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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the minimum turn-on power being a floor below which heating is suppressed) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant further argues that the consumed power BxM or Ogaki is not a minimum turn-on power for thermal management. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The BxM determined by Ogaki is compared with a difference between the charging pile power and the charging power of the power battery (Fig.4, S4: Pa-A>BxM) and when the power difference, i.e. the remaining power, exceeds the BxM power the process proceeds to steps S10-S15, i.e. the remaining power exceeds the minimum power needed for using the heater in steps S10-S15.
Furthermore, applicant argues, regarding claim 4, that Fulop does not teach the new limitation of determining that a cell can absorb the full charging pile power. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As disclosed in the rejection of claim 4 presented in the prior Non-Final Office Action, Fulop’s teaching of adjusting the charge rate upwards to maintain optimal safety operation would include a maximum charge rate of a charging pile, since it is known in the art that exceeding a maximum charge rate of a charging pile would be understood as unsafe operation. Therefore, Fulop teaches the determination of the power battery being capable of being charged at the charging pile power, according to the negative electrode potential, where the charging pile power is indicative of a maximum charging capacity of the charging pile.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3, 11-13, & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gibeau et al. (USPGPN 2014/0266038), in view of Ogaki et al. (USPGPN 2020/0215931).
Regarding Claims 1 & 11, Gibeau (Figs. 1-3) teaches a method for charging a power battery (50/102-104), applied to a battery management system (BMS) (26/106) for the power battery, comprising:
determining a first charging current for the power battery (212);
determining, according to a temperature of the power battery (210; ¶0042: based on the lowest cell temperature), whether to perform thermal management of the power battery (212; ¶0042: controller determines the charging rate that is appropriate);
determining, in response to determining to perform the thermal management of the power battery (¶0040-0042: energy used to heat the battery is determined after a temperature of the battery is taken and determination is made that heating is necessary), a thermal management current according to the first charging current and charging pile power (¶0042: determines the amount of energy used to heat the battery); and
sending an indication of the first charging current and an indication of the thermal management current (214 & 216) to a charging pile (76/122), wherein the first charging current is used for charging the power battery and the thermal management current is used for performing the thermal management of the power battery (¶0043: for example, 1.8kW to heat the battery and 1.5kW to charge the battery at its maximum rate for the present state),
wherein determining, according to the temperature of the power battery, whether to perform thermal management of the power battery comprises comparing the temperature of the power battery with a temperature threshold (¶0040: when the battery temperature is below the low temperature threshold), and determining to perform the thermal management of the power battery in response to the temperature of the power battery being less than the temperature threshold (¶0040: the charging current is limited in response to the temperature being below the low temperature threshold; ¶0042: the amount of energy used for heating is determined in response to the temperature being below the low temperature threshold).
Gibeau fails to explicitly teach a difference between the charging pile power and charging power of the power battery being greater than or equal to minimum turn-on power for thermal management, the charging power being a product of the first charging current and a voltage of the power battery.
However, Ogaki (Figs. 2 & 4) teaches a charging method which comprises, when a battery temp is below a threshold (S1), a difference between the charging power and battery charging power (S4: Pa-A; Pa is useable power and A is charging power) is compared with a minimum turn-on power for thermal management (BxM; ¶0064: for example, when equation 4 is the maximum BxM is 1kW; ¶0062: 1kW is the minimum consumed electric power of the heater),
wherein the charging power is a product of the first charging current and a voltage of the power battery (charging power A is determined from SOC and Tbat, power is inherently V x I, and the charging power A would be understood to be the product of the current voltage and a determined charging current).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Gibeau with Ogaki to include a comparison of the difference between the charging power and battery charging power with a minimum turn-on power for thermal management in determining to perform the thermal management. Doing so improves the charging efficiency of the battery by confirming sufficient power is provided to the heater.
Regarding Claims 2 & 12, Gibeau further teaches wherein the first charging current is a maximum charging current allowed at the temperature of the power battery (¶0043: charge the battery at its maximum rate for the present state).
Regarding Claims 3 & 13, Gibeau further teaches wherein the temperature of the power battery is the temperature of the power battery before charging (Fig.3: temperature is read in 210 prior to charging current being sent at 214).
Regarding Claim 20, Gibeau teaches a BMS performing steps for charging a power battery, as disclosed in the rejection of claim 11 above.
Gibeau fails to explicitly teach the BMS comprises a processor and memory storing the steps performed.
However, Ogaki teaches a battery charging method is stored in memory and ran by a processor (¶0032: ECU performs the control and includes processors and memory).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Gibeau with Ogaki to use a processor and memory to store and run the charging steps. Doing so provides a system which provides consistent, unmanned, control.
Claim(s) 4, 5, 14, & 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gibeau, in view of Ogaki, as applied in the rejections of claims 1 & 11 above, and further in view of Fulop et al. (USPGPN 2014/0023888).
Regarding Claims 4 & 14, Gibeau, as modified, further teaches stopping the thermal management of the power battery (Fig.3: 218 repeats steps 210-216 when target SOC is not reached; ¶0047: Fig.4 is the algorithm used in block 212 and at block 306 no hearting of the battery is required; Fig.4: 306).
Gibeau, as modified, fails to explicitly teach wherein the charging pile power is indicative of a maximum charging capacity of the charging pile,
acquiring a negative electrode potential of the power battery during a charging process for the power battery;
determining, according to the negative electrode potential, that the power battery is capable of being charged at the charging pile power; and
sending an indication of a second charging current to the charging pile, wherein the second charging current is used for charging the power battery and is a charging current corresponding to the charging pile power.
However, Fulop (Fig.4) teaches a method which acquires a negative electrode potential of the power battery during a charging process for the power battery (410);
determining, according to the negative electrode potential, that the power battery is capable of being charged at the charging pile power (420->430->440->460); and
sending a second charging current to the charging pile, wherein the second charging current is used for charging the power battery and is a charging current corresponding to the charging pile power (460; ¶0117: charge rate may be adjusted upwards to maintain a charge rate of optimal safety operation, which would include a set charge rate of a charging pile at a maximum rated output since a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand operating above a rated output would be unsafe operation of the charging pile).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Gibeau, in view of Ogaki, with Fulop to include acquiring a negative electrode potential of the power battery during a charging process for the power battery; determining, according to the negative electrode potential, that the power battery is capable of being charged at the charging pile power; and sending a second charging current to the charging pile, wherein the second charging current is used for charging the power battery and is a charging current corresponding to the charging pile power. Doing so allows for a reduced risk of plating of lithium at the negative electrode while allowing for minimized charge time, as evidenced by Fulop (¶0030; ¶0117).
Regarding Claims 5 & 15, Gibeau, as modified, further teaches wherein determining, according to the negative electrode potential, that the power battery is capable of being charged at the charging pile power comprises:
determining the second charging current according to a negative electrode potential of the power battery at a current moment, wherein the second charging current is a charging current for the power battery at a next moment (Fulop-Fig.4: 460 adjusted charge rate is for a next moment and is determined according to 410 measured voltage of negative electrode); and
determining, according to the second charging current and the voltage of the power battery, that the power battery is capable of being charged at the charging pile power at the next moment (¶0117: a charging rate being adjusted to an upper level that provides optimal safety indicates a determination is made that the power level of the charging converter is not exceeded, according to the battery voltage and the next charging current).
Claim(s) 8 & 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gibeau, in view of Ogaki, as applied in the rejections of claims 1 & 11 above, and further in view of Takahashi (USPGPN 2015/0022157)
Regarding Claims 8 & 18, Gibeau, as modified, fails to explicitly teach further comprising, in a process of performing the thermal management of the power battery:
adjusting the first charging current to a charging current less than the first charging current in response to the negative electrode potential of the power battery dropping to a negative electrode potential safety threshold.
However, Takahashi (Fig.2) teaches a charging system in which while the battery is being charged (IN CHARGE), a first charging current is adjusted to a charging current less than the a first charging current in response to the negative electrode potential of the power battery dropping to a negative electrode potential safety threshold (S103 -> S104: during charging, if negative electrode potential U2 drops below threshold potential Vth21, the input power, and subsequently charging current, is limited).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Gibeau, in view of Ogaki, with Takahashi to include an adjusting step during charging of the battery/thermal management of adjusting the first charging current to a charging current less than the first charging current in response to the negative electrode potential of the power battery dropping to a negative electrode potential safety threshold. Doing so helps prevent side reactions from occurring in the negative electrode, as evidenced by Takahashi (¶0064).
Claim(s) 9, 10, & 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gibeau, in view of Ogaki, as applied in the rejections of claims 1 & 11 above, and further in view of Xie (WIPO Publication 2023/087889 A1 – priority date of 11/16/2021)
Regarding Claims 9 & 19, Gibeau, as modified, fails to explicitly teach further comprising, in a process of performing the thermal management of the power battery:
adjusting the first charging current to a charging current greater than the first charging current in response to the negative electrode potential of the power battery not dropping to a negative electrode potential safety threshold and a charging duration of the power battery being greater than a time threshold.
However, Xie teaches a method during charging a battery which adjusts the first charging current to a charging current greater than the first charging current (Pg.10, Final Para.: first current is adjusted to larger second charging current when a preset period of time elapses) in response to the negative electrode potential of the power battery not dropping to a negative electrode potential safety threshold (Pg.7, Para.3: reduce the charging current when the negative electric potential is less than the threshold) and (Pg.29, Para.2: embodiments may be combined) a charging duration of the power battery being greater than a time threshold (Pg.10, Final Para.: first current is adjusted to larger second charging current when a preset period of time elapses).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Gibeau, in view of Ogaki, with Xie to include a step during charging of the battery/ thermal management adjusting the first charging current to a charging current greater than the first charging current in response to the negative electrode potential of the power battery not dropping to a negative electrode potential safety threshold and a charging duration of the power battery being greater than a time threshold. Doing so helps charge the battery safely and quickly, as evidenced by Xie.
Regarding Claim 10, Gibeau, as modified, further teaches determining the negative electrode potential safety threshold according to a battery state parameter of the power battery, the battery state parameter comprising at least one of the state of charge (SOC), the temperature, or the state of health (SOH) of the power battery (Xie- Pg.8, Para.2: potential threshold can be adjusted based on the selected battery parameter; Pg.2, Para.11: battery parameters may be battery capacity which examiner equates to SOC which is a percentage representation of the battery’s remaining capacity).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOHN P ONDRASIK whose telephone number is (703)756-1963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
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, Julian Huffman can be reached at (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.
/JOHN P ONDRASIK/Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/JULIAN D HUFFMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights