DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
The amendment filed May 11, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 4, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 16-20 are currently amended. Claim 3 is presently canceled. The remaining claims are in original or previously presented form. Therefore, claims 1, 2, and 4-20 are pending in the application. The independent claims are claims 1, 12, and 18.
The Remarks filed May 11, 2026 have been fully considered. The applicant argues under point “1.” that the 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) rejections given in the last detailed action, which was the Non-Final Rejection dated February 9, 2026, can be withdrawn due to amendment. The examiner agrees and withdraws those rejections.
The applicant argues under point “2.” that the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections given in the last detailed action can be withdrawn due to amendment. The examiner agrees and withdraws those rejections.
The applicant argues under point “3.” that the references cited in the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 1 in the last detailed action do not teach present claim 1. In the last detailed action, claim 1 was rejected with Freer et al. (US2024/0332987) in view of Campbell et al. (US2020/0223318). The applicant argues that these references do not teach present claim 1.
Present claim 1 recites:
A propulsion system for an aircraft, the propulsion system comprising:
a battery including a plurality of battery strings, each of the plurality of battery strings including a plurality of battery cells;
an electrical distribution system including a battery string switch assembly,
the battery string switch assembly operable to electrically interconnect each of the plurality of battery strings together in parallel;
a ground-based charger electrically connected to the electrical distribution system,
the ground-based charger including a charger controller,
the charger controller includingan electronic hardware
a battery management system including a battery management system (BMS) controller connected in signal communication with the electronic hardware system,
the BMS controller including a processing system,
the processing system including a processor connected in signal communication with a non-transitory memory storing instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
determine a battery charging profile specific to the battery using battery data for the battery, the battery charging profile comprising a target charging voltage and a target charging current as functions of time during charging of the battery; and
charge the battery by controlling the ground-based charger, through the electronic hardware system, to supply electrical power to the electrical distribution system atthe target charging voltage andthe target charging current defined by the battery charging profile,
wherein the battery charging profile is dynamically updated during the charging of the battery based on additional battery data for the battery received during the charging.
The applicant argues in the Remarks on page 9 that the cited prior art does not teach, as claim 1 does, in particular, the last clause of claim 1. The applicant cites Fig. 7 and paragraphs 0057-0058 of the present filed specification. The examiner notes that the last bullet point of claim 1 is supported by the last sentence of paragraph 0058. Paragraph 0058 defines battery data as comprising but not limited to “battery 64 configuration data, battery 64 aging data, battery 64 state of charge (SoC), battery 64 voltages, battery 64 currents, battery 64 temperatures, charger 86 electrical ratings (e.g., maximum voltage and current ratings), and the like.” Paragraph 0059 discusses thermal runaway during charging, and the need to identify proper operation of the charger 86 “where the battery voltage is within a threshold current range of the charging 86 current setting.”
In the last detailed action, the examiner cited Campbell et al. (US2020/0223318) as teaching a ground-based charger including a charger controller. In particular, the examiner cited Campbell paragraph 0038. That paragraph teaches that “The charging station 124 can charge the battery 120 at a plurality of rates (e.g., C-rates). For example, the charging station 124 can provide the electric vehicle 114 with power at different current and voltage levels”. Emphasis added. See Fig. 2 and paragraph 0039 for “generating charging profiles” and “setting a C-rate”. See paragraph 0040 for the charging profiles 108 including “one or more environmental conditions…of the battery 120, parameters for charging the battery 120. The parameters can include a C-rate, charging voltage, charging current, target (or max) charged voltage, charge duration (e.g., for how long to charge the battery 120), charge rate, or other parameter for charging the battery 120.” See Figs. 2 and 3 and paragraph 0044 for “the three-electrode cell 300 can be charged and discharged under different conditions to generate data to generate the charging profiles. For example, the different conditions can include over different durations of time, starting at different SoCs, at different voltages, at different applied currents, and under different temperatures.”
See Fig. 4 and paragraph 0050 for the top row 402 being temperature, with the top right value of “5” being 5 degrees Celsius. The column 404 on the far right is the state of charge. So the top value in the right column being “10” indicates a 10 percent charge. Later in the paragraph it teaches that the charging profile can be selected based on just a temperature-SoC pair, yet paragraph 0051 adds that additional dimensions such as “a dimension of current values” can be used, or a dimension of “battery age”.
Importantly, paragraph 0052 teaches that the C-rate is selected only “for a given period of time” and “the battery management system 102 can repeat the ACTs 204 to 212 a plurality of times during the charging cycle. For example, the battery management system 102 can repeat the ACTs 204 to 212 every 10 minutes and update the C-rate at which the battery 120 is charged. For example, the battery management system 102 can taper or reduce the C-rate as the battery nears a full SoC (e.g., 100%) or near a condition where lithium plating may occur.”
In the examiner’s view, Campbell teaches:
determine a battery charging profile specific to the battery using battery data for the battery, the battery charging profile comprising a target charging voltage and a target charging current as functions of time during charging of the battery (see Campbell, paragraph 0038 for a ground-based charging system that can charge a battery at “different current and voltage levels”. See Fig. 4 and paragraph 0050-0051 for various charging profiles, selected based on the battery temperature, state of charge, and potentially also the current value. See paragraph 0052 for the charging profile being constantly updated in time based on these same parameters. When the charger gets near its target charging current and voltage it begins to “taper” the charge rate with time.); and
Campbell also teaches:
wherein the battery charging profile is dynamically updated during the charging of the battery based on additional battery data for the battery received during the charging (see Campbell paragraphs 0052 for updating and tapering with time. See paragraph 0050-0051 for this being done based on the dimensions of current, SoC ).
The examiner is therefore respectfully not persuaded by the argument that the cited prior art does not teach claim 1 as amended.
The applicant argues under point “4.” that “independent claim 18 has been amended in a manner similar to claim 1,” and that the claim should be allowable for a similar reason to claim 1. The applicant argues under points “5.” Through point “7.” that the dependent claims should be allowable for at least the reasons of their independent claims. Since the examiner believes claim 1 is taught by the cited prior art these arguments are also not persuasive. Please see the rejections below.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freer et al. (US2024/0332987) in view of Campbell et al. (US2020/0223318).
Regarding claim 1, Freer teaches:
A propulsion system for an aircraft (see Fig. 2), the propulsion system comprising:
a battery including a plurality of battery strings, each of the plurality of battery strings including a plurality of battery cells (see Figs. 3 and 4. See paragraph 0042 for “battery 70,” “battery string 80,” and “battery modules 74”. See paragraph 0041 for “each battery module 74 may include a plurality of discrete battery cells electrically connected together…to form the battery module 74.” Paragraph 0042 teaches “a group of battery modules 74 electrically connected in series to form a battery string 80 of the battery 70.”);
an electrical distribution system including a battery string switch assembly (see Fig. 4 and paragraph 0044 for the “positive string contactor 90 and the negative string contactor 92 may be configured as electrically-controlled relays or switches” which may open and close.),
the battery string switch assembly operable to electrically interconnect each of the plurality of battery strings together in parallel (see Fig. 4 for the strings 80 being connected in parallel by the battery string switch assembly);
a ground-based charger electrically connected to the electrical distribution system (in the present disclosure, to say that the charger is connected to the “electrical distribution system” is very general. It does have written description at least in paragraphs 0047-0049, but the examiner notes that Fig. 4 more specifically shows that the charger 86 connects directly to the HVPDU 88. In the present disclosure, paragraph 0047 recites that “the charger 86 may typically be external to the aircraft 1000 (see Fig. 1) and ground based”. So a “ground-based charger” is defined in the specification as one that is external to the aircraft. It stays on the ground, it does not go in the air with the aircraft.
With that in mind, see Freer, Fig. 4 and paragraph 0046 for a “charger 94” that “may be…external to the aircraft 1000.”).
Yet Freer does not explicitly further teach:
the ground-based charger including a charger controller,
the charger controller includingan electronic hardware
a battery management system including a battery management system (BMS) controller connected in signal communication with the electronic hardware system,
the BMS controller including a processing system,
the processing system including a processor connected in signal communication with a non-transitory memory storing instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
determine a battery charging profile specific to the battery using battery data for the battery, the battery charging profile comprising a target charging voltage and a target charging current as functions of time during charging of the battery; and
charge the battery by controlling the ground-based charger, through the electronic hardware system, to supply electrical power to the electrical distribution system atthe target charging voltage andthe target charging current defined by the battery charging profile,
wherein the battery charging profile is dynamically updated during the charging of the battery based on additional battery data for the battery received during the charging.
However, Campbell teaches:
the ground-based charger including a charger controller (in the present disclosure, see Fig. 6 and paragraph 0059 for “charger controller 132”. See also Fig. 8 and paragraph 0067 for “charger controller 144.” Because Fig. 8 also features the SEH, which Fig. 6 lacks, the charger controller claimed in this clause will be interpreted as item 144 in Fig. 8.
With that in mind, see Campbell, Fig. 1 and paragraph 0038, which teaches a battery controller 112 that can “control…or configure” the “charging station 124” in terms of what “rate” the charging station 124 will charge the vehicle 114. Paragraph 0038 teaches two embodiments. One is that that the charging regulator 118 is part of the vehicle that “is in electrical communication with the charging station 124.” A second embodiment is that “The charging regulator 118 can be a component of the charging station 124 that is in electrical communication with the battery controller component 112.” See paragraph 0049 for the battery management system 102, and the battery controller component 112 within it, determining the state of charge (SoC) and then selecting a “charging profile 108” based on the SoC of the battery 108. The second embodiment is the one that meets the limitations of the present clause. In this embodiment, the charging regulator 118 (analogous to the “charger controller” in the present clause) is part of the charging station 124 (analogous to the “ground-based charger” in the present clause). Note that according to paragraph 0015 for the battery management system 102 is part of the vehicle 114, even though that is not explicitly clear in Fig. 1.),
the charger controller includingan electronic hardwaresee paragraph 0038 in which “The charging regulator 118 can be a component of the charging station 124 that is in electrical communication with the battery controller component 112.” The charging station and charger controller in Campbell is about as simple as it gets. See paragraph 0019 for the charging regulator 118 being configurable. See the same paragraph for it limiting the C-rate with which the charging station 124 can charge the battery. See paragraph 0038 for the charging regulator being able to “control, limit, or configure the rate at which the charging station 124 charges the battery 120.” The charging regulator is in “electrical communication” with the battery controller component 112. This implies simply electronic hardware, such as wires, signal-level hardware, and switches); and
a battery management system including a battery management system (BMS) controller connected in signal communication with the electronic hardware system (see the end of paragraph 0038 and Fig. 1 for a charging station 124 that includes a charging regulator 118 (with simple parts) that is connected to a BMS 102.),
the BMS controller including a processing system (see Fig. 1 for processor 126 connected to the rest of the items within the BMS 102 and what the BMS is connected to, such as sensors 116 and 122.),
the processing system including a processor connected in signal communication with a non-transitory memory storing instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: (see Fig. 1 for processor 126 connected to the rest of the items within the BMS 102 and what the BMS is connected to, such as sensors 116 and 122. See paragraph 0015 for the BMS including a data repository 106 that can including one or more charging profiles 108. See paragraph 0016 for the BMS system charging the vehicle based on a selected charging profile. See paragraph 0045 for the BMS retrieving a charging profile stored in the data repository 106.):
determine a battery charging profile specific to the battery using battery data for the battery, the battery charging profile comprising a target charging voltage and a target charging current as functions of time during charging of the battery (see Campbell, paragraph 0038 for a ground-based charging system that can charge a battery at “different current and voltage levels”. See Fig. 4 and paragraph 0050-0051 for various charging profiles, selected based on the battery temperature, state of charge, and potentially also the current value. See paragraph 0052 for the charging profile being constantly updated in time based on these same parameters. When the charger gets near its target charging current and voltage it begins to “taper” the charge rate with time.); and
charge the battery by controlling the ground-based charger, through the electronic hardware system, to supply electrical power to the electrical distribution system atthe target charging voltage andthe target charging current defined by the battery charging profile (see paragraph 0038 in which “The charging regulator 118 can be a component of the charging station 124 that is in electrical communication with the battery controller component 112.” The charging station and charger controller in Campbell is about as simple as it gets. See paragraph 0019 for the charging regulator 118 being configurable. See paragraph 0019 for limiting the C-rate with which the charging station 124 can charge the battery. See paragraph 0038 for the charging regulator being able to “control, limit, or configure the rate at which the charging station 124 charges the battery 120.” The charging regulator is in “electrical communication” with the battery controller component 112. This implies simply electronic hardware, such as wires, signal-level hardware, and switches. See paragraph 0014 for the “c-rate” being “applied current/current density”. The system can “limit the charge current based on the charging profile to taper the current as the charging conditions approach [certain] conditions”. See paragraph 0022 for determining a SoC and equating that to voltage. See paragraph 0035 for setting an upper limit for the C-rate, current, and voltage. This a set current and a set voltage. See paragraph 0040 for the charging profile including “charging current, targe (or max) charged voltage, etc. See also Campbell, Fig. 4 and paragraphs 0050-0052.),
wherein the battery charging profile is dynamically updated during the charging of the battery based on additional battery data for the battery received during the charging (see Campbell paragraphs 0052 for updating and tapering with time. See paragraph 0050-0051 for this being done based on the dimensions of current, SoC).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Freer, to add the additional features as indicated, as taught by Campbell. The motivation for doing so would be to place limits on current, voltage, and time of charging to “reduce the overheating, shorting,” and undesirable plating of the battery, as recognized by Campbell (see paragraph 0035).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Freer is careful not to go into much detail about the switching systems related to the charger, but otherwise the drawings of Freer strongly resemble the present drawings. Freer and the present applicant share the same assignee.
Regarding claim 2, Freer and Campbell teach the propulsion system of claim 1.
Freer further teaches:
The propulsion system of claim 1, wherein
the BMS controller is connected in signal communication with the battery string switch assembly (see Fig. 4) and
the BMS controller is operable to control the battery string switch assembly to electrically connect and electrically disconnect at least one of the plurality of battery strings from one or more others of the plurality of battery strings (see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 4, Freer and Campbell teach the propulsion system of claim 1,
Yet Freer does not further teach:
The propulsion system of claim 1,
the battery data includes battery configuration data or battery aging data.
However, Campbell teaches:
the battery data includes battery configuration data or battery aging data (see paragraph 0035 for the battery management system 102 including charging profiles 108, including a profile related to age, state of charge, temperature, and other factors of the battery.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Freer and Campbell, to add the additional features of the battery data includes battery configuration data or battery aging data, as taught by Campbell. The motivation for doing so would be to place limits on current, voltage, and time of charging to “reduce the overheating, shorting,” and undesirable plating of the battery, as recognized by Campbell (see paragraph 0035).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Regarding claim 11, Freer and Campbell teach the propulsion system of claim 1.
Freer further teaches:
The propulsion system of claim 1, further comprising
a propulsor and an electric motor, the electric motor is coupled with the propulsor, and the electrical distribution system is configured to electrically interconnect the electric motor with the battery (see Figs. 2 and 3. See paragraph 0038 for item 62 in Fig. 2 being an electric motor. See paragraph 0039 for propeller 56.).
Regarding claim 12, Freer teaches:
A method for charging a battery for an aircraft propulsion system, the method comprising (see Fig. 5):
electrically interconnecting a ground-based charger with the battery through an electrical distribution system for the aircraft propulsion system (see Fig. 4 for a charger 94 with a battery 70 and electrical distribution system 24.),
the battery including a plurality of battery strings, each of the plurality of battery strings including a plurality of battery cells (see Fig. 4 and paragraph 0042 for battery string 80. See paragraph 0041 for the battery module 74 being made up of “discrete battery cells”),
the electrical distribution system including a battery string switch assembly (see Fig. 3 and paragraph 0044 for the string contactors 90 and 92 being configured as switches.),
the battery string switch assembly operable to electrically interconnect each of the plurality of battery strings together in parallel (see Fig. 4 and paragraph 0002).
Yet Freer does not further teach:
determining, at battery management system (BMS) controller, a battery charging profile specific to the battery using battery data for the battery,
the battery charging profile comprising a target charging voltage and a target charging current as functions of time during charging of the battery; and
charging the battery by controlling the ground-based charger with the BMS controller, throughan electronic hardwarethe target charging voltage andthe target charging current defined by the battery charging profile,
wherein the battery charging profile is dynamically updated during the charging of the battery based on additional battery data for the battery received during the charging.
However, Campbell teaches:
determining, at battery management system (BMS) controller, a battery charging profile specific to the battery using battery data for the battery (see Campbell, Fig. 1 and paragraph 0038, which teaches a battery controller 112 that can “control…or configure” the “charging station 124” in terms of what “rate” the charging station 124 will charge the vehicle 114. Paragraph 0038 teaches two embodiments. One is that that the charging regulator 118 is part of the vehicle that “is in electrical communication with the charging station 124.” A second embodiment is that “The charging regulator 118 can be a component of the charging station 124 that is in electrical communication with the battery controller component 112.” See paragraph 0049 for the battery management system 102, and the battery controller component 112 within it, determining the state of charge (SoC) and then selecting a “charging profile 108” based on the SoC of the battery 108. The second embodiment is the one that meets the limitations of the present clause. In this embodiment, the charging regulator 118 (analogous to the “charger controller” in the present clause) is part of the charging station 124 (analogous to the “ground-based charger” in the present clause). Note that according to paragraph 0015 for the battery management system 102 is part of the vehicle 114, even though that is not explicitly clear in Fig. 1.),
the battery charging profile comprising a target charging voltage and a target charging current as functions of time during charging of the battery (see Campbell, paragraph 0038 for a ground-based charging system that can charge a battery at “different current and voltage levels”. See Fig. 4 and paragraph 0050-0051 for various charging profiles, selected based on the battery temperature, state of charge, and potentially also the current value. See paragraph 0052 for the charging profile being constantly updated in time based on these same parameters. When the charger gets near its target charging current and voltage it begins to “taper” the charge rate with time.); and
charging the battery by controlling the ground-based charger with the BMS controller, throughan electronic hardwarethe target charging voltage andthe target charging current defined by the battery charging profile (see paragraph 0038 in which “The charging regulator 118 can be a component of the charging station 124 that is in electrical communication with the battery controller component 112.” The charging station and charger controller in Campbell is about as simple as it gets. See paragraph 0019 for the charging regulator 118 being configurable. See paragraph 0019 for limiting the C-rate with which the charging station 124 can charge the battery. See paragraph 0038 for the charging regulator being able to “control, limit, or configure the rate at which the charging station 124 charges the battery 120.” The charging regulator is in “electrical communication” with the battery controller component 112. This implies simply electronic hardware, such as wires, signal-level hardware, and switches. See paragraph 0014 for the “c-rate” being “applied current/current density”. The system can “limit the charge current based on the charging profile to taper the current as the charging conditions approach [certain] conditions”. See paragraph 0022 for determining a SoC and equating that to voltage. See paragraph 0035 for setting an upper limit for the C-rate, current, and voltage. This a set current and a set voltage. See paragraph 0040 for the charging profile including “charging current, targe (or max) charged voltage, etc. See also Campbell, Fig. 4 and paragraphs 0050-0052.),
wherein the battery charging profile is dynamically updated during the charging of the battery based on additional battery data for the battery received during the charging (see Campbell paragraphs 0052 for updating and tapering with time. See paragraph 0050-0051 for this being done based on the dimensions of current, SoC).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Freer, to add the additional features as indicated, as taught by Campbell. The motivation for doing so would be to place limits on current, voltage, and time of charging to “reduce the overheating, shorting,” and undesirable plating of the battery, as recognized by Campbell (see paragraph 0035).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Regarding claim 13, Freer and Campbell teach the method of claim 12.
Yet Freer does not further teach:
The method of claim 12, wherein
data includes
However, Campbell teaches:
data includessee paragraph 0035 for the battery management system 102 including charging profiles 108, including a profile related to age, state of charge, temperature, and other factors of the battery. See paragraph 0051 adds that additional dimensions for determining the charging profile including “a dimension of current values” and a dimension of “battery age”.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Freer and Campbell, to add the additional features as indicated, as taught by Campbell. The motivation for doing so would be to place limits on current, voltage, and time of charging to “reduce the overheating, shorting,” and undesirable plating of the battery, as recognized by Campbell (see paragraph 0035).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Claims 5-8 and 14, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freer et al. (US2024/0332987) in view of Campbell et al. (US2020/0223318) in further view of Troxel et al. (US2011/0084663).
Regarding claim 5, Freer and Campbell teach the propulsion system of claim 2.
Freer further teaches:
The propulsion system of claim 2, wherein
the battery management system further includes a battery sensor assembly connected in signal communication with the BMS controller (see Fig. 2 for item 104 being connected to the BMS. See paragraph 0048 for item 104 being sensors that monitor battery health, including voltage, current, and temperature, at each battery module 74 or each battery string.), and the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to:
Yet Freer and Campbell do not explicitly further teach:
measure cell temperatures of the plurality of battery cells with the battery sensor assembly,
identify a presence or an absence of an overtemperature condition of each of the plurality of battery cells by comparing the cell temperatures to a cell temperature threshold.
However, Troxel teaches:
measure cell temperatures of the plurality of battery cells with the battery sensor assembly (See paragraph 0139 for monitoring the temperature of each individual cell 26. See paragraph 0137 for initiating a shutdown for an “out-of-range temperature”.),
identify a presence or an absence of an overtemperature condition of each of the plurality of battery cells by comparing the cell temperatures to a cell temperature threshold (see paragraph 0052 for identifying that a specific cell is defective or faulty. See paragraph 0139 for monitoring the temperature of each individual cell 26. See paragraph 0137 for initiating a shutdown for an “out-of-range temperature”.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Freer and Campbell, to add the additional features of measure cell temperatures of the plurality of battery cells with the battery sensor assembly and identify a presence or an absence of an overtemperature condition of each of the plurality of battery cells by comparing the cell temperatures to a cell temperature threshold, as taught by Troxel. The motivation for doing so would be to limit the failure of the battery cells so that the entire battery is not rendered inoperable, as recognized by Troxel (see paragraph 0004).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Regarding claim 6, Freer, Campbell, and Troxel teach the propulsion system of claim 2.
Freer further teaches:
The propulsion system of claim 5, wherein
the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to control the battery string switch assembly to electrically disconnect a first battery string of the plurality of battery strings in response to identifying the presence of the overtemperature condition in at least one of the plurality of battery cells of the first battery string (see paragraph 0132 for initiating a change of operational mode for a string of battery modules 10. See paragraph 0137 for one operational mode being disengagement. See also paragraph 0108 for disengaging battery strings.).
Regarding claim 7, Freer and Campbell teach the propulsion system of claim 2.
Freer further teaches:
The propulsion system of claim 2, wherein
the battery management system further includes a battery sensor assembly connected in signal communication with the BMS controller, and the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to (see Fig. 2 for item 104 being connected to the BMS. See paragraph 0048 for item 104 being sensors that monitor battery health, including voltage, current, and temperature, at each battery module 74 or each battery string. See Fig. 6, step 506 and paragraph 0053 which teaches identifying a threshold voltage for each battery string. See Fig. 3 for sensors 104 on teach item 76, an item conspicuously not mentioned in the specification of Freer, but labeled as a battery cell in the present disclosure.):
Yet Freer and Campbell do not explicitly further teach:
measure cell voltages of the plurality of battery cells with the battery sensor assembly; and
identify a presence or an absence of an overvoltage condition of each of the plurality of battery cells by comparing the cell voltages to a cell voltage threshold.
However, Troxel teaches:
measure cell voltages of the plurality of battery cells with the battery sensor assembly (see paragraph 0139 for monitoring the voltage of “individual cells 26”.); and
identify a presence or an absence of an overvoltage condition of each of the plurality of battery cells by comparing the cell voltages to a cell voltage threshold (see paragraph 0137).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Freer and Campbell, to add the additional features of measure cell voltages of the plurality of battery cells with the battery sensor assembly; and identify a presence or an absence of an overvoltage condition of each of the plurality of battery cells by comparing the cell voltages to a cell voltage threshold, as taught by Troxel. The motivation for doing so would be to limit the failure of the battery cells so that the entire battery is not rendered inoperable, as recognized by Troxel (see paragraph 0004).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Regarding claim 8, Freer and Campbell teach the propulsion system of claim 7.
Yet Freer and Campbell do not further teach:
The propulsion system of claim 7, wherein
the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to control the battery string switch assembly to electrically disconnect a first battery string of the plurality of battery strings in response to identifying the presence of the overvoltage condition in at least one of the plurality of battery cells of the first battery string.
However, Troxel teaches:
the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to control the battery string switch assembly to electrically disconnect a first battery string of the plurality of battery strings in response to identifying the presence of the overvoltage condition in at least one of the plurality of battery cells of the first battery string (see paragraph 0132 for initiating a change of operational mode for a string of battery modules 10. See paragraph 0137 for one operational mode being disengagement related to voltage. See also paragraph 0108 for disengaging battery strings.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Freer, Campbell, and Troxel to add the additional features of the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to control the battery string switch assembly to electrically disconnect a first battery string of the plurality of battery strings in response to identifying the presence of the overvoltage condition in at least one of the plurality of battery cells of the first battery string, as taught by Troxel. The motivation for doing so would be to limit the failure of the battery cells so that the entire battery is not rendered inoperable, as recognized by Troxel (see paragraph 0004).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Regarding claim 14, Freer and Campbell teach the method of claim 13.
Freer further teaches:
The method of claim 13, further comprising:
measuring, at the BMS controller using a battery sensor assembly, cell temperatures of the plurality of battery cells (see Fig. 2 for item 104 being connected to the BMS. See paragraph 0048 for item 104 being sensors that monitor battery health, including voltage, current, and temperature, at each battery module 74 or each battery string.).
Yet Freer and Campbell not further teach:
identifying a presence or an absence of an overtemperature condition of each of the plurality of battery cells, at the BMS controller, by comparing the cell temperatures to a cell temperature threshold.
However, Troxel teaches:
identifying a presence or an absence of an overtemperature condition of each of the plurality of battery cells, at the BMS controller, by comparing the cell temperatures to a cell temperature threshold (see paragraph 0052 for identifying that a specific cell is defective or faulty. See paragraph 0139 for monitoring the temperature of each individual cell 26. See paragraph 0137 for initiating a shutdown for an “out-of-range temperature”.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Freer and Campbell, to add the additional features of identifying a presence or an absence of an overtemperature condition of each of the plurality of battery cells, at the BMS controller, by comparing the cell temperatures to a cell temperature threshold, as taught by Troxel. The motivation for doing so would be to limit the failure of the battery cells so that the entire battery is not rendered inoperable, as recognized by Troxel (see paragraph 0004).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Regarding claim 15, Freer, Campbell, and Troxel teach the method of claim 14.
Yet Freer and Campbell do not further teach:
The method of claim 14, further comprising
controlling the battery string switch assembly, with the BMS controller in response to identifying the presence of the overtemperature condition in a first battery cell of the plurality of battery cells of a first battery string of the plurality of first battery strings, to electrically disconnect the first battery string.
However, Troxel teaches:
controlling the battery string switch assembly, with the BMS controller in response to identifying the presence of the overtemperature condition in a first battery cell of the plurality of battery cells of a first battery string of the plurality of first battery strings, to electrically disconnect the first battery string (see paragraph 0137.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Freer and Campbell, to add the additional features of controlling the battery string switch assembly, with the BMS controller in response to identifying the presence of the overtemperature condition in a first battery cell of the plurality of battery cells of a first battery string of the plurality of first battery strings, to electrically disconnect the first battery string, as taught by Troxel. The motivation for doing so would be to limit the failure of the battery cells so that the entire battery is not rendered inoperable, as recognized by Troxel (see paragraph 0004).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Regarding claim 18, Freer teaches:
A propulsion system for an aircraft (see Fig. 2), the propulsion system comprising:
a battery including a plurality of battery strings, each of the plurality of battery strings including a plurality of battery cells (see Figs. 3 and 4. See paragraph 0042 for “battery 70,” “battery string 80,” and “battery modules 74”. See paragraph 0041 for “each battery module 74 may include a plurality of discrete battery cells electrically connected together…to form the battery module 74.” Paragraph 0042 teaches “a group of battery modules 74 electrically connected in series to form a battery string 80 of the battery 70.”);
an electrical distribution system including a battery string switch assembly (see Fig. 4 and paragraph 0044 for the “positive string contactor 90 and the negative string contactor 92 may be configured as electrically-controlled relays or switches” which may open and close.),
the battery string switch assembly operable to electrically interconnect each of the plurality of battery strings together in parallel (see Fig. 4 for the strings 80 being connected in parallel by the battery string switch assembly);
a ground-based charger electrically connected to the electrical distribution system (in the present disclosure, to say that the charger is connected to the “electrical distribution system” is very general. It does have written description at least in paragraphs 0047-0049, but the examiner notes that Fig. 4 more specifically shows that the charger 86 connects directly to the HVPDU 88. In the present disclosure, paragraph 0047 recites that “the charger 86 may typically be external to the aircraft 1000 (see Fig. 1) and ground based”. So a “ground-based charger” is defined in the specification as one that is external to the aircraft. It stays on the ground, it does not go in the air with the aircraft.
With that in mind, see Freer, Fig. 4 and paragraph 0046 for a “charger 94” that “may be…external to the aircraft 1000.”).
Yet Freer does not explicitly further teach:
the ground-based charger including a charger controller,
the charger controller includingan electronic hardware
a battery management system including a battery management system (BMS) controller connected in signal communication with the electronic hardware system,
the BMS controller including a processing system,
the processing system including a processor connected in signal communication with a non-transitory memory storing instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
determine a battery charging profile specific to the battery using battery data including one or more of battery configuration data or battery aging data by selecting the battery charging profile from a plurality of predetermined battery charging profiles stored in the non-transitory memory; and
charge the battery by controlling the ground-based charger, through the electronic hardware system, to supply electrical power to the electrical distribution system at a set voltage and a set current defined by the battery charging profile,
wherein the battery charging profile is dynamically updated during charging of the battery based on additional battery data for the battery received during the charging.
However, Campbell teaches:
the ground-based charger including a charger controller (in the present disclosure, see Fig. 6 and paragraph 0059 for “charger controller 132”. See also Fig. 8 and paragraph 0067 for “charger controller 144.” Because Fig. 8 also features the SEH, which Fig. 6 lacks, the charger controller claimed in this clause will be interpreted as item 144 in Fig. 8.
With that in mind, see Campbell, Fig. 1 and paragraph 0038, which teaches a battery controller 112 that can “control…or configure” the “charging station 124” in terms of what “rate” the charging station 124 will charge the vehicle 114. Paragraph 0038 teaches two embodiments. One is that that the charging regulator 118 is part of the vehicle that “is in electrical communication with the charging station 124.” A second embodiment is that “The charging regulator 118 can be a component of the charging station 124 that is in electrical communication with the battery controller component 112.” See paragraph 0049 for the battery management system 102, and the battery controller component 112 within it, determining the state of charge (SoC) and then selecting a “charging profile 108” based on the SoC of the battery 108. The second embodiment is the one that meets the limitations of the present clause. In this embodiment, the charging regulator 118 (analogous to the “charger controller” in the present clause) is part of the charging station 124 (analogous to the “ground-based charger” in the present clause). Note that according to paragraph 0015 for the battery management system 102 is part of the vehicle 114, even though that is not explicitly clear in Fig. 1.),
the charger controller includingan electronic hardwaresee paragraph 0038 in which “The charging regulator 118 can be a component of the charging station 124 that is in electrical communication with the battery controller component 112.” The charging station and charger controller in Campbell is about as simple as it gets. See paragraph 0019 for the charging regulator 118 being configurable. See the same paragraph for it limiting the C-rate with which the charging station 124 can charge the battery. See paragraph 0038 for the charging regulator being able to “control, limit, or configure the rate at which the charging station 124 charges the battery 120.” The charging regulator is in “electrical communication” with the battery controller component 112. This implies simply electronic hardware, such as wires, signal-level hardware, and switches); and
a battery management system including a battery management system (BMS) controller connected in signal communication with the electronic hardware system (see the end of paragraph 0038 and Fig. 1 for a charging station 124 that includes a charging regulator 118 (with simple parts) that is connected to a BMS 102.),
the BMS controller including a processing system (see Fig. 1 for processor 126 connected to the rest of the items within the BMS 102 and what the BMS is connected to, such as sensors 116 and 122.),
the processing system including a processor connected in signal communication with a non-transitory memory storing instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to (see Fig. 1 for processor 126 connected to the rest of the items within the BMS 102 and what the BMS is connected to, such as sensors 116 and 122. See paragraph 0015 for the BMS including a data repository 106 that can including one or more charging profiles 108. See paragraph 0016 for the BMS system charging the vehicle based on a selected charging profile. See paragraph 0045 for the BMS retrieving a charging profile stored in the data repository 106.):
determine a battery charging profile specific to the battery using battery data including one or more of battery configuration data or battery aging data by selecting the battery charging profile from a plurality of predetermined battery charging profiles stored in the non-transitory memory (in the present disclosure, see Fig. 7, and paragraph 0057 for “As shown in Fig. 7…The battery charging profile 138 includes a target charging voltage 140 and a target charging current 142 vs. time a charging operation of the batter 64.”
With that in mind, see Campbell, paragraph 0035 for the battery management system 102 including charging profiles 108, including a profile related to age, state of charge, temperature, and other factors. The charging profile can include limits on current, voltage, and time of charging. This can “reduce the overheating, shorting,” and undesirable plating of the battery.); and
charge the battery by controlling the ground-based charger, through the electronic hardware system, to supply electrical power to the electrical distribution system at a set voltage and a set current defined by the battery charging profile (see paragraph 0038 in which “The charging regulator 118 can be a component of the charging station 124 that is in electrical communication with the battery controller component 112.” The charging station and charger controller in Campbell is about as simple as it gets. See paragraph 0019 for the charging regulator 118 being configurable. See paragraph 0019 for limiting the C-rate with which the charging station 124 can charge the battery. See paragraph 0038 for the charging regulator being able to “control, limit, or configure the rate at which the charging station 124 charges the battery 120.” The charging regulator is in “electrical communication” with the battery controller component 112. This implies simply electronic hardware, such as wires, signal-level hardware, and switches. See paragraph 0014 for the “c-rate” being “applied current/current density”. The system can “limit the charge current based on the charging profile to taper the current as the charging conditions approach [certain] conditions”. See paragraph 0022 for determining a SoC and equating that to voltage. See paragraph 0035 for setting an upper limit for the C-rate, current, and voltage. This a set current and a set voltage. See paragraph 0040 for the charging profile including “charging current, targe (or max) charged voltage, etc. See also paragraphs 0050-0052),
wherein the battery charging profile is dynamically updated during charging of the battery based on additional battery data for the battery received during the charging (see Campbell paragraphs 0052 for updating and tapering with time. See paragraph 0050-0051 for this being done based on the dimensions of current, SoC).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Freer, to add the additional features indicated, as taught by Campbell. The motivation for doing so would be to place limits on current, voltage, and time of charging to “reduce the overheating, shorting,” and undesirable plating of the battery, as recognized by Campbell (see paragraph 0035).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Claims 9, 10, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freer et al. (US2024/0332987) in view of Campbell et al. (US2020/0223318) in further view of Ito et al. (US2023/0143398).
Regarding claim 9, Freer and Campbell teach the propulsion system of claim 1.
Freer further teaches:
The propulsion system of claim 1, wherein
the battery management system further includes a battery sensor assembly connected in signal communication with the BMS controller, and the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to (see Fig. 3):
measure a battery voltage of the battery with the battery sensor assembly (see the first sentence of paragraph 0048); and
Yet Freer and Campbell do not further teach:
identify proper or improper voltage control of the ground-based charger by comparing the battery voltage to a threshold voltage range of the target charging voltage.
However, Ito teaches:
identify proper or improper voltage control of the ground-based charger by comparing the battery voltage to a threshold voltage range of the target charging voltage (see Ito paragraph 0014 for a power meter that measures current and voltage of a charging station. See Figs. 7A and 7B for threshold ranges. See paragraph 0221 for determining a power consumption profile, which is what the load, in this case a vehicle, consumes when charging. See Fig. 10 step 209 for using the power meter to measure the power. Then see step 252a for determining if the power is outside the threshold. See a NO out of step 252b for ending the charging if the power is outside the threshold.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Freer and Campbell to add the additional features indicated, as taught by Ito. The motivation for doing so would be to have a reliable energy supply, as recognized by Ito (see paragraph 0010).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Regarding claim 10, Freer and Campbell teach the propulsion system of claim 1.
Freer further teaches:
The propulsion system of claim 1, wherein
the battery management system further includes a battery sensor assembly connected in signal communication with the BMS controller (see Figs. 2 and 3. Fig. 2 shows the battery 70 in signal communication with the BMS 72. Fig. 3 shows the BMS 72 connected to a battery sensor assembly made up of at least items 104, which according to paragraph 0048 are sensors. See paragraph 0047 for a BMS processor 100, which is a BMS controller. See paragraph 0050 for the processor carrying out the method 500 shown in Fig. 5.), and
the instructions, when executed by the see Fig. 3):
measure a battery current of the battery within the battery sensor assembly (see the first sentence of paragraph 0048).
Yet Freer and Campbell do not further teach:
identify proper or improper current control of the ground-based charger by comparing the battery current to a threshold current range of thetarget charging current.
However, Ito teaches:
identify proper or improper current control of the ground-based charger by comparing the battery current to a threshold current range of thetarget charging current (see Ito paragraph 0014 for a power meter that measures current and voltage of a charging station. See Figs. 7A and 7B for threshold ranges. See paragraph 0221 for determining a power consumption profile, which is what the load, in this case a vehicle, consumes when charging. See Fig. 10 step 209 for using the power meter to measure the power. Then see step 252a for determining if the power is outside the threshold. See a NO out of step 252b for ending the charging if the power is outside the threshold.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Freer and Campbell to add the additional features indicated, as taught by Ito. The motivation for doing so would be to have a reliable energy supply, as recognized by Ito (see paragraph 0010).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Regarding claim 16, Freer and Campbell teach the method of claim 13.
Freer further teaches:
The method of claim 13, further comprising:
measuring, at the BMS controller using a battery sensor assembly, a battery voltage of the battery (see the first sentence of paragraph 0048); and
Yet Freer and Campbell do not further teach:
identifying, at the BMS controller, proper or improper voltage control of the charger by comparing the battery voltage to a threshold voltage range of the target charging voltage.
However, Ito teaches:
identifying, at the BMS controller, proper or improper voltage control of the charger by comparing the battery voltage to a threshold voltage range of the target charging voltage (see Ito paragraph 0014 for a power meter that measures current and voltage of a charging station. See Figs. 7A and 7B for threshold ranges. See paragraph 0221 for determining a power consumption profile, which is what the load, in this case a vehicle, consumes when charging. See Fig. 10 step 209 for using the power meter to measure the power. Then see step 252a for determining if the power is outside the threshold. See a NO out of step 252b for ending the charging if the power is outside the threshold.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Freer and Campbell to add the additional features indicated, as taught by Ito. The motivation for doing so would be to have a reliable energy supply, as recognized by Ito (see paragraph 0010).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Regarding claim 17, Freer and Campbell teach the method of claim 13.
Freer further teaches:
The method of claim 13, further comprising:
measuring, at the BMS controller using a battery sensor assembly, a battery current of the battery (see the first sentence of paragraph 0048).
Yet Freer and Campbell do not further teach:
identifying, at the BMS controller, proper or improper current control of the charger by comparing the battery current to a threshold current range of the target charging current.
However, Ito teaches:
identifying, at the BMS controller, proper or improper current control of the charger by comparing the battery current to a threshold current range of the target charging current (see Ito paragraph 0014 for a power meter that measures current and voltage of a charging station. See Figs. 7A and 7B for threshold ranges. See paragraph 0221 for determining a power consumption profile, which is what the load, in this case a vehicle, consumes when charging. See Fig. 10 step 209 for using the power meter to measure the power. Then see step 252a for determining if the power is outside the threshold. See a NO out of step 252b for ending the charging if the power is outside the threshold. See also Fig. 7B.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Freer and Campbell to add the additional features indicated, as taught by Ito. The motivation for doing so would be to have a reliable energy supply, as recognized by Ito (see paragraph 0010).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freer et al. (US2024/0332987) in view of Campbell et al. (US2020/0223318) in further view of Troxel et al. (US2011/0084663) in further view of Kim et al. (US2025/0244390).
Regarding claim 19, Freer and Campbell teach the propulsion system of claim 18.
Freer further teaches:
The propulsion system of claim 18, wherein
the battery management system further includes a battery sensor assembly, and the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to (see Freer Fig. 2 for item 104 being connected to the BMS. See paragraph 0048 for item 104 being sensors that monitor battery health, including voltage, current, and temperature, at each battery module 74 or each battery string.):
Yet Freer and Campbell do not:
measure cell temperatures of the plurality of battery cells with the battery sensor assembly;
identify a presence or an absence of an overtemperature condition of each of the plurality of battery cells by comparing the cell temperatures to a cell temperature threshold; and
determine a lower-power battery charging profile, in response to identification of the presence of the overtemperature condition of at least one of the plurality of battery cells, and
charge the battery by controlling the ground-based charger, through theelectronic hardware system, to supply electrical power to the electrical distribution system at a set second voltage and a set second current defined by the lower-power battery charging profile.
However, Troxel teaches:
measure cell temperatures of the plurality of battery cells with the battery sensor assembly (see Troxel paragraph 0139 for monitoring the temperature of each individual cell 26. See paragraph 0137 for initiating a shutdown for an “out-of-range temperature”.);
identify a presence or an absence of an overtemperature condition of each of the plurality of battery cells by comparing the cell temperatures to a cell temperature threshold (see Troxel paragraph 0052 for identifying that a specific cell is defective or faulty. See paragraph 0139 for monitoring the temperature of each individual cell 26. See paragraph 0137 for initiating a shutdown for an “out-of-range temperature”.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Freer and Campbell, to add the additional features of measure cell temperatures of the plurality of battery cells with the battery sensor assembly; and identify a presence or an absence of an overtemperature condition of each of the plurality of battery cells by comparing the cell temperatures to a cell temperature threshold, as taught by Troxel. The motivation for doing so would be to limit the failure of the battery cells so that the entire battery is not rendered inoperable, as recognized by Troxel (see paragraph 0004).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
However, Freer, Campbell, and Troxel do not further teach:
determine a lower-power battery charging profile, in response to identification of the presence of the overtemperature condition of at least one of the plurality of battery cells, and
charge the battery by controlling the ground-based charger, through theelectronic hardware system, to supply electrical power to the electrical distribution system at a set second voltage and a set second current defined by the lower-power battery charging profile.
However, Kim teaches:
determine a lower-power battery charging profile, in response to identification of the presence of the overtemperature condition of at least one of the plurality of battery cells (see the Abstract, paragraph 0011, and paragraph 0106-0107), and
charge the battery by controlling the ground-based charger, through theelectronic hardware system, to supply electrical power to the electrical distribution system at a set second voltage and a set second current defined by the lower-power battery charging profile (see the Abstract, paragraph 0011, and paragraph 0106-0107).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Freer, Campbell, and Troxel to add the additional features of determine a lower-power battery charging profile, in response to identification of the presence of the overtemperature condition of at least one of the plurality of battery cells, and charge the battery by controlling the ground-based charger, through theelectronic hardware system, to supply electrical power to the electrical distribution system at a set second voltage and a set second current defined by the lower-power battery charging profile, as taught by Kim. The motivation for doing so would be to prevent overheating of the battery and improve lifespan, as recognized by Kim (see paragraphs 0005 and 0131).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freer et al. (US2024/0332987) in view of Campbell et al. (US2020/0223318) in further view of Kikuchi (US2024/0106247).
Regarding claim 20, Freer and Campbell teach the propulsion system of claim 18.
Freer further teaches:
The propulsion system of claim 18, wherein
the battery management system further includes a battery sensor assembly, and the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to (see Freer Fig. 2 for item 104 being connected to the BMS. See paragraph 0048 for item 104 being sensors that monitor battery health, including voltage, current, and temperature, at each battery module 74 or each battery string.):
Yet Freer and Campbell do not:
measure cell voltages of the plurality of battery cells with the battery sensor assembly;
identify a presence or an absence of an overvoltage condition of each of the plurality of battery cells by comparing the cell voltages to a cell voltage threshold; and
determine a lower-power battery charging profile, in response to identification of the presence of the overvoltage condition of at least one of the plurality of battery cells, and
charge the battery by controlling the ground-based charger, through the SEH system, to supply electrical power to the electrical distribution system at a set second voltage and a set second current defined by the lower-power battery charging profile.
However, Troxel teaches:
measure cell voltages of the plurality of battery cells with the battery sensor assembly (see paragraph 0139);
identify a presence or an absence of an overvoltage condition of each of the plurality of battery cells by comparing the cell voltages to a cell voltage threshold (see paragraph 0137 for shutting down the system or at least generating an alarm, when an operational parameter exceeds a limit, such as the submodule voltage.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Freer and Campbell, to add the additional features of measure cell voltages of the plurality of battery cells with the battery sensor assembly; and identify a presence or an absence of an overvoltage condition of each of the plurality of battery cells by comparing the cell voltages to a cell voltage threshold, as taught by Troxel. The motivation for doing so would be to limit the failure of the battery cells so that the entire battery is not rendered inoperable, as recognized by Troxel (see paragraph 0004).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
However, Freer, Campbell, and Troxel do not further teach:
determine a lower-power battery charging profile, in response to identification of the presence of the overvoltage condition of at least one of the plurality of battery cells, and
charge the battery by controlling the ground-based charger, through the electronic hardware system, to supply electrical power to the electrical distribution system at a set second voltage and a set second current defined by the lower-power battery charging profile.
However, Kikuchi teaches:
determine a lower-power battery charging profile, in response to identification of the presence of the overvoltage condition of at least one of the plurality of battery cells (see paragraph 0035. When the voltage reaches a threshold, the system droops down to a different “charge profile.” In which the current is reduced so that the voltage is not exceeded again.), and
charge the battery by controlling the ground-based charger, through the electronic hardware system, to supply electrical power to the electrical distribution system at a set second voltage and a set second current defined by the lower-power battery charging profile (see paragraph 0035. When the voltage reaches a threshold, the system droops down to a different “charge profile.” In which the current is reduced so that the voltage is not exceeded again.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Freer, Campbell, and Troxel to add the additional features of determine a lower-power battery charging profile, in response to identification of the presence of the overvoltage condition of at least one of the plurality of battery cells, and charge the battery by controlling the ground-based charger, through the electronic hardware system, to supply electrical power to the electrical distribution system at a set second voltage and a set second current defined by the lower-power battery charging profile, as taught by Kikuchi. The motivation for doing so would be to make sure the battery is charged according to the appropriate charge profile, as recognized by Kikuchi (see paragraph 0009).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Additional Art
The prior art made of record here, though not relied upon, is considered pertinent to the present disclosure.
Rowland (WO2024/050438). Teaches at least a system in which a charging profile is specified for an aircraft on the ground. The controller adjust the power for each battery pack.
Hinman et al. (U.S. 11,433,775) teaches at least what is recited in claim 1. “A method of charging a battery system of an electrically powered aircraft lacking a charge controller and at a location on the ground, the method comprising: moving a mobile Aircraft Charging Unit (ACU) to a position proximate to the location on the ground, the ACU having: a cart having a set of wheels, a set of storage batteries mounted on the cart, and a charge controller and a connection system, both coupled to the set of storage batteries; coupling the set of storage batteries of the ACU to the battery system through the connection system of the ACU and causing transfer of energy from the set of storage batteries to the battery system in accordance with a charge profile, as to current and voltage applied to the battery system, the charge profile controlled dynamically by the charge controller, which is responsive to parameters selected from the group consisting of battery chemistry, capacity, charge state, temperature and combinations thereof; and decoupling the set of storage batteries of the ACU from the battery system of the aircraft.”
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL M. ROBERT whose telephone number is (571)270-5841. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 EST.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at 571-272-7298. 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 M. ROBERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights