DETAILED ACTION
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
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 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.
Claims 1-2 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. KR 20170022778 A. (It is noted that the Lee citations are taken from the machine translation, until a translation is obtained.)
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a smart battery cycle charging method [fig. 3c], comprising:
detecting a current voltage per battery cell of battery cells in a battery device [pars. 87-88; voltage sensor 161 senses the voltage per cell (cell 110, fig. 1), a plurality of cells can be used (par. 82)];
according to voltage ranges and charging times corresponding to the voltage ranges in a mapping table, after detecting and determining that the current voltage per battery cell is within one of the voltage ranges, using a constant current to charge the battery cells for one of the charging times corresponding to the one of the voltage ranges [par. 104 (par. 46 in the original); fig. 2; the voltages are used to switch stages between the various CC stages, thus according to a voltage range (V0 to V1) a first current is applied for a first time t1 (as well as for V1-V2, V2-V3); pars. 120, 122-127, 130 & 133 the time of the CC application is used to determine the associated times, and then the time can be used to control the duration of each interval and the total charge time]; and
using a constant voltage to charge the battery cells [fig. 2-3C; in between the CC stages are constant voltage stages].
Regarding claim 7, Lee discloses a smart battery cycle charging device [fig. 1], comprising:
a battery device having battery cells [pars. 87-88; voltage sensor 161 senses the voltage per cell (cell 110, fig. 1), a plurality of cells can be used (par. 82)]; and
a charging device having a processor and a mapping table [fig. 1, MPU 160], and coupled to the battery cells , wherein the mapping table has voltage ranges and charging times corresponding to the voltage ranges, wherein after the processor detects and determines that a current voltage per battery cell is within one of the voltage ranges, the processor controls the charging device to use a constant current to charge the battery cells for one of the charging times corresponding to the one of the voltage ranges [par. 104 (par. 46 in the original); fig. 2; the voltages are used to switch stages between the various CC stages, thus according to a voltage range (V0 to V1) a first current is applied for a first time t1 (as well as for V1-V2, V2-V3); pars. 120, 122-127, 130 & 133 the time of the CC application is used to determine the associated times, and then the time can be used to control the duration of each interval and the total charge time], and
wherein after the one of the charging times, the processor controls the charging device to use a constant voltage to charge the battery cells [fig. 2-3C; in between the CC stages are constant voltage stages].
Regarding claims 2 and 8, Lee discloses wherein after charging the battery cells using the fixed current for the one of the charging times, the battery device is charged to about 70% of a maximum capacity of the battery device [fig. 5; after a certain number of cycles (“charging times”), 70% of the initial capacity (maximum capacity) is reached; par. 140].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claims 3-4 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. KR 20170022778 A in view of Sheng CN 110556598 A. (It is noted that the Lee and Sheng citations are taken from the machine translation, until a translation is obtained.)
Regarding claims 3-4 and 9-10, Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein using the constant current to charge the battery cells uses a C-rate of 0.8C to charge the battery cells or wherein the constant voltage is 4.2V per battery cell.
However, Sheng discloses a CC-CV charging method for a battery comprising using the constant current to charge the battery cells uses a C-rate of 0.8C to charge the battery cells [par. 24] or wherein the constant voltage is 4.2V per battery cell [par. 24].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee to further include using the constant current to charge the battery cells uses a C-rate of 0.8C to charge the battery cells and wherein the constant voltage is 4.2V per battery cell since these are safe values for a lithium ion battery, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) which was ready for improvement in order to yield results predictable by one of ordinary skill the art. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 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.
With respect to claim 5, the following is an examiner's statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to further teach or suggest “wherein the voltage ranges comprise: a first range, wherein the current voltage per battery cell is less than or equal to 3V; a second range, wherein the current voltage per battery cell is between 3V and 3.2V; a third range, wherein the current voltage per battery cell is between 3.2V and 3.5V; a fourth range, wherein the current voltage per battery cell is between 3.5V and 3.7V; a fifth range, wherein the current voltage per battery cell is between 3.7V and 4V; and a sixth range, wherein the current voltage per battery cell is greater than 4V” in combination with all the other elements recited in claim 5.
Claim 6, being dependent on claim 5, would be allowable for the same reasons as claim 5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kimura et al. US PGPUB 2018/0241233 discloses a CC-CV charging method which predicts charging time using the time for each stage.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID V HENZE whose telephone number is (571)272-3317. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 9am to 7pm.
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.
/DAVID V HENZE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights