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 .
Status of Claims
In the communication filed on 07/27/2026, claims 20 and 22-25 are pending. Claims 20 and 22-23 are amended. Claims 24-25 are new. Claims 1-19 and 21 are presently cancelled.
Independent claim 20 is amended to incorporate the subject matter of prior dependent claim 21 as well as new subject matter that changes the scope (“a measurement of a battery current or a battery voltage”; “1 dimensional time series data of the battery voltage or the battery current”). As such, the amended claims have been rejected under new grounds of rejection, infra.
Response to Arguments
Further, the examiner acknowledges the applicant’s comments (pp. 6, 2nd para.) that “Applicant reserves the right to later address any issue raised concerning priority”. It is noted that all prior art references relied upon herein have effective filing dates prior to the applicant’s claimed priority date (03/28/2022).
A subset of the prior objections to the Drawings are maintained, as detailed infra.
A copy of the replacement drawings (filed 07/27/2026) is attached with annotations to indicate which drawing sheets are approved vs. not approved.
Replacement sheets 1-4, 7-10, 13-17, 21-23, 26, 28, 30-32, and 34 are approved.
Replacement sheets 5-6, 11-12, 18-20, 24-25, 27, 29, and 33 are not approved.
An annotated copy of the specification amendments (filed 07/27/2026) is attached with annotations to indicate the specification amendments are okay to enter.
The prior objections to the Claims are withdrawn due to the amendments.
The prior rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn due to the amendments.
The applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections of claim 1 and its dependents have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 07/27/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings (replacement sheets filed 07/27/2026) are objected to because:
Fig. 5 needs to include the units for the vertical axis label “dQ/dV”.
Fig. 7 needs to include the units for the scaling colors label “DQ/DV”.
Fig. 13 needs to include the units for the “Power/Energy (P/E)” and “Mean” values.
Fig. 14A needs to include the units for the “Imaginary Impedance” and “Real Impedance” axis labels.
Figs. 20-21 each needs labels for each feature including “1”, “3”, “5”, and the three ellipse shapes. This may be accomplished with a legend.
Figs. 22A-22B need to include the units for the vertical axis labels “dV/dT”.
Figs. 26A-26B need to include labels for all features, such as by incorporating a legend.
Fig. 27 needs to include the units for the vertical axis labels “Temperature” (should be °C per the specification), “dQ/dV”, and each of the “D(_, _)” diffusion coefficients (should be “cm2/s” per the specification).
Figs. 29A-29B need to include labels for all features, such as by incorporating a legend.
Fig. 31 needs to include labels for all features, such as by incorporating a legend. Currently, only the features “312” and “314” are labelled. The data points (squares and circles) and the curve are not labeled.
Fig. 35 needs to include the units for the “h(_, _)” signals.
NOTE: It is understood that each of the following parameters is unitless and thus does not require a unit to be labelled on the drawings. The applicant is encouraged to review for accuracy.
“Lyapunov Exponent (LE)”
“Correlation dimension”
“Sample Entropy (SE, SoE)”
“Hurst Exponent / fractional Brownian Motion (fBM)”
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) and/or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 20 and 23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 20, line 3 recites “from a battery”, which should be revised to “from [[a]] the battery” because this feature is introduced in the preamble.
Claim 20, lines 3-5 recite “the electrodynamic parameter is …”, which should be revised to “wherein the electrodynamic parameter is …”.
Claim 23 recites “generating a charge signal”, which should be revised to “generating [[a]] the charge signal” because this feature is introduced in the preamble.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 22’s preamble recites “The method of claim 21”. However, claim 21 is presently canceled. Thus claim 22 is indefinite as to which claim it depends on. For examination purposes, it is interpreted that claim 22 depends on claim 20.
Claim 24 is indefinite as to the plurality of “the measurements”. Claim 20 introduced “a measurement of a battery current or a battery voltage”, which is a singular measurement. Thus, claim 24 is interpreted to only require a single measurement, in accordance with claim 20.
Claims 23 and 25 are further rejected for their dependency on other rejected claims.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 20 and 22-25 are rejected on the ground of provisional nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of copending application number 18/620,953 (original claims filed 03/28/2024) in view of Ma et al. (CN 107576915 A).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
The following table compares the instant application and the copending application’s claims. The patentably indistinct claim language is identified with bold text.
Instant Application 18/619,129
Copending 18/620,953
Claim 20
A method of charging a battery comprising:
obtaining an electrodynamic parameter based on a measurement
of a battery current or a battery voltage
from a battery during a charge cycle,
the electrodynamic parameter is at least one of a Lyapunov Exponent, a Correlation Dimension, a Sample Entropy or a Hurst Exponent;
and generating a charge signal based at least in part on the electrodynamic parameter;
wherein to obtain the electrodynamic parameter at least one signal including the battery voltage or the battery current is used,
and the electrodynamic parameter measures the properties of 1 dimensional time series data of the battery voltage or the battery current directly
and does not depend upon electrochemical equations, impedance, open circuit voltage or over potential.
Claim 1
A method of charging a battery comprising:
generating an electrodynamic parameter … computed from a first battery measurement
Claim 2
the battery measurement includes at least one of a voltage measurement, a current measurement,
Claim 7: a battery measurement obtained in the presence of a current signal includes a transient state of the battery.
Claim 8: the transient state is associated with a charge signal
Claim 4
the electrodynamic parameter includes at least one of Lyapunov Exponent, Sample Entropy, Correlation Dimension and Hurst Exponent.
Claim 1
and generating a current signal at the battery based on the electrodynamic parameter
Claim 7
the electrodynamic parameter is computed from a battery measurement obtained in the presence of a current signal
(not explicitly claimed)
Claim 22
The method of claim 21,
wherein generating the charge signal comprises selecting a magnitude of a charge current
based at least in part on at least one of the Lyapunov Exponent, the Correlation Dimension, the Sample Entropy, or the Hurst Exponent.
Claim 1
generating a current signal at the battery
(NOTE: Every current has a magnitude.)
Claim 4
the electrodynamic parameter includes at least one of Lyapunov Exponent, Sample Entropy, Correlation Dimension and Hurst Exponent.
Claim 23
The method of claim 23,
wherein generating a charge signal comprises defining harmonic components of the charge signal.
Claim 3
generating the current signal at the battery based on a harmonic value associated with a relatively lower electrodynamic parameter as compared to other harmonic values associated with a relatively higher electrodynamic parameter.
Claim 24
The method of charging the battery of claim 20,
wherein the electrodynamic parameter is obtained based on a probe signal comprising a charge period and a rest period,
the measurements taken using the probe signal.
Claim 1
generating an electrodynamic parameter from … a first battery measurement taken in the presence of a current signal … and … a second battery measurement taken in a rest period
Claim 7: a battery measurement obtained in the presence of a current signal includes a transient state of the battery
Claim 8: the transient state is associated with … a probe signal.
Claim 25
The method of charging the battery of claim 24,
wherein the charge period of the probe signal includes a charge portion at a charge current of the charge signal and the rest period follows the charge portion,
the rest period including a period where there is no charge current applied to the battery.
Claim 1
a first battery measurement taken in the presence of a current signal at a battery … a second battery measurement taken in a rest period where the current signal at the battery is reduced relative to when the first battery measurement was taken
Claim 5: the relaxed equilibrium state of the battery is during a zero-net change to the battery.
Claim 6: the relaxed equilibrium state of the battery is during a zero-net change to the battery
Regarding Claim 20, though the copending application 18/620,953 claims the electrodynamic parameter is at least one of a Lyapunov Exponent, a Correlation Dimension, a Sample Entropy or a Hurst Exponent, the copending application does not explicitly claim “the electrodynamic parameter measures the properties of 1 dimensional time series data of the battery voltage or the battery current directly and does not depend upon electrochemical equations, impedance, open circuit voltage or over potential.”
Ma teaches (detailed claim item mapping is included infra in the prior art rejection) the electrodynamic parameter measures the properties of 1 dimensional time series data of the battery voltage or the battery current directly and does not depend upon electrochemical equations, impedance, open circuit voltage or over potential.
Ma further teaches this characterization technique to improve accuracy and reduce cost of characterizing the battery (¶ [8]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method claimed by the copending application to obtain the electrodynamic parameter directly from 1 dimensional time series data of the battery voltage or the battery current, as taught by Ma, to improve accuracy and reduce cost of characterizing the battery.
Claims 20, 22, and 24-25 are rejected on the ground of provisional nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 5, 7, and 10 of copending application number 18/900,579 (original claims filed 09/27/2024) in view of Ma et al. (CN 107576915 A).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
The following table compares the instant application and the copending application’s claims. The patentably indistinct claim language is identified with bold text.
Instant Application 18/619,129
Copending 18/900,579
Claim 20
A method of charging a battery comprising:
obtaining an electrodynamic parameter based on a measurement
of a battery current or a battery voltage from a battery
during a charge cycle,
the electrodynamic parameter is at least one of a Lyapunov Exponent, a Correlation Dimension, a Sample Entropy or a Hurst Exponent;
and generating a charge signal based at least in part on the electrodynamic parameter;
wherein to obtain the electrodynamic parameter at least one signal including the battery voltage or the battery current is used,
and the electrodynamic parameter measures the properties of 1 dimensional time series data of the battery voltage or the battery current directly
and does not depend upon electrochemical equations, impedance, open circuit voltage or over potential.
Claim 1
A method of charging a battery comprising:
obtaining a Lyapunov exponent value based on at least one measurement from a battery;
Claim 2: the at least one measurement is at least one of a voltage measurement or a current measurement
Claim 3: measurements are taken in the presence of … a current to the battery
Claim 7: the current is a charging current
Claim 1: obtaining a Lyapunov exponent value
Claim 1
and based on the Lyapunov exponent value relative to a threshold, altering a charge parameter to the battery.
Claim 3: the at least one of the voltage measurement or current measurements are taken in the presence of a probe signal comprising … a current to the battery
(not explicitly claimed)
Claim 22
The method of claim 21,
wherein generating the charge signal
comprises selecting a magnitude of a charge current
based at least in part on at least one of the Lyapunov Exponent, the Correlation Dimension, the Sample Entropy, or the Hurst Exponent.
Claim 1
altering a charge parameter to the battery
Claim 10
the charge parameter is a charge current magnitude.
Claim 1
based on the Lyapunov exponent value
Claim 24
The method of charging the battery of claim 20,
wherein the electrodynamic parameter is obtained
based on a probe signal comprising a charge period and a rest period, the measurements taken using the probe signal.
Claim 1
obtaining a Lyapunov exponent value based on at least one measurement from a battery
Claim 3
measurements are taken in the presence of a probe signal comprising a transition from an active period including a current to the battery to a rest period
Claim 25
The method of charging the battery of claim 24,
wherein the charge period of the probe signal includes a charge portion at a charge current of the charge signal and the rest period follows the charge portion,
the rest period including a period where there is no charge current applied to the battery.
Claim 3
a probe signal comprising a transition from an active period including a current to the battery to a rest period
Claim 5
the rest period is a period where no current is applied to the battery
Regarding Claim 20, though the copending application 18/900,579 claims the electrodynamic parameter is at least one of a Lyapunov Exponent, a Correlation Dimension, a Sample Entropy or a Hurst Exponent, the copending application does not explicitly claim “the electrodynamic parameter measures the properties of 1 dimensional time series data of the battery voltage or the battery current directly and does not depend upon electrochemical equations, impedance, open circuit voltage or over potential.”
Ma teaches (detailed claim item mapping is included infra in the prior art rejection) the electrodynamic parameter measures the properties of 1 dimensional time series data of the battery voltage or the battery current directly and does not depend upon electrochemical equations, impedance, open circuit voltage or over potential.
Ma further teaches this characterization technique to improve accuracy and reduce cost of characterizing the battery (¶ [8]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method claimed by the copending application to obtain the electrodynamic parameter directly from 1 dimensional time series data of the battery voltage or the battery current, as taught by Ma, to improve accuracy and reduce cost of characterizing the battery.
Claim 23 is rejected on the ground of provisional nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 5, 7, and 10 of copending application number 18/900,579 (original claims filed 09/27/2024) in view of Ma et al. (CN 107576915 A) and Ghantous et al. (US 2019/0072618 A1; hereinafter “Ghan”).
Regarding Claim 23, though the copending application 18/900,579 claims generating a charge signal, the copending application does not claim “generating a charge signal comprises defining harmonic components of the charge signal.”.
Ghan teaches (detailed claim item mapping is included infra in the prior art rejection) generating a charge signal comprises defining harmonic components of the charge signal.
Ghan further teaches this charge signal generation technique to reduce battery degradation by reducing the battery’s propensity to plate metallic lithium during charging and discharging (¶ [44, 66, 74, 99, 123, 146]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method’s generation of the charge signal claimed by the copending application to define harmonic components of the charge signal, as taught by Ghan, to reduce battery degradation by reducing the battery’s propensity to plate metallic lithium during charging.
Claims 20 and 24-25 are rejected on the ground of provisional nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4, and 10 of copending application number 19/279,949 (original claims filed 07/24/2025) in view of Ma et al. (CN 107576915 A).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
The following table compares the instant application and the copending application’s claims. The patentably indistinct claim language is identified with bold text.
Instant Application 18/619,129
Copending 19/279,949
Claim 20
A method of charging a battery comprising:
obtaining an electrodynamic parameter based on a measurement of a battery current or a battery voltage from a battery during a charge cycle,
the electrodynamic parameter is at least one of a Lyapunov Exponent, a Correlation Dimension, a Sample Entropy or a Hurst Exponent;
and generating a charge signal based at least in part on the electrodynamic parameter;
wherein to obtain the electrodynamic parameter at least one signal including the battery voltage or the battery current is used,
and the electrodynamic parameter measures the properties of 1 dimensional time series data of the battery voltage or the battery current directly
and does not depend upon electrochemical equations, impedance, open circuit voltage or over potential.
Claim 1
A method … comprising: …. an action to be performed with respect to the battery
Claim 2
the action includes … managing a charging cycle
Claim 10
the electrodynamic parameters are determined based on measurements when a probing waveform is applied to the battery, … during the charging period a voltage applied to the battery
Claim 4
the electrodynamic parameters are based on one or more Lyapunov exponents …, one or more correlation dimensions, one or more sample entropies, one or more Hurst exponents
Claim 2
the action includes … managing a charging cycle
(per claim 1, this action is in response to “applying … electrodynamic parameters to a machine learning (ML) model”)
Claim 10
the electrodynamic parameters are determined based on measurements when a probing waveform is applied to the battery, … during the charging period a voltage applied to the battery
(not explicitly claimed)
Claim 24
The method of charging the battery of claim 20,
wherein the electrodynamic parameter is obtained based on a probe signal comprising a charge period and a rest period,
the measurements taken using the probe signal.
Claim 10
the electrodynamic parameters are determined based on measurements when a probing waveform is applied to the battery, and the probing waveform periodically transitions from a charging period to a resting period
Regarding Claim 20, though the copending application 19/279,949 claims obtaining an electrodynamic parameter based on a measurement from a battery during a charge cycle, the copending application does not claim the measurement is “of a battery current of a battery voltage”.
Further, though the copending application claims the electrodynamic parameter is at least one of a Lyapunov Exponent, a Correlation Dimension, a Sample Entropy or a Hurst Exponent;, the copending application does not explicitly claim “the electrodynamic parameter measures the properties of 1 dimensional time series data of the battery voltage or the battery current directly and does not depend upon electrochemical equations, impedance, open circuit voltage or over potential.”
Ma teaches (detailed claim item mapping is included infra in the prior art rejection) obtaining an electrodynamic parameter based on a measurement of a battery current or a battery voltage from a battery during a charge cycle,
Ma further teaches the electrodynamic parameter measures the properties of 1 dimensional time series data of the battery voltage or the battery current directly and does not depend upon electrochemical equations, impedance, open circuit voltage or over potential.
Ma further teaches this characterization technique to improve accuracy and reduce cost of characterizing the battery (¶ [8]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method claimed by the copending application to obtain the electrodynamic parameter directly from 1 dimensional time series data of the battery voltage or the battery current, as taught by Ma, to improve accuracy and reduce cost of characterizing the battery.
Regarding Claim 25, though the copending application 19/279,949 claims the charge period and the rest period, the copending application does not claim “the charge period of the probe signal includes a charge portion at a charge current of the charge signal and the rest period follows the charge portion, the rest period including a period where there is no charge current applied to the battery.”
Ma teaches (detailed claim item mapping is included infra in the prior art rejection) the charge period of the probe signal includes a charge portion at a charge current of the charge signal and the rest period follows the charge portion, the rest period including a period where there is no charge current applied to the battery.
Ma further teaches this characterization technique to improve accuracy and reduce cost of characterizing the battery (¶ [8]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method’s probe signal claimed by the copending application (as modified supra by Ma) to include the charge portion at a charge current and the rest period to have no battery current, as further taught by Ma, to improve accuracy and reduce cost of characterizing the battery.
Claims 22-23 are rejected on the ground of provisional nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4, and 10 of copending application number 19/279,949 (original claims filed 07/24/2025) in view of Ma et al. (CN 107576915 A) and Ghantous et al. (US 2019/0072618 A1; hereinafter “Ghan”).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
The following table compares the instant application and the copending application’s claims. The patentably indistinct claim language is identified with bold text.
Instant Application 18/619,129
Copending 19/279,949
Claim 22
The method of claim 21,
wherein generating the charge signal
comprises selecting a magnitude of a charge current
based at least in part on at least one of the Lyapunov Exponent, the Correlation Dimension, the Sample Entropy, or the Hurst Exponent.
Claim 2
the action includes … managing a charging cycle
(not explicitly claimed)
(per claim 1, this action is in response to “applying … electrodynamic parameters to a machine learning (ML) model”)
Claim 23
The method of claim 23,
wherein generating a charge signal
comprises defining harmonic components of the charge signal.
Claim 2
the action includes … managing a charging cycle
(not explicitly claimed)
Regarding Claim 22, though the copending application 19/279,949 claims generating the charge signal based at least in part on at least one of the Lyapunov Exponent, the Correlation Dimension, the Sample Entropy, or the Hurst Exponent, the copending application does not claim that generating the charge signal “comprises defining harmonic components of the charge signal”.
Regarding Claim 23, though the copending application claims generating the charge signal, the copending application does not claim “defining harmonic components of the charge signal”.
Ghan teaches (detailed claim item mapping is included infra in the prior art rejection) generating the charge signal comprises selecting a magnitude of a charge current.
Ghan further teaches generating a charge signal comprises defining harmonic components of the charge signal.
Ghan further teaches this charge signal generation technique to reduce battery degradation by reducing the battery’s propensity to plate metallic lithium during charging and discharging (¶ [44, 66, 74, 99, 123, 146]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method’s generation of the charge signal claimed by the copending application to select a charge current magnitude and to define harmonic components of the charge signal, as taught by Ghan, to reduce battery degradation by reducing the battery’s propensity to plate metallic lithium during charging.
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.
Claims 20 and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al. (CN 107576915 A) in view of Ghantous et al. (US 2019/0072618 A1; hereinafter “Ghan”).
Regarding Claim 20, Ma discloses a method of charging a battery (¶ [70]: “when plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and pure electric vehicles are being charged, an automotive load control unit can be used to apply HPPC composite pulse current excitation and acquire corresponding voltage sampling data to calculate voltage response sample entropy”; the pulse application and corresponding measurement is the “battery capacity estimation method” of Figs. 1-2, per ¶ [17-18]) comprising: the following actions.
Ma further discloses obtaining an electrodynamic parameter (Abstract: “voltage response sample entropy”) based on a measurement of a battery voltage (¶ [20, 89-90]: “voltage response curve”, as shown in Fig. 3b; ¶ [70]: “voltage sampling data”; the voltage data is a response to the “pulse current excitation” of Fig. 3a) from a battery (in the method of ¶ [70], the battery is within an electric vehicle) during a charge cycle (per ¶ [70], the process of applying the “pulse current excitation” and measuring the associated “voltage response sample entropy” may be executed “plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and pure electric vehicles are being charged”, i.e. during a charge cycle), the electrodynamic parameter is a Sample Entropy (“voltage response sample entropy”; ¶ [68] describes “the calculation of the sample entropy”).
Ma further discloses generating a value (¶ [10]: “current capacity estimation value”) indicative of the battery’s health (¶ [70]: “calculate voltage response sample entropy … battery health status can then be monitored through a capacity estimator”) based at least in part on the electrodynamic parameter (“voltage response sample entropy”).
Ma further discloses to obtain the electrodynamic parameter (“voltage response sample entropy”) at least one signal including the battery voltage (Fig. 3b is a battery voltage signal) or the battery current (Figs. 3a and 8 are battery current signals) is used.
Ma further discloses the electrodynamic parameter (“voltage response sample entropy”) measures the properties of 1 dimensional time series data of the battery voltage (¶ [20, 89-90]: “voltage response curve”, shown in Fig. 3b) directly and does not depend upon electrochemical equations, impedance, open circuit voltage or over potential (¶ [90]: “determining the voltage response sample entropy based on the voltage response curve”).
PNG
media_image1.png
676
1121
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As addressed supra, Ma discloses generating a value indicative of the battery’s health based at least in part on the electrodynamic parameter. However, Ma does not disclose “generating a charge signal based at least in part on the electrodynamic parameter”.
Ghan teaches a method of charging a battery comprising: generating a charge signal (“charge pulse” of Figs. 4a-4g; ¶ [19]: “modifying one or more current steps or current pulses that are used in the charging process”; ¶ [27]: “changing the magnitude of the applied current, which may involve changing the current magnitude or duration in one or more steps if the constant-current portion is implemented as current steps”; ¶ [34]: “pulse width/duration”; ¶ [44]: “charging circuitry adapts, adjusts, and/or controls the … pulse width … of charging or discharging current pulses”) based on a value indicative of the battery’s health (per ¶ [47, 54-55, 105, 155-156], the adjustments of the battery charge signal occur based on battery parameters indicative of the battery’s “state of health (SOH)”; ¶ [156]: “implement any of the charge or discharge adjustments described herein to address actual or potential degradation of the battery”).
NOTE 1-1: It is acknowledged that Ghan does not teach generating the charge signal based on at least one of a Lyapunov Exponent, a Correlation Dimension, a Sample Entropy or a Hurst Exponent. However, Ghan does teach the charge signal is generated/adjusted based on the battery’s health (“state of health (SOH)”, “degradation”). As addressed supra, the primary reference Ma teaches the electrodynamic parameter, i.e. the Sample Entropy (“voltage response sample entropy”) is used to generate a value (“current capacity estimation value”) which is indicative of the battery’s health (“battery health status”). Thus, the values indicative of the battery’s health taught by each of Ma and Ghan are considered to be analogous.
Ghan further teaches generating a charge signal based on the battery health to reduce battery degradation by reducing the battery’s propensity to plate metallic lithium during charging and discharging (¶ [44, 66, 74, 99, 123, 146]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of charging a battery disclosed by Ma to generate a charge signal based at least in part on the electrodynamic parameter, based on the teachings of Ghan, to reduce battery degradation by reducing the battery’s propensity to plate metallic lithium during charging.
Thus, the combo of Ma and Ghan teaches generating a charge signal (Ghan’s teaching to modify the charge signal’s “current amplitude” and “pulse width/duration” based on the battery health) based at least in part on the electrodynamic parameter (Ma: “voltage response sample entropy”, which is indicative of the battery health).
Regarding Claim 22, the combo of Ma & Ghan teaches the method of claim 21.
The combo of Ma & Ghan teaches generating the charge signal (Ghan’s teaching to modify the charge signal’s “current amplitude” and “pulse width/duration” based on the battery health) comprises selecting a magnitude of a charge current (Ghan ¶ [19]: “modifying one or more current steps or current pulses that are used in the charging process”; ¶ [27]: “changing the magnitude of the applied current, which may involve changing the current magnitude or duration in one or more steps if the constant-current portion is implemented as current steps”) based at least in part on the Sample Entropy (Ma: “voltage response sample entropy”, which is indicative of the battery health).
Regarding Claim 23, the combo of Ma & Ghan teaches the method of claim 22.
The combo of Ma & Ghan teaches generating a charge signal (“charge pulse” of Figs. 4a-4g; (¶ [34]: “pulse width/duration”; ¶ [44]: “charging circuitry adapts, adjusts, and/or controls the … pulse width … of charging or discharging current pulses”) comprises defining harmonic components (¶ [129]: “the current pulse(s) and resulting voltage variations can be decomposed into its various frequency (or harmonic) components that constitute the pulse(s); thus, the charge pulses are made up of harmonic components) of the charge signal (Ghan: “charge pulse”).
Regarding Claim 24, the combo of Ma & Ghan teaches the method of charging the battery of claim 20.
Ma further discloses the electrodynamic parameter (“voltage response sample entropy”) is obtained based on a probe signal (“pulse current excitation”; examples shown in Figs. 3a and 8; ¶ [89]) comprising a charge period (for the Fig. 3A example, ¶ [89]: “a charging current of 0.71A and a duration of 10s”; the Fig. 8 example shows a charge period from approx.. 1050s to 1200s) and a rest period (for the Fig. 3A example, ¶ [89]: “an intermediate interval of 40s rest”; the Fig. 8 example shows a rest period from 1200s to approx. 1300s).
PNG
media_image2.png
739
1173
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ma further discloses the measurements (“voltage response curve” of Fig. 3b) taken using the probe signal (“pulse current excitation” of Fig. 3a).
Regarding Claim 25, the combo of Ma & Ghan teaches the method of charging the battery of claim 24.
Ma further discloses the charge period (periods of Figs. 3a and 8 where the current is a negative value) of the probe signal (“pulse current excitation”; Figs. 3a, 8) includes a charge portion at a charge current (for the Fig. 3A example, ¶ [89]: “a charging current of 0.71A and a duration of 10s”; the Fig. 8 example shows a charge current applied from approx.. 1050s to 1200s) of the charge signal (the probe signal “pulse current excitation” is part of the charge signal applied to the battery).
PNG
media_image3.png
629
1190
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Ma further discloses the rest period (periods of Figs. 3a and 8 wherein current = 0 A) follows the charge portion (the example “pulse current excitation” shown in Fig. 8 includes a rest period following a charge portion).
Ma further discloses the rest period including a period where there is no charge current applied to the battery (each example “pulse current excitation” of Figs. 3a and 8 shows at least one rest period where current = 0 A).
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 Daniel P McFarland whose telephone number is (571)272-5952. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM Eastern.
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, Drew Dunn can be reached at 571-272-2312. 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.
/DANIEL P MCFARLAND/ Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/DREW A DUNN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights