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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDSs) submitted on 06/16/2024 and 10/30/2025 were in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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, 3, 10-14, 16, and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miles et al. (US 2021/0384740 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Miles”) (cited in IDS dated October 30, 2025).
Regarding claim 1, Miles discloses a system (Fig. 3 and paras [0057]-[0062]), comprising a battery charging circuit (Fig. 3, 300) that controls (Fig. 314) a charging voltage waveform (Fig. 3, 302) to supply charging current to a battery (Fig. 3, 306); and
a detection circuit (Fig. 3, 308) that monitors a rate of change of the charging current and controls (Fig. 314) the charging voltage waveform (Fig. 3, 302) responsive to an output of the detection circuit (Fig. 3, 308).
Regarding claim 3, Miles discloses all the limitation of claim 1, in addition, Miles discloses the detection circuit (Fig. 3, 308) monitors the rate of change of the charging current (Fig. 3, 308) by comparison to one or more degradation signatures, and reduces or terminates the charging voltage waveform in response to detecting that the rate of change of the charging current matches a degradation signature (para. [0024, [0033]-[0035], [0042]: charge profile).
Regarding claim 10, Miles discloses all the limitation of claim 8, in addition, Miles discloses the one or more nominal profiles are stored in a look-up table (para. [0042]: a plurality of charging profiles could be stored in the memory of the charger 300, and an appropriate charging profile can be selected based on the battery type identified, note that the above feature of “a plurality of charging profiles could be stored in the memory” in para. [0042] reads on “look-up table”) indexed by operating temperature (para. [0022]: the charge current or voltage may need to be different at different or extreme temperatures), and
wherein the system further includes a temperature monitor that provides an operating temperature as the index (paras. [0021]-[0022]: the charge current or voltage may need to be different at different or extreme temperatures) to the look-up table (para. [0042]: a plurality of charging profiles could be stored in the memory of the charger 300, and an appropriate charging profile can be selected based on the battery type identified, note that the above feature of “a plurality of charging profiles could be stored in the memory” in para. [0042] reads on “look-up table”).
Regarding claim 11, Miles discloses all the limitation of claim 1, in addition, Miles discloses that the battery charging circuit (Fig. 3, 300) further controls either the charging current or values of the charging voltage waveform (Fig. 3, 314 and para. [0033]: the processor 314 controls and regulates the battery voltage, the battery current, or both), according to values of the charging current (Fig. 3, 308 and para. [0010]: monitoring one or more of charging voltage or charging current of a battery), a state-of-charge of the battery (para. [0026]: state of charge) and the rate of change of the charging current (para. [0026]: the time-related behavior of the charge current).
Regarding claim 12, Miles discloses all the limitation of claim 1, in addition, Miles discloses that the battery charging circuit (Fig. 3, 300) selects one of a plurality of charging voltage waveforms according to a battery temperature (para. [0021] With some types of batteries, the charge voltage needs to be further adjusted according to the temperature. para. [0022] Depending on the battery type, the charge current or voltage may need to be different at different or extreme temperatures to avoid damaging the battery).
Regarding claim 13, Miles discloses all the limitation of claim 12, in addition, Miles discloses that the plurality of charging voltage waveforms is predetermined from measurements of safe charging profiles (paras.[0019], [0020], [0024]: correct profile) corresponding to multiple battery temperatures (para. [0022]: different at different or extreme temperatures to avoid damaging the battery) on a test battery (Fig. 3, 306).
Regarding claim 14, it is a method type claim having similar limitations as of claim 1 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rational as of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 16, it is dependent on claim 14 and has similar limitations as of claim 3 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rational as of claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 24, it is dependent on claim 14 and has similar limitations as of claim 11 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rational as of claim 11 above.
Regarding claim 25, it is dependent on claim 14 and has similar limitations as of claim 12 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rational as of claim 12 above.
Regarding claim 26, it is dependent on claim 25 and has similar limitations as of claim 13 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rational as of claim 13 above.
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 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 2 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miles in view of Liu et al. (CN 117713290 A, hereinafter 17713290 A. hereinafter referred to as “Liu”).
Regarding claim 2, Miles teaches all the limitation of claim 1, in addition, Miles teaches that the battery charging circuit (Fig. 3, 300) produces a charging voltage waveform, with voltages of the charging voltage waveform set (Fig. 3, 302) in response to the output of the detection circuit (Fig. 3, 308).
Miles does not specifically teach a piecewise constant charging.
However, Liu teaches a piecewise constant charging (page 6, lines 23-36: determining the voltage corresponding to the minimum time as the constant voltage starting voltage of the constant voltage stage. In one embodiment, the second voltage sequence is linearly fitted to obtain a piecewise linear fit function comprising at least one piece of piecewise function, and the slope of each of the piecewise functions is determined; note that the above feature of “constant voltage” and “piecewise linear fit function” reads on “a piecewise constant charging”).
Miles and Liu are both considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the similar filed of battery charging. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the piecewise such as is described in Liu into Miles, in order to identify charging of a battery, capable of identifying information of each stage of the battery passing through in a charging process and determine whether charging behavior in the charging process is standard according to the information of each stage of the battery passing through (Liu, page 5, lines 15-17).
Regarding claim 15, it is dependent on claim 14 and has similar limitations as of claim 2 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rational as of claim 2 above.
Claims 4-9 and 17-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miles in view of Brecht et al. (KR 100600619 B1, hereinafter referred to as “Brecht”).
Regarding claim 4, Miles teaches all the limitation of claim 1. Miles does not specifically teach that the detection circuit calculates a derivative of the charging current with respect to time and a state of charge of the battery.
However, Brecht teaches that the detection circuit calculates a derivative of the charging current with respect to time and a state of charge of the battery (page 8, lines 19-20: aspects of the graph are the first and second derivatives of voltage, current, and voltage over time).
Miles and Brecht are both considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the similar filed of battery charging. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the detection circuit such as is described in Brecht into Miles, in order to allow the concealable condition to be the maximum value of the first time reference derivative of the battery voltage and the zero value of the second time reference derivative of the battery voltage (Brecht, page 3, lines 20-21).
Regarding claim 5, Miles in view of Brecht teaches all the limitation of claim 4, in addition, Miles teaches that a battery health indication circuit that provides indications of health of the battery (para. [0026]: there is a wide range of battery operating conditions that are possible. These include state of charge, state of health, age, temperature, and in many applications, randomly existing external load current), and the charging current is used to provide the battery health indication (para. [0022]: the charge current or voltage may need to be different at different or extreme temperatures; para. [0026]: there is a wide range of battery operating conditions that are possible. These include state of charge, state of health, age, temperature, and in many applications, randomly existing external load current).
Miles does not specifically teach the derivative of the charging current.
However, Brecht teaches that the derivative of the charging current (page 8, lines 19-20: aspects of the graph are the first and second derivatives of voltage, current, and voltage over time).
Miles and Brecht are both considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the similar filed of battery charging. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the derivative of the charging current such as is described in Brecht into Miles, in order to allow the concealable condition to be the maximum value of the first time reference derivative of the battery voltage and the zero value of the second time reference derivative of the battery voltage (Brecht, page 3, lines 20-21).
Regarding claim 6. Miles in view of Brecht teaches all the limitation of claim 5, in addition, Miles teaches that an output of the battery health indication circuit (Figs 3, 308 and/or 310 and para. [0026]: wide range of battery operating conditions that are possible. These include state of charge, state of health, age, temperature, and in many applications, randomly existing external load current) either directly controls (Fig. 3, 314) the battery charging circuit (Fig. 3, 300) according to the indications of health of the battery (paras. [0019]-[0020], [0024]: correct profile; paras. [0035]: the profile setting, as it allows sensing of the battery characteristics), or wherein the battery charging circuit (Fig. 3, 300) operates according to a health-aware fast-charging profile determined from the indications of health of the battery (paras. [0019]-[0024]: correct profile or charging profile; paras. [0035]: the profile setting, as it allows sensing of the battery characteristics).
Regarding claim 7, Miles in view of Brecht teaches all the limitation of claim 5, in addition, Miles teaches that the detection circuit further calculates para. [0022]: the charge current or voltage may need to be different at different or extreme temperatures; para. [0026]: there is a wide range of battery operating conditions that are possible. These include state of charge, state of health, age, temperature, and in many applications, randomly existing external load current).
Miles does not specifically teach the first derivative and second derivative of the charging current.
However, Brecht teaches that the first derivative and second derivative of the charging current (page 8, lines 19-20: aspects of the graph are the first and second derivatives of voltage, current, and voltage over time).
Miles and Brecht are both considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the similar filed of battery charging. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the first derivative and second derivative of the charging current such as is described in Brecht into Miles, in order to allow the concealable condition to be the maximum value of the first time reference derivative of the battery voltage and the zero value of the second time reference derivative of the battery voltage (Brecht, page 3, lines 20-21).
Regarding claim 8, Miles in view of Brecht teaches all the limitation of claim 4, in addition, Miles teaches that the detection circuit compares the calculated paras. [0019]-[0020], [0024]: correct profile and para. [0022]: the charge current or voltage may need to be different at different or extreme temperatures, note that the above feature of “correct profile” reads on “one or more nominal profiles”).
Miles does not specifically teach the derivative of the charging current.
However, Brecht teaches the derivative of the charging current (page 8, lines 19-20: aspects of the graph are the first and second derivatives of voltage, current, and voltage over time).
Miles and Brecht are both considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the similar filed of battery charging. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the first derivative and second derivative of the charging current such as is described in Brecht into Miles, in order to allow the concealable condition to be the maximum value of the first time reference derivative of the battery voltage and the zero value of the second time reference derivative of the battery voltage (Brecht, page 3, lines 20-21).
Regarding claim 9, Miles in view of Brecht teaches all the limitation of claim 8, in addition, Miles teaches that the detection circuit compares a shape of the calculated paras. [0019]-[0020], [0024]: correct profile and para. [0022]: the charge current or voltage may need to be different at different or extreme temperatures, note that the above feature of “correct profile” reads on “one or more nominal profiles ).
Miles does not specifically teach the derivative of the charging current.
However, Brecht teaches the derivative of the charging current (page 8, lines 19-20: aspects of the graph are the first and second derivatives of voltage, current, and voltage over time).
Miles and Brecht are both considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the similar filed of battery charging. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the first derivative and second derivative of the charging current such as is described in Brecht into Miles, in order to allow the concealable condition to be the maximum value of the first time reference derivative of the battery voltage and the zero value of the second time reference derivative of the battery voltage (Brecht, page 3, lines 20-21).
Regarding claim 17, it is dependent on claim 15 and has similar limitations as of claim 4 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rational as of claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 18, it is dependent on claim 17 and has similar limitations as of claim 5 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rational as of claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 19, it is dependent on claim 18 and has similar limitations as of claim 7 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rational as of claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 20, it is dependent on claim 18 and has similar limitations as of claim 6 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rational as of claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 21, it is dependent on claim 17 and has similar limitations as of claim 8 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rational as of claim 8 above.
Regarding claim 22, it is dependent on claim 21 and has similar limitations as of claim 9 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rational as of claim 9 above.
Regarding claim 23, Miles in view of Brecht teaches all the limitation of claim 21, in addition, Miles teaches monitoring an operating temperature of the battery and retrieving one of the nominal profiles according to the current operating temperature of the battery for comparison (paras. [0021]: charge voltage needs to be further adjusted according to the temperature; para. [0022]: the charge current or voltage may need to be different at different or extreme temperature to avoid damaging the battery)
Miles does not specifically teach the calculated derivative.
However, Miles does not specifically teach the calculated derivative (page 8, lines 19-20: aspects of the graph are the first and second derivatives of voltage, current, and voltage over time).
Miles and Brecht are both considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the similar filed of battery charging. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the calculated derivative such as is described in Brecht into Miles, in order to allow the concealable condition to be the maximum value of the first time reference derivative of the battery voltage and the zero value of the second time reference derivative of the battery voltage (Brecht, page 3, lines 20-21).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Clarke et al. (US 2017/0331162 A1) teaches that a battery charger and method is disclosed for detecting when a battery has a low state of health while simultaneously charging or maintaining the battery. A battery charger includes a processor; a non-transitory memory device; a power management device to receive an input power and to output a charging current; a pair of electrical conductors to electrically couple with a battery, and a display electrically coupled to the processor. The display being configured to indicate a bad battery indicator when the battery has a low state of health and whether the battery is good to start.
Keller et al. (US 2016/0089994 A1) teaches that a battery management system for a motor vehicle is disclosed. The system includes at least one battery having multiple battery cells, an automotive electronic control unit including a device for sensing battery quantities, where the battery quantities are the battery terminal current, the battery terminal voltage and a measured or estimated battery or battery box temperature, the battery terminal current, the battery terminal voltage, the measured or estimated battery or battery box temperature, and an automotive alternator supplying a regulation voltage.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANGKYUNG LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3669. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, LEE RODAK can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
/SANGKYUNG LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights