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 .
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.
Claims 8, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jee et al. (US 2021/0344212; “Jee”; reference of record).
As for claim 8, Jee teaches a method of charging a vehicle battery (figure 2) comprising:
determining an estimated state (para. [0045], [0056]) of the vehicle battery (10; para. [0146]);
obtaining a nominal charge curve from a model for the vehicle battery (The battery has an initial electricity amount-voltage curve and preset C-rate. Para. [0046] [0086]);
updating the nominal charge curve to set and adjust an actual charge curve by detecting lithium plating conditions during charging (These initial conditions are used to calculate a resistance change rate and to adjust the C-rate accordingly. Lithium plating occurs with overcharge of the battery, which is prevented with this operation. Para. [0046], [0078], [0087], [0088]);
using the adjusted actual charge curve to control charging current delivered to the vehicle battery (Para. [0046], [0087], [0088]).
Regarding claim 12, Jee teaches wherein the step of updating the nominal charge curve to set and adjust the actual charge curve is performed by storing a correction and limitation logic, responsive to detection of lithium plating during charging (Para. [0078], [0082], [0086] teach adjusting the charge current and storing charge information in storage unit 140).
As for claim 13, Jee teaches wherein the nominal charge curve is derived from a nominal model that contains a set of optimal charge curves computed off-line for a set of operating points of battery SOC defining nominal lithium plating boundaries (Para. [0067], [0086], [0096], and [0135] teach preset conditions for the battery monitoring system of Jee, which includes charge rates, SOC, and lithium plating prevention).
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jee in view of K (US 10,071,648; reference of record).
Regarding claim 14, Jee teaches wherein the step of updating the nominal charge curve to set and adjust the actual charge curve by detecting lithium plating conditions during charging is performed by measuring secondary electrolyte-interphase layer (SEI) resistance as the vehicle battery is charged (Para. [0078] and [0088]).
Jee fails to teach wherein the nominal model relies on estimates of Li/Li+ overpotential in the battery.
However, it is well-known to those of ordinary skill in the art to utilize Li/Li+ overpotential estimation in a battery when determining levels of lithium plating. For example, see col. 6, lines 39-46 of K.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize Li/Li+ overpotential estimates in the method of Jee because such a modification would have been implementing a well-known protocol for determining lithium plating.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/22/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant's comments with respect to the rejection of claims 8, 12, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jee, Applicant argues:
Argument #1: “Jee does not disclose obtaining a nominal charge curve from a battery model, nor does Jee disclose transforming such a nominal charge curve into a distinct, adjusted actual charge curve based on lithium plating detection. Rather, the nominal charging behavior in Jee remains fixed, and lithium plating detection serves solely as a trigger for conservative current limitation.” See page 9 of Applicant’s remarks.
Response to Argument #1: As discussed above in the rejection of claim 8, the nominal charge curve of Jee comes from a predetermined model for the vehicle battery that includes an initial electricity amount-voltage curve and preset C-rate. Para. [0046] [0086].
The charge curve is then updated into an adjusted actual charge curve by detecting lithium plating conditions during charging and calculating a resistance change rate to adjust the C-rate accordingly. Lithium plating occurs with overcharge of the battery, which is prevented with this operation. Para. [0046], [0078], [0087], [0088].
Argument #2: Regarding claim 13, Applicant argues “Neither Jee nor Feng discloses this limitation. Jee does not disclose a nominal model containing precomputed optimal charge curves defining lithium plating boundaries. Jee instead relies on real-time resistance change rate calculations to limit current.” See page 12 of Applicant’s remarks.
Response to Argument #2: However, para. [0086], [0096], [0135] of Jee teach predetermined factors used for the nominal charge curve.
Regarding Applicant’s comments directed to the rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jee in view of K, Applicant argues K fails to make up for the alleged deficiencies of Jee with respect to parent claim 13.
However, as seen above, Jee teaches the limitations of parent claim 13.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 and 15-20 are allowed.
Claims 9-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The best prior art reference of record, Jee, fails to teach or suggest:
“adjusting the charging current to enable the measured SEI resistance to track the modeled SEI resistance values.”, as set forth in claims 1 and 15; and
“wherein the step of updating the nominal charge curve to set and adjust the actual charge curve by detecting lithium plating conditions during charging is performed by measuring secondary electrolyte-interphase layer (SEI) resistance as the vehicle battery is charged.”, as set forth in claim 9.
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 LEVI GANNON whose telephone number is (571)272-7971. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Menatoallah Youssef can be reached at 571-270-3684. 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.
/LEVI GANNON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2849 March 3, 2026
Prosecution Insights