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. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 5/29/2023, 1/26/2024, 7/23/2024, and 9/26/2025 have been considered by the examiner. Claim Objections Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the battery management system further comprising: a communication module” is claimed, but the communication module is already claimed in a preceding claim (claim 12). Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-3, 9-11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1: Each of claims falls within one of the four statutory categories. Claims 1-3 are a method and claims 9-11 and 17 are a system. Step 2A, Prong 1: Regarding exemplary claim 1, the claim recite “obtaining an actual charging current of a traction battery” and “determining, based on a degree of the actual charging current exceeding a requested charging current, whether to control the traction battery to be discharged” which are mental observations or evaluations and fall within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas set forth in the 2019 PEG. 2019 PEG Section I, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 Step 2A, Prong 2: Claim 1 recites a battery, which indicates a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The additional element of a battery is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field of battery charging. For example, Duan discloses battery charging and discharging. Dependent claims 2-3 fail to cure this deficiency of independent claim 1 (set forth above) and are rejected accordingly. Claims 2-3 recite limitations that represent (in addition to the limitations already noted above) either the abstract idea or an additional element that is merely extra-solution activity, mere use of instructions and/or generic computer component(s) as a tool to implement the abstract idea, and/or merely limits the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. For example, claim 2 includes the further limitation of calculating the relative error between the actual charging current and the requested charging current which is data calculation using a formula and fall within the “mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional limitations of the obtaining module (claim 9), determining module (claim 9), memory (claim 17) and processor (claim 17) generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. 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. Claim(s) 1, 7, 9, 15 , and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Duan et al. (US 20190359066 A1). Regarding Claim 1, Duan teaches a method for charging a traction battery, comprising: obtaining an actual charging current of a traction battery during a charging process of the traction battery (¶[20] “At step 210, the BECM monitors the charging current and charging voltage supplied to the battery”); and determining, based on a degree of the actual charging current exceeding a requested charging current (¶[20] “At step 220, the BECM checks whether the charging current of the battery is out of the allowed range and/or a malfunction of the HV system power electronics has exposed the battery to a higher charge voltage and/or a higher charge current”), whether to control the traction battery to be discharged (Y or N after step 220, discharge in step 280; “at step 280, the BECM will command the battery to discharge the current for the calculated time based on the predesigned function to remove lithium plating”). Regarding Claim 7, Duan teaches the method according to claim 1. Duan further teaches in response to a duration for controlling the traction battery to be discharged being greater than or equal to a preset time interval, controlling the traction battery to stop being discharged (¶[22] “at step 280, the BECM will command the battery to discharge the current for the calculated time based on the predesigned function to remove lithium plating”). Regarding Claim 9, Duan teaches a battery management system, comprising: an obtaining module (BECM) configured to obtain an actual charging current of a traction battery during a charging process of the traction battery (¶[20] “At step 210, the BECM monitors the charging current and charging voltage supplied to the battery”); and a determining module (BECM) configured to determine, based on a degree of the actual charging current exceeding a requested charging current (¶[20] “At step 220, the BECM checks whether the charging current of the battery is out of the allowed range and/or a malfunction of the HV system power electronics has exposed the battery to a higher charge voltage and/or a higher charge current”), whether to control the traction battery to be discharged (Y or N after step 220, discharge in step 280; “at step 280, the BECM will command the battery to discharge the current for the calculated time based on the predesigned function to remove lithium plating”). Regarding Claim 15, Duan teaches the battery management system according to claim 9. Duan further teaches a control module (BECM) configured to: in response to a duration for controlling the traction battery to be discharged being greater than or equal to a preset time interval, control the traction battery to stop being discharged (¶[22] “at step 280, the BECM will command the battery to discharge the current for the calculated time based on the predesigned function to remove lithium plating”). Regarding Claim 17, Duan teaches a battery management system (Fig. 1), comprising: a memory storing instructions (instructions shown in the flow chart of Fig. 2); a processor configured to execute the instructions (BECM 130, ¶[3] “A battery management system may include one or more controllers, such as a Battery Energy Control Module (BECM)”) to: obtain an actual charging current of a traction battery during a charging process of the traction battery (¶[20] “At step 210, the BECM monitors the charging current and charging voltage supplied to the battery”); and determine, based on a degree of the actual charging current exceeding a requested charging current, whether to control the traction battery to be discharged (Y or N after step 220, discharge in step 280; “at step 280, the BECM will command the battery to discharge the current for the calculated time based on the predesigned function to remove lithium plating”). 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(s) 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duan et al. (US 20190359066 A1) in view of Keskula et al. (US 20020051899 A1). Regarding Claim 2, Duan teaches the method according to claim 1. Duan teaches wherein determining, based on the degree of the actual charging current exceeding the requested charging current, whether to control the traction battery to be discharged comprises: in response to a difference between the actual charging current and the requested charging current to being greater than a threshold, (¶[20] “At step 220, the BECM checks whether the charging current of the battery is out of the allowed range and/or a malfunction of the HV system power electronics has exposed the battery to a higher charge voltage and/or a higher charge current”), determining to control the traction battery to be discharged (Y or N after step 220, discharge in step 280; “at step 280, the BECM will command the battery to discharge the current for the calculated time based on the predesigned function to remove lithium plating”). Duan does not teach a ratio of a difference between the actual charging current and the requested charging current to the requested charging current being greater than a threshold. Keskula teaches a ratio of a difference between the actual value and the requested value to the requested value (¶[61] “The predicted voltage Vp is summed in step 142 as a negative value with the magnitude of the measured voltage Vm. The difference between Vp and Vm is divided in step 144 by the magnitude of the predicted voltage Vp output” … ¶[62] “The result of the division is a value representing the percent error between the measured voltage Vm and the predicted voltage Vp”) It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Duan to incorporate the teachings of Keskula to provide a ratio of a difference between the actual value and the requested value to the requested value in order to express the error as a percentage. The combination of Duan and Keskula teaches a ratio of a difference between the actual charging current and the requested charging current to the requested charging current being greater than a threshold. Regarding Claim 10, Duan teaches the battery management system according to claim 9. Duan teaches wherein the determining module is further configured to: in response to a difference between the actual charging current and the requested charging current to being greater than a threshold, (¶[20] “At step 220, the BECM checks whether the charging current of the battery is out of the allowed range and/or a malfunction of the HV system power electronics has exposed the battery to a higher charge voltage and/or a higher charge current”), determine to control the traction battery to be discharged (Y or N after step 220, discharge in step 280; “at step 280, the BECM will command the battery to discharge the current for the calculated time based on the predesigned function to remove lithium plating”). Duan does not teach a ratio of a difference between the actual charging current and the requested charging current to the requested charging current being greater than a threshold. Keskula teaches a ratio of a difference between the actual value and the requested value to the requested value (¶[61] “The predicted voltage Vp is summed in step 142 as a negative value with the magnitude of the measured voltage Vm. The difference between Vp and Vm is divided in step 144 by the magnitude of the predicted voltage Vp output” … ¶[62] “The result of the division is a value representing the percent error between the measured voltage Vm and the predicted voltage Vp”) It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Duan to incorporate the teachings of Keskula to provide a ratio of a difference between the actual value and the requested value to the requested value in order to express the error as a percentage. The combination of Duan and Keskula teaches a ratio of a difference between the actual charging current and the requested charging current to the requested charging current being greater than a threshold. Claim(s) 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duan et al. (US 20190359066 A1) in view of Keskula et al. (US 20020051899 A1) further in view of Kaneyasu et al. ( US 20140197790 A1 ) Regarding Claim 3, Duan teaches the method according to claim 1. Duan does not explicitly teach wherein determining, based on the degree of the actual charging current exceeding the requested charging current, whether to control the traction battery to be discharged comprises: in response to a ratio of a difference between the actual charging current and the requested charging current to the requested charging current being greater than a first threshold, determining an ampere-hour integral of the difference between the actual charging current and the requested charging current; and in response to the ampere-hour integral is greater than a second threshold, determining to control the traction battery to be discharged. Keskula teaches a ratio of a difference between the actual value and the requested value to the requested value (¶[61] “The predicted voltage Vp is summed in step 142 as a negative value with the magnitude of the measured voltage Vm. The difference between Vp and Vm is divided in step 144 by the magnitude of the predicted voltage Vp output” … ¶[62] “The result of the division is a value representing the percent error between the measured voltage Vm and the predicted voltage Vp”) It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Duan to incorporate the teachings of Keskula to provide a ratio of a difference between the actual value and the requested value to the requested value in order to express the error as a percentage. The combination of Duan and Keskula teaches a ratio of a difference between the actual charging current and the requested charging current to the requested charging current being greater than a threshold. The combination of Duan and Keskula does not teach determining an ampere-hour integral of the difference between the actual charging current and the requested charging current; and in response to the ampere-hour integral is greater than a second threshold, determining to control the traction battery to be discharged. Kaneyasu teaches determining an ampere-hour integral of the difference between the actual charging current and the requested charging current (¶[15] “if the rated output electric current of the vehicle battery charger 1 is 15 A, and the actual charging current is 16 A, 1 A corresponding to the difference therebetween is integrated”); and in response to the ampere-hour integral being greater than a second threshold (¶[107] “the self-diagnosis is executed by the control unit 20 using the elapsed time timer value T and the integrated value W for the charging current as the history information on the operating condition of the vehicle battery charger 1, and if these index values are greater than or equal to the predetermined thresholds SH.sub.0 and SH.sub.1, respectively”), It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Duan and Keskula to incorporate the teachings of Kaneyasu to provide determining an ampere-hour integral of the difference between the actual charging current and the requested charging current; and in response to the ampere-hour integral being greater than a second threshold, in order to determine if the difference in charging current persists for a significant amount of time. Regarding Claim 11, Duan teaches the battery management system according to claim 9. Duan does not explicitly teach wherein the determining module is further configured to: in response to a ratio of a difference between the actual charging current and the requested charging current to the requested charging current being greater than a first threshold, determine an ampere-hour integral of the difference between the actual charging current and the requested charging current; and in response to the ampere-hour integral being greater than a second threshold, determine to control the traction battery to be discharged. Keskula teaches a ratio of a difference between the actual value and the requested value to the requested value (¶[61] “The predicted voltage Vp is summed in step 142 as a negative value with the magnitude of the measured voltage Vm. The difference between Vp and Vm is divided in step 144 by the magnitude of the predicted voltage Vp output” … ¶[62] “The result of the division is a value representing the percent error between the measured voltage Vm and the predicted voltage Vp”) It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Duan to incorporate the teachings of Keskula to provide a ratio of a difference between the actual value and the requested value to the requested value in order to express the error as a percentage. The combination of Duan and Keskula teaches a ratio of a difference between the actual charging current and the requested charging current to the requested charging current being greater than a threshold. The combination of Duan and Keskula does not teach to determine an ampere-hour integral of the difference between the actual charging current and the requested charging current; and in response to the ampere-hour integral being greater than a second threshold, determine to control the traction battery to be discharged. Kaneyasu teaches to determine an ampere-hour integral of the difference between the actual charging current and the requested charging current (¶[15] “if the rated output electric current of the vehicle battery charger 1 is 15 A, and the actual charging current is 16 A, 1 A corresponding to the difference therebetween is integrated”); and in response to the ampere-hour integral being greater than a second threshold (¶[107] “the self-diagnosis is executed by the control unit 20 using the elapsed time timer value T and the integrated value W for the charging current as the history information on the operating condition of the vehicle battery charger 1, and if these index values are greater than or equal to the predetermined thresholds SH.sub.0 and SH.sub.1, respectively”), It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Duan and Keskula to incorporate the teachings of Kaneyasu to provide to determine an ampere-hour integral of the difference between the actual charging current and the requested charging current; and in response to the ampere-hour integral being greater than a second threshold, in order to determine if the difference in charging current persists for a significant amount of time. Claim(s) 4-6, 8, 12-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duan et al. (US 20190359066 A1) in view of Machida et al. (US 20190229382 A1). Regarding Claim 4, Duan teaches the method according to claim 1. Duan does not teach in response to determining to control the traction battery to be discharged, sending charging request information to a charging pile, the charging request information being used to request that a charging current be 0; and in response to the actual charging current of the traction battery being less than or equal to a threshold, controlling the traction battery to be discharged. Machida teaches in response to determining to control the traction battery to be discharged (when target current I tag reaches first threshold value TH1, see Fig. 4) , sending charging request information to a charging pile (¶[46] “Examples of the main control to be executed by ECU 100 include “external charging” for charging on-vehicle battery 150 with the electric power supplied from charging station 2. The external charging is carried out by mutual exchange of signals, instructions, and information between ECU 100 of vehicle 1 and controller 200 of charging station 2 via charging cable 3”) , the charging request information being used to request that a charging current be 0 (¶[71]) “Specifically, allowable charging power Iwin is forcibly set to 0 … When charging of battery 150 is stopped (i.e., when IB=0 is set)” ; and in response to the actual charging current of the traction battery being less than or equal to a threshold, controlling the traction battery to be discharged (¶[72] “During the period from time t21 to time t22 during which allowable charging power Iwin is set to 0, charging of battery 150 is prohibited while discharging of battery 150 is permitted. Therefore, battery 150 is discharged”) . It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Duan to incorporate the teachings of Machida to provide in response to determining to control the traction battery to be discharged, sending charging request information to a charging pile, the charging request information being used to request that a charging current be 0; and in response to the actual charging current of the traction battery being less than or equal to a threshold, controlling the traction battery to be discharged; in order to perform the discharge operation and prevent battery deterioration while connected to an external charger , and improve the convenience of the user while maintaining the health of the vehicle battery by making the process compatible with external chargers. Regarding Claim 5 , Duan in view of Machida teaches the method according to claim 4 . Duan further teaches in response to a duration elapsed after the charging request information is sent being greater than or equal to a preset time interval, controlling the traction battery to stop being discharged (¶[22] “at step 280, the BECM will command the battery to discharge the current for the calculated time based on the predesigned function to remove lithium plating”). Regarding Claim 6 , Duan in view of Machida teaches the method according to claim 5, Duan as modified does not teach wherein the charging request information is first charging request information; the method further comprising: in response to the traction battery being controlled to stop being discharged, sending second charging request information to the charging pile based on a charging matching table, the second charging request information being used to request the charging pile to charge the traction battery. Machida further teaches wherein the charging request information is first charging request information (see ¶[72] quoted above) ; the method further comprising: in response to the traction battery being controlled to stop being discharged (at t22 in Fig. 4, ¶[74] “when the magnitude of allowable current I lim exceeds second threshold value TH2 at time t22, the restriction on allowable charging power Iwin is relaxed (specifically, canceled)”), sending second charging request information to the charging pile (see ¶[46] quoted above) based on a charging matching table ( ¶[82-83] “As shown in FIG. 6, map MP defines offset current Ioff for each SOC and each temperature TB of battery 150. Preferably, the lower the temperature TB is, the greater the magnitude of offset current Ioff is. By referring to this map MP, offset current Ioff can be calculated from the SOC and temperature TB of battery 150 . Further, ECU 100 calculates target current Itag by adding offset current Ioff to allowable current Ilim (S6)” ), the second charging request information being used to request the charging pile to charge the traction battery (from t22 onwards in Fig. 4) . It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Duan in view of Machida to further incorporate the teachings of Machida to provide wherein the charging request information is first charging request information; the method further comprising: in response to the traction battery being controlled to stop being discharged, sending second charging request information to the charging pile based on a charging matching table, the second charging request information being used to request the charging pile to charge the traction battery; in order to continue charging the battery after the discharge period. Regarding Claim 8 , Duan teaches the method according to claim 7 . Duan does not teach in response to the traction battery being controlled to stop being discharged, sending charging request information to a charging pile based on a charging matching table, the charging request information being used to request the charging pile to charge the traction battery. Machida teaches in response to the traction battery being controlled to stop being discharged (at t22 in Fig. 4, ¶[74] “when the magnitude of allowable current I lim exceeds second threshold value TH2 at time t22, the restriction on allowable charging power Iwin is relaxed (specifically, canceled)”), sending charging request information to a charging pile (see ¶[46] quoted above) based on a charging matching table (¶[82-83] “As shown in FIG. 6, map MP defines offset current Ioff for each SOC and each temperature TB of battery 150. Preferably, the lower the temperature TB is, the greater the magnitude of offset current Ioff is. By referring to this map MP, offset current Ioff can be calculated from the SOC and temperature TB of battery 150 . Further, ECU 100 calculates target current Itag by adding offset current Ioff to allowable current Ilim (S6)”), the charging request information being used to request the charging pile to charge the traction battery (from t22 onwards in Fig. 4). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Duan in view of Machida to further incorporate the teachings of Machida to provide in response to the traction battery being controlled to stop being discharged, sending charging request information to a charging pile based on a charging matching table, the charging request information being used to request the charging pile to charge the traction battery; in order to continue charging the battery after the discharge period. Regarding Claim 12 , Duan teaches the battery management system according to claim 9 . Duan does not teach a communication module configured to: in response to determining to control the traction battery to be discharged, send charging request information to a charging pile, the charging request information being used to request that a charging current be 0; and a control module configured to: in response to the actual charging current of the traction battery being less than or equal to a threshold, control the traction battery to be discharged. Machida teaches a communication module (ECU, ¶[76] “The steps, however, may be implemented by dedicated hardware (electric circuit) provided in ECU 100”) configured to: in response to determining to control the traction battery to be discharged (when target current I tag reaches first threshold value TH1, see Fig. 4), sending charging request information to a charging pile (¶[46] “Examples of the main control to be executed by ECU 100 include “external charging” for charging on-vehicle battery 150 with the electric power supplied from charging station 2. The external charging is carried out by mutual exchange of signals, instructions, and information between ECU 100 of vehicle 1 and controller 200 of charging station 2 via charging cable 3”), the charging request information being used to request that a charging current be 0 (¶[71]) “Specifically, allowable charging power Iwin is forcibly set to 0 … When charging of battery 150 is stopped (i.e., when IB=0 is set)”; and a control module (ECU) configured to: in response to the actual charging current of the traction battery being less than or equal to a threshold, controlling the traction battery to be discharged (¶[72] “During the period from time t21 to time t22 during which allowable charging power Iwin is set to 0, charging of battery 150 is prohibited while discharging of battery 150 is permitted. Therefore, battery 150 is discharged”). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Duan to incorporate the teachings of Machida to provide a communication module configured to: in response to determining to control the traction battery to be discharged, send charging request information to a charging pile, the charging request information being used to request that a charging current be 0; and a control module configured to: in response to the actual charging current of the traction battery being less than or equal to a threshold, control the traction battery to be discharged. in order to perform the discharge operation and prevent battery deterioration while connected to an external charger, and improve the convenience of the user while maintaining the health of the vehicle battery by making the process compatible with external chargers. Regarding Claim 13 , Duan in view of Machida teaches the battery management system according to claim 12 . Duan further teaches wherein the control module is further configured to: in response to a duration elapsed after the charging request information is sent being greater than or equal to a preset time interval, control the traction battery to stop being discharged (¶[22] “at step 280, the BECM will command the battery to discharge the current for the calculated time based on the predesigned function to remove lithium plating”). Regarding Claim 14 , Duan in view of Machida teaches the battery management system according to claim 13 . Duan as modified does not teach wherein the charging request information is first charging request information; the battery management system further comprising: a communication module configured to: in response to the traction battery being controlled to stop being discharged, send second charging request information to the charging pile based on a charging matching table, the second charging request information being used to request the charging pile to charge the traction battery. Machida further teaches wherein the charging request information is first charging request information (see Machida ¶[72] quoted above); the battery management system further comprising: a communication module (ECU) configured to: in response to the traction battery being controlled to stop being discharged (at t22 in Fig. 4, ¶[74] “when the magnitude of allowable current I lim exceeds second threshold value TH2 at time t22, the restriction on allowable charging power Iwin is relaxed (specifically, canceled)”), sending second charging request information to the charging pile (see ¶[46] quoted above) based on a charging matching table (¶[82-83] “As shown in FIG. 6, map MP defines offset current Ioff for each SOC and each temperature TB of battery 150. Preferably, the lower the temperature TB is, the greater the magnitude of offset current Ioff is. By referring to this map MP, offset current Ioff can be calculated from the SOC and temperature TB of battery 150 . Further, ECU 100 calculates target current Itag by adding offset current Ioff to allowable current Ilim (S6)”), the second charging request information being used to request the charging pile to charge the traction battery (from t22 onwards in Fig. 4). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Duan in view of Machida to further incorporate the teachings of Machida to provide wherein the charging request information is first charging request information; the battery management system further comprising: a communication module configured to: in response to the traction battery being controlled to stop being discharged, send second charging request information to the charging pile based on a charging matching table, the second charging request information being used to request the charging pile to charge the traction battery; in order to continue charging the battery after the discharge period. Regarding Claim 16 , Duan teaches the battery management system according to claim 15 . Duan does not teach a communication module configured to: in response to the traction battery being controlled to stop being discharged, send charging request information to a charging pile based on a charging matching table, the charging request information being used to request the charging pile to charge the traction battery. Machida teaches communication module (ECU, ¶[76] “The steps, however, may be implemented by dedicated hardware (electric circuit) provided in ECU 100”) configured to: in response to the traction battery being controlled to stop being discharged (at t22 in Fig. 4, ¶[74] “when the magnitude of allowable current I lim exceeds second threshold value TH2 at time t22, the restriction on allowable charging power Iwin is relaxed (specifically, canceled)”), sending charging request information to a charging pile (see Machida ¶[46] quoted above) based on a charging matching table (¶[82-83] “As shown in FIG. 6, map MP defines offset current Ioff for each SOC and each temperature TB of battery 150. Preferably, the lower the temperature TB is, the greater the magnitude of offset current Ioff is. By referring to this map MP, offset current Ioff can be calculated from the SOC and temperature TB of battery 150 . Further, ECU 100 calculates target current Itag by adding offset current Ioff to allowable current Ilim (S6)”), the charging request information being used to request the charging pile to charge the traction battery (from t22 onwards in Fig. 4). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Duan in view of Machida to further incorporate the teachings of Machida to provide in response to the traction battery being controlled to stop being discharged, sending charging request information to a charging pile based on a charging matching table, the charging request information being used to request the charging pile to charge the traction battery; in order to continue charging the battery after the discharge period. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT AIMAN BICKIYA whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-0555 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 8:30 - 6 PM EST . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Julian Huffman can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-2147 . 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. /A.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 2859 /JULIAN D HUFFMAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859