DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
In the communication dated March 30, 2026, claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1 and 11 are amended.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 30, 2026 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings were received on March 30, 2026. These drawings are accepted.
Response to Arguments
The applicant argues that Wampler relates to a “transit rate” and appears to be a rate of traversing between charging and discharging curves. Thus, the applicant alleges that the feature of “a maximum possible state of charge and a minimum possible state of charge of the plurality of possible states of charge differ by more than 30%” is not taught by Wampler (see page 11 of applicant remarks).
However, Wampler teaches that a fully charged battery (maximum possible state of charge) is 100% and the lowest charge (minimum possible state of charge) is 20% (see Wampler ¶45). Thus, the possible states of charge differs by more than 30%.
The applicant argues that Wampler does not teach “wherein the set of charge-discharge cycles are applied to reduce or eliminate the hysteresis” (see page 11-12 of applicant remarks).
Although Wampler teaches a reduction of the hysteresis, Wampler does not explicitly teach that the reduction is controlled. Ueki US20110270477A1 is newly cited to teach that current limiting is performed to reduce a difference between the charge/discharge hysteresis. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to reduce the hysteresis in order to avoid an increase in the internal resistance of the battery.
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 1-3, 8, 11-14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wampler et al. US20230266396A1 in view of Ueki US20110270477A1 and Lee et al. US20200235588A1.
Regarding claim 1. Wampler discloses a method for balancing a battery pack (FIG. 3):
measuring sensor data associated with the battery packs (¶32 – sensors measure voltage, current and/or temp of the battery cells 200)).
determining a presence of hysteresis (¶30 – hysteresis voltage is calculated);
wherein hysteresis is a condition of at least one battery cell in the battery pack having an open circuit voltage corresponding to a plurality of possible states of charge (¶31/40 – battery management calculates a battery state of individual cells of the battery system), wherein a maximum possible state of charge and a minimum possible state of charge of the plurality of possible states of charge differ by more than 30% (¶45 – fully charged battery = 100%, and the battery is allowed to discharge down to 20%. Thus the difference between the maximum possible state of charge and the minimum possible state of charge differs by more than 30%);
when hysteresis is determined, applying a set of charge-discharge cycles to the battery pack and measuring a response (FIG. 5; ¶45 – battery partially discharges and charges, where the results are measured) wherein the set of charge-discharge cycles are applied to reduce or eliminate the hysteresis (¶51 – battery charged at a second current and the hysteresis relaxation is less than the first amount) and the set of charge-discharge cycles are applied with at least one of: a predetermined rate, a predetermined duration (¶48 – hysteresis state component is calculated with a time-derivative of the transit variable; ¶52 – hysteresis state based on a weighted time average; ¶53 – C-rate (current rate), relaxation weights);
estimating a state of charge for a plurality of battery cells of the battery pack using the sensor data and the response (¶33 – battery estimation module determines a state of the battery system).
Although Wampler teaches a reduction of the hysteresis, Wampler does not explicitly teach that the reduction is controlled.
Ueki discloses that current limiting is performed to reduce a difference between the charge hysteresis value and the discharge hysteresis value (¶130).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to reduce the charging/discharging hysteresis in order to prevent the increase in internal resistance, thus, degrading the battery (Ueki; ¶3)
Wampler does not explicitly disclose that when a state of charge threshold is met, determining a first set of battery cells in the battery pack and a second set of battery cells in the battery pack, wherein each battery cell of the battery pack is in at most one of the first set or the second set.
Lee discloses balancing the second set of the battery cells in the battery pack relative to the first set of battery cells in the battery pack
Lee discloses that when a state of charge threshold is met (¶64 – normal SOC range), determining a first set of battery cells in the battery pack and a second set of battery cells in the battery pack (¶64 – a first set is those cells in a normal range and the second set is those outside of the normal range; ¶128; ¶130), wherein each battery cell of the battery pack is in at most one of the first set or the second set (¶64 – each cell falls into a normal or abnormal category; FIG. 6 – BC1, BC5 and BC6 are in a group and BC2, BC3 and BC4 are in a second group).
Lee discloses balancing the second set of the battery cells in the battery pack relative to the first set of battery cells in the battery pack (FIG. 3 at S111; ¶64 – balancing performed for battery cells outside of the normal range, thus the out of normal range cells are balanced relative to those that are in the normal range; FIGS. 6-7; ¶128).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of invention to provide cell balancing, as taught by Lee, to the battery system of Wampler in order to prevent overcharge or over discharge which could damage the system and reduce the lifespan (Lee; ¶8).
Regarding claim 2. Wampler does not explicitly disclose that each battery cell is assigned to the first set of battery cells or the second set of battery cells based on the state of charge for the respective battery cell
Lee discloses that each battery cell is assigned to the first set of battery cells or the second set of battery cells based on the state of charge for the respective battery cell (¶64 – a first set is those cells in a normal range and the second set is those outside of the normal range).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of invention to provide cell balancing, as taught by Lee, to the battery system of Wampler in order to prevent overcharge or over discharge which could damage the system and reduce the lifespan (Lee; ¶8).
Regarding claim 3. Although Wampler teaches estimating the state of charge for each battery cell, Wampler does not explicitly teach the state of charge threshold is a threshold variation across all of the calculated state of charge for each battery cell
Lee discloses that the state of charge threshold is a threshold variation across all of the calculated state of charge for each battery cell (¶64 – normal SOC range where under the broadest reasonable interpretation the range is a variation of the threshold).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of invention to provide cell balancing, as taught by Lee, to the battery system of Wampler in order to prevent overcharge or over discharge which could damage the system and reduce the lifespan (Lee; ¶8).
Regarding claim 8. Although Wampler teaches estimating the state of charge for each battery cell, Wampler does not explicitly teach contemporaneously with balancing the second set of battery cells in the battery pack relative to the first set of battery cells in the battery pack: measuring a second set of sensor data; a second state of charge for each battery cell of the battery pack using the sensor data; when the state of charge threshold is no longer met, halting balancing the second set of battery cells
Lee discloses contemporaneously with balancing the second set of battery cells in the battery pack relative to the first set of battery cells in the battery pack:
Lee discloses measuring a second set of sensor data (SOC is recalculated S113 which includes using a voltage sensed from the voltage measuring unit ¶99-100);
Lee discloses determining a second state of charge for each battery cell of the battery pack using the sensor data (SOC is recalculated S113 which includes using a voltage sensed from the voltage measuring unit ¶99-100).
when the state of charge threshold is no longer met, halting balancing the second set of battery cells (¶134 – when there is no cell outside of the normal range (NR) the control unit may stop the balancing).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of invention to provide cell balancing, as taught by Lee, to the battery system of Wampler in order to prevent overcharge or over discharge which could damage the system and reduce the lifespan (Lee; ¶8).
Regarding claim 11. Wampler discloses a system comprising:
a battery pack (104) comprising a plurality of battery cells (¶20 – battery modules each including a plurality of battery cells);
a sensor (204) and configured to measure sensor data associated with the battery pack (¶32 – measures voltage/current/temperature);
a processor (battery management system 136) in communication with the sensor (¶32 – battery management system includes a measurement model that coordinates the measurement values) wherein the processor is configured to:
receive the sensor data associated with the battery pack (¶32);
determining a presence of hysteresis (¶30 – hysteresis voltage is calculated);
wherein hysteresis is a condition of at least one battery cell in the battery pack having an open circuit voltage corresponding to a plurality of possible states of charge (¶31/40 – battery management calculates a battery state of individual cells of the battery system), wherein a maximum possible state of charge and a minimum possible state of charge of the plurality of possible states of charge differ by more than 30% (¶47 – percentage of total hysteresis voltage is 66%);
when hysteresis is determined, applying a set of charge-discharge cycles to the battery pack and measuring a response (FIG. 5; ¶45 – battery partially discharges and charges, where the results are measured);
estimating a state of charge for a plurality of battery cells of the battery pack using the sensor data and the response ¶33 – battery estimation module determines a state of the battery system) wherein the set of charge-discharge cycles are applied to reduce or eliminate the hysteresis (¶51 – battery charged at a second current and the hysteresis relaxation is less than the first amount) and the set of charge-discharge cycles are applied with at least one of: a predetermined rate, a predetermined duration (¶48 – hysteresis state component is calculated with a time-derivative of the transit variable; ¶52 – hysteresis state based on a weighted time average; ¶53 – C-rate (current rate), relaxation weights).
Although Wampler teaches a reduction of the hysteresis, Wampler does not explicitly teach that the reduction is controlled.
Ueki discloses that current limiting is performed to reduce a difference between the charge hysteresis value and the discharge hysteresis value (¶130).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to reduce the charging/discharging hysteresis in order to prevent the increase in internal resistance, thus, degrading the battery (Ueki; ¶3).
Wampler does not explicitly teach for each battery cell of the battery pack: determine whether the respective battery cell is a member of a first set of battery cells in the battery pack or a second set of battery cells in the battery pack based on the state of charge of the respective battery cell, wherein each battery cell of the battery pack is in only one of the first set of battery cells or the second set of battery cells.
Lee discloses to provide instructions for balancing the second set of battery cells in the battery pack relative to the first set of battery cells in the battery pack for each battery cell of the battery pack:
determine whether the respective battery cell is a member of a first set of battery cells in the battery pack or a second set of battery cells in the battery pack (¶64 – a first set is those cells in a normal range and the second set is those outside of the normal range; ¶128; ¶130) based on the state of charge of the respective battery cell (¶64 – normal SOC range), wherein each battery cell of the battery pack is in only one of the first set of battery cells or the second set of battery cells (¶64 – each cell falls into a normal or abnormal category; FIG. 6 – BC1, BC5 and BC6 are in a group and BC2, BC3 and BC4 are in a second group).
Lee discloses to provide instructions for balancing the second set of battery cells in the battery pack relative to the first set of battery cells in the battery pack (FIG. 3 at S111; ¶64 – balancing performed for battery cells outside of the normal range, thus the out of normal range cells are balanced relative to those that are in the normal range; FIGS. 6-7; ¶128).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of invention to provide cell balancing, as taught by Lee, to the battery system of Wampler in order to prevent overcharge or over discharge which could damage the system and reduce the lifespan (Lee; ¶8).
Regarding claim 12. Wampler does not explicitly disclose that the processor is configured to determine whether to determine whether a respective battery cell is a member of the first set of battery cells in the battery pack or the second set of battery cells in the battery pack; when a variation across all of the state of charges for each battery cell exceeds a threshold variation
Lee discloses that the processor is configured to determine whether to determine whether a respective battery cell is a member of the first set of battery cells in the battery pack or the second set of battery cells in the battery pack (¶64 – a first set is those cells in a normal range and the second set is those outside of the normal range) when a variation across all of the state of charges for each battery cell exceeds a threshold variation (¶64 – normal SOC range where under the broadest reasonable interpretation the range is a variation of the threshold).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of invention to provide cell balancing, as taught by Lee, to the battery system of Wampler in order to prevent overcharge or over discharge which could damage the system and reduce the lifespan (Lee; ¶8).
Regarding claim 13. Wampler does not explicitly teach the second set of battery cells comprises each battery cell of the plurality of battery cells with a difference between the state of charge of the respective battery cells and the state of charge of a battery cell with the highest state of charge of a battery cell of the battery exceeding a threshold difference exceeding a threshold difference.
Lee discloses the second set of battery cells comprises each battery cell of the plurality of battery cells with a difference between the state of charge of the respective battery cells and the state of charge of a battery cell with the highest state of charge of a battery cell of the battery (¶47 – a battery cell is selected as a target group/cell and a difference is determined between the SOC of the standard cell and the SOC of the target cell) exceeding a threshold difference (FIG. 6; ¶124 – a normal voltage difference range is 10%; in FIG. 6 BC2-BC4 exceed the 10% difference).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of invention to provide cell balancing, as taught by Lee, to the battery system of Wampler in order to prevent overcharge or over discharge which could damage the system and reduce the lifespan (Lee; ¶8).
Regarding claim 14. Wampler does not explicitly disclose that the highest state of charge is at most 80% when balancing the second set of battery cells relative to the first set of battery cells.
Lee discloses that the highest state of charge is at most 80% when balancing the second set of battery cells relative to the first set of battery cells (FIG. 6 illustrates a maximum SOC of 80%).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of invention to provide cell balancing, as taught by Lee, to the battery system of Wampler in order to prevent overcharge or over discharge which could damage the system and reduce the lifespan (Lee; ¶8).
Regarding 18. Although Wampler teaches estimating the state of charge for each battery cell, Wampler does not explicitly teach during performance of the instructions for balancing the second set of battery cells, the processor is further configured to: receive a second set of sensor data; a second state of charge for each batter cell of the battery pack using the sensor data; update an assigned set of battery cells for each battery cell of the battery pack based on a second state of charge
Lee discloses that during performance of the instructions for balancing the second set of battery cells, the processor is further configured to:
Lee discloses receive a second set of sensor data (SOC is recalculated S113 which includes using a voltage sensed from the voltage measuring unit ¶99-100);
Lee discloses determining a second state of charge for each batter cell of the battery pack using the sensor data (SOC is recalculated S113 which includes using a voltage sensed from the voltage measuring unit ¶99-100; ¶132-133).
Lee discloses update an assigned set of battery cells for each battery cell of the battery pack based on a second state of charge (FIG. 7. ; ¶132-133).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of invention to provide cell balancing, as taught by Lee, to the battery system of Wampler in order to prevent overcharge or over discharge which could damage the system and reduce the lifespan (Lee; ¶8).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wampler et al. US20230266396A1 in view of Ueki US20110270477A1 and Lee et al. US20200235588A1 and further in view of Yoon et al. US20200150183A1.
Regarding claim 4. Wampler does not explicitly teach that the state of charge threshold is a threshold difference between a highest state of charge and a lowest state of charge of the estimated state of charges for each battery cells.
Yoon discloses that the state of charge threshold is a threshold difference between a highest state of charge (maximum allowable SOC value) and a lowest state of charge (minimum allowable SOC value) of the estimated state of charges (Claim 8; ¶68).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the minimum and maximum allowable SOC value, as taught by Yoon, to the range of each of the cells of Wampler and Lee in order to account for degradation during an estimation.
Regarding claim 5. Wampler does not explicitly disclose that the battery pack is balanced at a state of charge between 20-80%.
Lee teaches that the battery pack is balanced at a state of charge between 20-80% (FIG. 5-6 shows SOC between 40-60).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of invention to provide cell balancing, as taught by Lee, to the battery system of Wampler in order to prevent overcharge or over discharge which could damage the system and reduce the lifespan (Lee; ¶8).
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wampler et al. US20230266396A1 in view of Ueki US20110270477A1 and Lee et al. US20200235588A1 and in further view of Johnston US3356922A.
Regarding claim 6. Wampler does not explicitly disclose balancing the second set of battery cells in the battery pack relative to the first set of battery cells in the battery pack comprises: discharging the first set of battery cells to a load; and contemporaneously with discharging the first set of battery cells to the load, charging the second set of battery cells using the first set of battery cells.
Johnston discloses balancing the second set of battery cells in the battery pack relative to the first set of battery cells in the battery pack comprises:
discharging the first set of battery cells (20) to a load (4) (claim 17 – discharging first battery through a load); and
Johnston discloses contemporaneously with discharging the first set of battery cells (20) to the load (4), charging the second set of battery cells (25) using the first set of battery cells (20) (claim 17 – simultaneously discharging a fraction of the load current from the first battery to a second rechargeable battery).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the discharging of a first set of cells, as taught by Johnston, to Wampler and Lee in order to preserve the lifetime of the battery (Johnston; column 1, lines 40-46).
Regarding claim 15. Wampler does not explicitly disclose that the instructions for balancing the second set of battery cells in the battery pack relative to the first set of battery cells in the battery pack comprise: discharging the first set of battery cells to a load; and contemporaneously with discharging the first set of battery cells to the load, charging the second set of battery cells using the first set of battery cells.
Johnston discloses balancing the second set of battery cells in the battery pack relative to the first set of battery cells in the battery pack comprise:
Johnston discloses discharging the first set of battery cells (20) to a load (4) (claim 17 – discharging first battery through a load); and
Johnston discloses contemporaneously with discharging the first set of battery cells (20) to the load (4), charging the second set of battery cells (25) using the first set of battery cells (20) (claim 17 – simultaneously discharging a fraction of the load current from the first battery to a second rechargeable battery).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the discharging of a first set of cells, as taught by Johnston, to Wampler and Lee in order to preserve the lifetime of the battery (Johnston; column 1, lines 40-46).
Claims 7, 9, 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wampler et al. US20230266396A1 in view of Ueki US20110270477A1 and Lee et al. US20200235588A1 and further in view of Miller US20200321787A1
Regarding claim 7. The combination of Wampler and Lee does not explicitly disclose balancing the second set of battery cells in the battery pack relative to the first set of battery cells in the battery pack comprises: discharging the first set of battery cells and the second set of battery cells to a load; contemporaneously with discharging the first set of battery cells and the second set of battery cells to a load, discharging each battery cell of the first set of battery cells using a separate bleed resistor
Miller discloses balancing the second set of battery cells in the battery pack relative to the first set of battery cells in the battery pack comprises:
Miller discloses discharging the first set of battery cells and the second set of battery cells to a load (¶13 – plurality of cells to a load that absorbs power).
Miller discloses contemporaneously with discharging the first set of battery cells and the second set of battery cells to a load, discharging each battery cell of the first set of battery cells using a separate bleed resistor (¶19 – passive cell balancing for the pair of cells by activating the bleed resistor to discharge energy from a cell).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the passive discharging of Miller to the system of Wampler and Lee to permit the machine return to operation more quickly than if the machine had to wait for all cells of the battery to be fully charged (Miller; ¶67).
Regarding claim 9. The combination of Wampler and Lee does not explicitly disclose the method does not comprise resting the first and second sets of battery cells.
Miller discloses that the method does not comprise resting the first and second sets of battery cells (¶67 – cells are passively discharged to ensure the cells are in balance).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the passive discharging of Miller to the system of Wampler and Lee to permit the machine return to operation more quickly than if the machine had to wait for all cells of the battery to be fully charged (Miller; ¶67).
Regarding claim 16. The combination of Wampler and Lee does not explicitly disclose the instructions for balancing the second set of battery cells in the battery pack relative to the first set of battery cells in the battery pack comprise differentially discharging the first set of battery cells and the second set of battery cells.
Miller discloses balancing the second set of battery cells in the battery pack relative to the first set of battery cells in the battery pack comprises:
Miller discloses differentially discharging the first set of battery cells and the second set of battery cells (¶13 – plurality of cells to a load that absorbs power; ¶21 – it is determined the amounts of energy that are to be discharged from cells).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the passive discharging of Miller to the system of Wampler and Lee to permit the machine return to operation more quickly than if the machine had to wait for all cells of the battery to be fully charged (Miller; ¶67).
Regarding claim 19. The combination of Wampler and Lee does not explicitly disclose that the instructions for balancing the second set of battery cells do not comprise resting the first and second sets of battery cells.
Miller discloses that the instructions for balancing the second set of battery cells do not comprise resting the first and second sets of battery cells (¶67 – cells are passively discharged to ensure the cells are in balance).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the passive discharging of Miller to the system of Wampler and Lee to permit the machine return to operation more quickly than if the machine had to wait for all cells of the battery to be fully charged (Miller; ¶67).
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wampler et al. US20230266396A1 in view of Ueki US20110270477A1 and Lee et al. US20200235588A1 in further view of Srinivasan et al. US20210349157A1
Regarding claim 10 and claim 20. Wampler does not explicitly disclose estimating the state of charge comprises: processing the sensor measurements using a state estimator comprising one of: a Kalman filter, an unscented Kalman filter, an extended Kalman filter, a dual extended Kalman filter, a Schmidt-Kalman filter, a Gaussian process, or a particle filter; wherein the state estimator uses one or more model selected from: battery pack geometry model, sensor model, electrical components model, thermal transport model, battery cell heat generation model, battery cell heat transport model, equivalent circuit model, or a battery cell electrochemical model; wherein the model a parameterized model, wherein the parameterized model is parameterized as a function of one or more of: temperature, current, voltage, resistance, state of charge, battery age, time, or combinations thereof.
Srinivasan discloses processing the sensor measurements using a state estimator comprising any of:
a Kalman filter (¶62), an unscented Kalman filter (¶62) or a particle filter (¶62);
wherein the state estimator uses any of:
battery pack geometry model (¶57), sensor model (¶57), electrical components model (¶51), thermal transport model (¶51), battery cell heat generation model (¶51), battery cell heat transport model (¶51), equivalent circuit model (¶51), or a battery cell electrochemical model (¶51);
wherein the parameterized model is parameterized as a function of any of:
temperature (¶39), current (¶39), voltage (¶39), resistance (¶39), state of charge (¶39), battery age (¶39), time (¶39), or combinations thereof (¶39-any suitable properties).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to apply the estimation of the SOC of Srinivasan to the calculation of Wampler and Lee as it is known that the estimation using sensor data is a known calculation of the SOC. A person of ordinary skill in the art would know to apply the teachings of Srinivasan to Lee in order to ensure accuracy and precision of the estimated/predicted states (Srinivasan; ¶26).The accuracy works to improve longevity and economic value of the battery system (Srinivasan; ¶3).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wampler et al. US20230266396A1 in view of Ueki US20110270477A1 and Lee et al. US20200235588A1 further in view of Miller US20200321787A1 and Lim US20210242704A1
Regarding claim 17. The combination of Wampler and Lee does not explicitly disclose that the instructions for differentially discharging the first set of battery cells and the second set of battery cells comprise: Discharging the first set of battery cells to a first load; and Contemporaneously with discharging the first set of battery cells to the first load, discharging the second set of battery cells to a second load that is different from the first load, wherein differentially discharging the first and second sets of battery cells results in balancing the first and second set of battery cells.
Miller discloses differentially discharging the first set of battery cells and the second set of battery cells (¶13 – plurality of cells to a load that absorbs power; ¶21 – it is determined the amounts of energy that are to be discharged from cells).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the passive discharging of Miller to the system of Lee to permit the machine return to operation more quickly than if the machine had to wait for all cells of the battery to be fully charged (Miller; ¶67).
Lim discloses that the instructions for differentially discharging the first set of battery cells and the second set of battery cells comprise:
Lim discloses discharging the first set of battery (battery 1) to a first load (socket 1).
Lim discloses contemporaneously with discharging the first set of battery cells (battery 1) to the first load (socket 1), discharging the second set of battery (battery 2) to a second load (socket 2) that is different from the first load (socket 1 is different from socket 2).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the charging of separate loads, to the cells of Wampler and Lee in order to provide power to multiple devices providing better efficiency (Lim; ¶7).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAMELA JEPPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-4094. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 AM - 5:00 PM..
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 on 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.
/PAMELA J JEPPSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/DREW A DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights