DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This is in response to an amendment/response filed on 7/31/2026
Hereon, claims 1-20 are currently pending; claims 1-20 are rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1,2,6,8,11,16,18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Meng et al, (Meng), (USNO.2008/0024089).
As for claim 1, Meng discloses and shows in Figs. 7 a method for charging a battery, the method comprising: charging the battery under a first ambient temperature T1 until a voltage of the battery reaches a first cutoff voltage U1 and a current of the battery reaches a first cutoff current II, so that a first charge capacity of the battery is Q1 (via charged cycle is ended); and charging the battery under a second ambient temperature T2 (combination with retain heat) until the voltage of the battery reaches a second cutoff voltage U2 and the current of the battery reaches a second cut off current 12, so that a second charge capacity of the battery is Q2, wherein T2 > T1, U2 < U1, Il < 12, and Q1 = Q2 (via charged cycle is ended after previous charging cycle) (par.[0030,0039,0051-0052])
As for claim 2, Meng discloses T1 < 35 °C, and 35 °C ≤ T2
≤ 60 °C (par.[0039-0041])
As for claims 6 and 16, Meng discloses first charge capacity is a full charge capacity of the battery under T1.
As for claims 8 and 18, Meng discloses the (i+1)th voltage is greater than or equal to the 1th voltage, and the (i+1)th power is less than or equal to the ith power (implied via end of charge)
As for claim 11, Meng discloses and shows in Figs. 7 an electric device, comprising: a battery; and a processor (ref’s microcontroller), configured to charge the battery by performing a charging method, wherein the charging method. comprises: charging the battery under a first ambient temperature T1 until a voltage of the battery reaches a first cutoff voltage U1 and a current of the battery reaches a first cutoff current II, so that a first charge capacity of the battery is Q1 (via charged cycle is ended ); and charging the battery under a second ambient temperature T2 (combination with retained heat) until the voltage of the battery reaches a second cutoff voltage U2 and the current of the battery reaches a second cutoff current I2, so that a second charge capacity of the battery is Q2, wherein T2 > T1, U2 < U1, Il < I2, and Q1 = Q2 Q2 (via charged cycle is ended after previous cycle) (par.[0030,0039,0051-0052])
As for claim 20, Meng discloses and shows in Figs. 7 a non-transitory storage medium, storing at least one computer instruction, wherein the instruction is loaded by a processor and used to perform a charging method, wherein the charging method, comprises: charging a battery under a first ambient temperature T1 until a voltage of the battery reaches a first cutoff voltage UI and a current of the battery reaches a first cutoff current II, so that a first charge capacity of the battery is Q1 (via charged cycle is ended ); and charging the battery under a second ambient temperature T2 (combination with retained heat) until the voltage of the battery reaches a second cutoff voltage U2 and the current of the battery reaches a second cutoff current 12, so that a second charge capacity of the battery is Q2, wherein T2 > T1, U2 < U1, Il < I2, and Q1 = Q2 (via charged cycle is ended after previous cycle) (par.[0030,0039,0051-0052])
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3-5,7,9,12-14,17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meng in view of Nishino et al, (Nishino), (USNO.2014/0375279)
As for claims 7, 17, Meng discloses all limitations, but differs from the claimed invention because he does not explicitly disclose charging the battery comprises N sequential charging sub-stages, N is an integer greater than or equal to 2, and the N charging sub-stages are defined as an ith charging sub-stage, wherein i = 1, 2, 3. N, respectively; in the ith charging sub-stage, the battery is charged at an ith current or an ith voltage or an ith power; and, in an (i+1)th charging sub-stage, the battery is charged at an (i+1)th current or an (i+1) voltage or an (i+1)th power, wherein a charge current of the battery in the (i+1) charging sub-stage is less than or equal to a charge current in the ith charging sub-stage.
Nishino discloses and shows in Figs. 3 and 5 charging the battery comprises N sequential charging sub-stages, N is an integer greater than or equal to 2, and the N charging sub-stages are defined as an ith charging sub-stage (via deterioration of battery capacity), wherein i = 1, 2, 3. N, respectively; in the ith charging sub-stage, the battery is charged at an ith current or an ith voltage or an ith power; and, in an (i+1)th charging sub-stage, the battery is charged at an (i+1)th current or an (i+1) voltage or an (i+1)th power, wherein a charge current of the battery in the (i+1) charging sub-stage is less than or equal to a charge current in the ith charging sub-stage (par.[0061-0063])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have modified the teachings of Meng by charging the battery comprises N sequential charging sub-stages, N is an integer greater than or equal to 2, and the N charging sub-stages are defined as an ith charging sub-stage, wherein i = 1, 2, 3. N, respectively; in the ith charging sub-stage, the battery is charged at an ith current or an ith voltage or an ith power; and, in an (i+1)th charging sub-stage, the battery is charged at an (i+1)th current or an (i+1) voltage or an (i+1)th power, wherein a charge current of the battery in the (i+1) charging sub-stage is less than or equal to a charge current in the ith charging sub-stage for advantages such as providing the ability to optimizing charging (par.[0022]) , as taught by Nishnio.
As for claims 3 and 13, Meng in combination with Nishnio discloses second cutoff voltage U2 is greater than or equal to a reduction potential of an electrolytic solution of the battery
As for claims 9 and 19, Meng in combination with Nishnio discloses charging the battery comprises M sequential charging sub-stages, M is an integer greater than or equal to 2, the M charging sub-stages are defined as a jth charging sub-stage, wherein j = 1, M, respectively, and each jet charging sub-stage comprises a jth earlier charging sub-stage and a jth later charging sub-stage (via deterioration of battery capacity): in one of the jth earlier charging sub-stage or the jth later charging sub-stage, the battery is not charged or is charged or discharged at a jth earlier charge sub-current for a duration of Tjl; and, in the other of the jth earlier charging sub-stage or the jth later charging sub-stage, the battery is charged at a jth later charge sub-current for a duration of Tj2, wherein an absolute value of the jth earlier charge sub-current is smaller than an absolute value of the jth later charge sub-current (par.[0061-0063]).
As for claims 4,5,12,14, and 15, Meng in combination with Nishnio discloses the claimed invention except for Uₐ-500 mV ≤ U2 < Uch, wherein Ud is a limited charge voltage of the battery, Il < I2 ≤ Il + 0.2 C, and T1 < 35 °C, and 35 °C ≤ T2
≤ 60 °C. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to use Uₐ-500 mV ≤ U2 < Uch, wherein Ud is a limited charge voltage of the battery, Il < I2 ≤ Il + 0.2 C, and T1 < 35 °C, and 35 °C ≤ T2
≤ 60 °C since it was known in the art that for advantages such as providing the ability to optimizing charging.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicants’ argument that
Meng is directed to adjusting the charge current value during charging based on ambient temperature. Meng does not disclose a first cutoff voltage U1, a second cutoff voltage U2, a first cutoff current I1, and a second cutoff current I2, nor does Meng particularly disclose their specific relationship for controlling the charging cutoff condition
The examiner respectfully disagree and submits, Meng does disclose and shows in Fig. 7A a first cutoff voltage U1, a second cutoff voltage U2, a first cutoff current I1, and a second cutoff current I2 . Meng disclose their specific relationship for controlling the charging cutoff condition (battery voltage is compared ( current is directly proportional to voltage) to determined to end charging cycle. This process is repeated via battery cycle) (par.[0052]).
For at least the reasons provided above, the applicant arguments regarding independent claims are not persuasive. The applicant argues that dependent claims are patentable for similar reasons and are also not persuasive. The applicant further argues that since dependent claims depend on the argued independent claim; they are patentable at least by virtue of their dependencies. Since the applicant's arguments regarding independent claims are not persuasive, the applicant's arguments regarding dependent claims are also not persuasive.
Accordingly, the rejection is still proper and thus maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARUN C WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-9765. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9 a.m. - 6 p.m..
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Julian Huffman can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ARUN C WILLIAMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights