect the heating system of ‘704 to only the second battery cell when the temperature is above an intermediate threshold value. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include this step as this allows for recharging of the first battery cell ([0027]), which in turn ensuring that the first battery cell is sufficiently charged for later use.
‘704 and Hermann do not explicitly teach that based on a determination that the temperature is above the intermediate threshold value and that a difference between the first state of charge and the second state of charge is less than maximum offset, connecting the heating system to the first battery cell and to the second battery cell.
Robertson teaches a method for heating a battery module with a first battery cell (first battery cell group) and second battery cell (second battery cell group). The method includes monitoring a first state of charge of the first battery cell and monitoring a second state of charge of the second battery cell. This is done by measuring the voltage level and temperature of each battery cell, and calculating the state of charge from these values ([0003]). When the difference between the first state of charge and the second state of charge is less than maximum offset (when the battery cell groups are electrically balanced), then the heating system is connected to the first battery cell and the second battery cell (claim 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to use the determination of being within a maximum offset in the state of charges for the first and second battery cells to connect both the first and second battery cells to the heating system of ‘704 and Hermann. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include this step as this allows for the electrical balance of the first and second battery cells to be maintained ([0007]), in turn ensuring neither battery cell is reduced to a state of charge that is detrimental to the function of the battery cell.
Claim 18 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 4 of copending Application No. 18/330,704 in view of Hermann et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0227568) and Robertson et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0004804), further in view of Myers et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0379051).
‘704, Hermann, and Robertson are relied upon as described above.
‘704, Hermann, and Robertson do not explicitly teach the first chemistry is nickel-manganese cobalt and the second chemistry is lithium iron phosphate.
Myers teaches an energy delivery system that combines multiple energy storage sources/systems of different chemical compositions (abstract). Myers specifically teaches a two-battery system in which the first chemistry is nickel-manganese cobalt and the second chemistry is lithium iron phosphate ([0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to use nickel-manganese cobalt and lithium iron phosphate for the first and second batteries as taught by Myers in the mixed chemistry battery system of ’704, Hermann, and Robertson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use these two specific chemistries as the use of both allows for both the advantage of lithium iron phosphate batteries having longer life and enhanced safety characteristics, while nickel-manganese cobalt has the advantage of reduced relative cost and higher energy density resulting in smaller batteries ([0038]).
Claim 19 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 4 of copending Application No. 18/330,704 in view of Hermann et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0227568) and Robertson et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0004804), further in view of Bauer et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0403284)
‘704, Hermann, and Robertson are relied upon as described above.
‘704, Hermann, and Robertson do not explicitly teach the heating system includes one or more resistive heating layers disposed adjacent to the second battery cell.
Bauer teaches a heating device for a prismatic battery cell of a high-voltage battery of a motor vehicle (title). The heating device includes one or more resistive heating layers ([0010]) disposed adjacent to the battery cell (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to use the resistive heating layers as taught by Bauer in place of the heating system of ’704, Hermann, and Robertson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this change as the eating elements can be integrated into the battery modules in a particularly simple way and without high costs ([0004]).
Claim 20 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 4 of copending Application No. 18/330,704 in view of Hermann et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0227568) and Robertson et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0004804), further in view of Shang et. al. (Chinese Patent Application Publication No. 112820978). For prior art discussion see English translation for CN-112820978-A
‘704, Hermann, and Robertson are relied upon as described above.
‘704, Hermann, and Robertson do not explicitly teach the heating system includes a cooling plate disposed adjacent to the first battery cell and the second battery cell, nor the cooling plate being liquid cooled and including one or more valves that are controlled by the battery monitoring system based upon the temperature of the mixed chemistry battery.
Shang teaches a battery box liquid cooling heat dissipation system (title). The liquid cooling plate is located adjacent to the battery cell ([0012]). The cooling system includes a battery monitoring system to monitor the temperature of the battery ([0018]). One or more valves that are controlled by the battery monitoring system based upon the temperature of the mixed chemistry battery ([0012] and [0014]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to include the cooling plate as taught by Shang in the battery system of ‘704, Hermann, and Robertson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this addition as a cooling plate stops the battery from overheating and reduces fire-risk ([0005]).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation “maximum offset” in line 13 should be changed to “a maximum offset.” Appropriate correction is required.
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 9-20 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.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "connecting a heating system" in line 6. This limitation is unclear and renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear if the heating system is connected to the battery as to heat the batter, as to power the heating system using the battery, a combination or altogether different connection.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "connecting the heating system" in line 8. This limitation is unclear and renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear if the heating system is connected to the battery as to heat the batter, as to power the heating system using the battery, a combination or altogether different connection.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the cooling plate is a liquid cooled" in line 1. This limitation is unclear and renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear what “liquid cooled” is being referred to as none has been positively claimed.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the battery monitoring system" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what battery monitoring system is being referred to as none have been positively claimed.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "connecting a heating system" in line 9. This limitation is unclear and renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear if the heating system is connected to the battery as to heat the batter, as to power the heating system using the battery, a combination or altogether different connection.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "connecting the heating system" in line 10. This limitation is unclear and renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear if the heating system is connected to the battery as to heat the batter, as to power the heating system using the battery, a combination or altogether different connection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hermann et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0227568).
Hermann teaches a method for heating a mixed chemistry battery having a first battery cell having a first chemistry and a second battery cell having a second chemistry that is different than the first chemistry (abstract and [0035]). The method includes monitoring a temperature of the mixed chemistry battery ([0055] and fig. 3 ref. #302), then, based on a determination that the temperature is below a first threshold value, connecting a heating system to only the first battery cell ([0057] and fig. 3 ref. #320 and #323). Based on a determination that the temperature is at least the first threshold value, connecting the heating system to the first battery cell and to the second battery cell ([0059], [0061], and fig. 3 ref. #324 and #325). The first battery cell is connected to the second battery cell in series ([0070] and fig. 10 ref. #1010 and #1040).
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hermann et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0227568) in view of Myers et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0379051).
Hermann is relied upon as described above.
Hermann does not explicitly teach the first chemistry is nickel-manganese cobalt and the second chemistry is lithium iron phosphate.
Myers teaches an energy delivery system that combines multiple energy storage sources/systems of different chemical compositions (abstract). Myers specifically teaches a two-battery system in which the first chemistry is nickel-manganese cobalt and the second chemistry is lithium iron phosphate ([0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to use nickel-manganese cobalt and lithium iron phosphate for the first and second batteries as taught by Myers in the mixed chemistry battery system of Hermann. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use these two specific chemistries as the use of both allows for both the advantage of lithium iron phosphate batteries having longer life and enhanced safety characteristics, while nickel-manganese cobalt has the advantage of reduced relative cost and higher energy density resulting in smaller batteries ([0038]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hermann et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0227568) in view of Bauer et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0403284)
Hermann is relied upon as described above.
Hermann does not explicitly teach the heating system includes one or more resistive heating layers disposed adjacent to the second battery cell.
Bauer teaches a heating device for a prismatic battery cell of a high-voltage battery of a motor vehicle (title). The heating device includes one or more resistive heating layers ([0010]) disposed adjacent to the battery cell (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to use the resistive heating layers as taught by Bauer in place of the heating system of Hermann. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this change as the eating elements can be integrated into the battery modules in a particularly simple way and without high costs ([0004]).
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hermann et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0227568) in view of Shang et. al. (Chinese Patent Application Publication No. 112820978). For prior art discussion see English translation for CN-112820978-A
Hermann is relied upon as described above.
Hermann does not explicitly teach the heating system includes a cooling plate disposed adjacent to the first battery cell and the second battery cell, nor the cooling plate being liquid cooled and including one or more valves that are controlled by the battery monitoring system based upon the temperature of the mixed chemistry battery.
Shang teaches a battery box liquid cooling heat dissipation system (title). The liquid cooling plate is located adjacent to the battery cell ([0012]). The cooling system includes a battery monitoring system to monitor the temperature of the battery ([0018]). One or more valves that are controlled by the battery monitoring system based upon the temperature of the mixed chemistry battery ([0012] and [0014]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to include the cooling plate as taught by Shang in the battery system of Hermann. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this addition as a cooling plate stops the battery from overheating and reduces fire-risk ([0005]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hermann et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0227568) in view of King et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0089547)
Hermann is relied upon as described above.
Hermann does not explicitly teach deactivating the heating system based on a determination that the temperature is above a maximum threshold value.
King teaches a system and method for temperature control of multi-battery systems (title). Within the method, King teaches measuring the temperature of the battery system. If the temperature is below a lower threshold temperature, then a heating system is activated. If the temperature is above a maximum threshold temperature (upper threshold), then the heating system is deactivated ([0018]-[0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to use the step as taught by King to deactivate the heating system based on a determination that the temperature is above a maximum threshold value. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include this step to keep the battery without the optimal working temperature range, which allows for optimal output power discharge ([0004]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hermann et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0227568) in view of Robertson et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0004804).
Hermann teaches a method for heating a mixed chemistry battery having a first battery cell having a first chemistry and a second battery cell having a second chemistry that is different than the first chemistry (abstract and [0035]). The method includes monitoring a temperature of the mixed chemistry battery ([0055] and fig. 3 ref. #302), then, based on a determination that the temperature is below a minimum threshold value (threshold value), connecting a heating system to only the first battery cell ([0057] and fig. 3 ref. #320 and #323). Based on a determination that the temperature is above an intermediate threshold value (threshold value), connecting the heating system to only the second battery cell ([0060], and fig 3 ref. #327).
Hermann also teaches monitoring a first state of charge of the first battery cell and a second state of charge of the second battery cell ([0052]). When the state of energy (derived from the state of charge) of the first and second battery cells are above a threshold value, then both the first and second battery cell are used to power the vehicle.
Herman does not explicitly teach that based on a determination that the temperature is above the intermediate threshold value and that a difference between the first state of charge and the second state of charge is less than maximum offset, connecting the heating system to the first battery cell and to the second battery cell.
Robertson teaches a method for heating a battery module with a first battery cell (first battery cell group) and second battery cell (second battery cell group). The method includes monitoring a first state of charge of the first battery cell and monitoring a second state of charge of the second battery cell. This is done by measuring the voltage level and temperature of each battery cell, and calculating the state of charge from these values ([0003]). When the difference between the first state of charge and the second state of charge is less than maximum offset (when the battery cell groups are electrically balanced), then the heating system is connected to the first battery cell and the second battery cell (claim 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to use the determination of being within a maximum offset in the state of charges for the first and second battery cells to connect both the first and second battery cells to the heating system. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include this step as this allows for the electrical balance of the first and second battery cells to be maintained ([0007]), in turn ensuring neither battery cell is reduced to a state of charge that is detrimental to the function of the battery cell.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hermann et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0227568) in view of Robertson et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0004804) further in view of King et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0089547).
Hermann and Robertson are relied upon as described above.
Hermann and Robertson do not explicitly teach deactivating the heating system based on a determination that the temperature is above a maximum threshold value.
King teaches a system and method for temperature control of multi-battery systems (title). Within the method, King teaches measuring the temperature of the battery system. If the temperature is below a lower threshold temperature, then a heating system is activated. If the temperature is above a maximum threshold temperature (upper threshold), then the heating system is deactivated ([0018]-[0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to use the step as taught by King to deactivate the heating system based on a determination that the temperature is above a maximum threshold value. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include this step to keep the battery without the optimal working temperature range, which allows for optimal output power discharge ([0004]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hermann et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0227568) in view of Robertson et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0004804) further in view of Myers et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0379051).
Hermann and Robertson are relied upon as described above.
Hermann and Robertson do not explicitly teach the first chemistry is nickel-manganese cobalt and the second chemistry is lithium iron phosphate.
Myers teaches an energy delivery system that combines multiple energy storage sources/systems of different chemical compositions (abstract). Myers specifically teaches a two-battery system in which the first chemistry is nickel-manganese cobalt and the second chemistry is lithium iron phosphate ([0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to use nickel-manganese cobalt and lithium iron phosphate for the first and second batteries as taught by Myers in the mixed chemistry battery system of Hermann. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use these two specific chemistries as the use of both allows for both the advantage of lithium iron phosphate batteries having longer life and enhanced safety characteristics, while nickel-manganese cobalt has the advantage of reduced relative cost and higher energy density resulting in smaller batteries ([0038]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hermann et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0227568) in view of Robertson et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0004804) further in view of Bauer et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0403284)
Hermann and Robertson are relied upon as described above.
Hermann and Robertson do not explicitly teach the heating system includes one or more resistive heating layers disposed adjacent to the second battery cell.
Bauer teaches a heating device for a prismatic battery cell of a high-voltage battery of a motor vehicle (title). The heating device includes one or more resistive heating layers ([0010]) disposed adjacent to the battery cell (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to use the resistive heating layers as taught by Bauer in place of the heating system of Hermann. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this change as the eating elements can be integrated into the battery modules in a particularly simple way and without high costs ([0004]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hermann et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0227568) in view of Robertson et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0004804) further in view of Shang et. al. (Chinese Patent Application Publication No. 112820978). For prior art discussion see English translation for CN-112820978-A
Hermann and Robertson are relied upon as described above.
Hermann and Robertson do not explicitly teach the heating system includes a cooling plate disposed adjacent to the first battery cell and the second battery cell, nor the cooling plate being liquid cooled and including one or more valves that are controlled by the battery monitoring system based upon the temperature of the mixed chemistry battery.
Shang teaches a battery box liquid cooling heat dissipation system (title). The liquid cooling plate is located adjacent to the battery cell ([0012]). The cooling system includes a battery monitoring system to monitor the temperature of the battery ([0018]). One or more valves that are controlled by the battery monitoring system based upon the temperature of the mixed chemistry battery ([0012] and [0014]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to include the cooling plate as taught by Shang in the battery system of Hermann. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this addition as a cooling plate stops the battery from overheating and reduces fire-risk ([0005]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Myles Alan Lovasz whose telephone number is (571)272-0214. 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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at (571) 272-1490. 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.
/MAL/
Myles Alan LovaszExaminer, Art Unit 1788 02/24/2026
/Alicia Chevalier/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1788