DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
In the communication filed on 10/27/2025 claims 1-25 are pending. Claims 1 and 14 are amended. Claims 1 and 20 are independent.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, filed 10/27/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ghantous et al. (USPGPN 20190120910) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made (below) in view of newly found prior art in combination with the previously applied reference.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 20-25 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghantous et al. (USPGPN 20190120910) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to claim 1, applicant contends that Ghantous fails to disclose the newly added limitation “detrended”. The examiner concurs with the applicant’s arguments that Ghantous fails to disclose or suggest the amended limitation. However, the examiner cites a newly found prior art in combination with the previously applied Ghantous reference (below).
With respect to claim 20, applicant contends in pages 8-9 of the remarks that it would not be obvious to modify Ghantous as disclosed in pages 11-12 of the Office Action dated 07/25/2025. The applicant recognizes that Ghantous mentions discharging a battery as part of the charging cycle however the applicant contends that Ghantous does not disclose applying a probing pulse during the discharge portion of such a cycle nor does Ghantous disclose determining a battery parameter based on the pulse applied during the discharge portion of such a cycle. Further, applicant contends that Ghantous fails to disclose a way by which such a pulse can be applied during discharge while maintaining whatever discharge environment in which Ghantous is operating. The applicant contends that Ghantous does not describe how discharge might be modified. The applicant contends that modifying Ghantous would fundamentally change the principal operation of Ghantous to alter its techniques to be applied during discharge. Finally, the applicant contends that there would have to be some way to alter the discharge from the battery, under load, while still maintaining discharge to the load to then also add a probing pulse.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the advantage to this modification being a wider monitoring range of battery performance is considered thereby maintaining optimal device performance and improving battery longevity.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “any battery discharge would have to be halted to apply a probing pulse” or “there would have to be some way to alter the discharge from the battery, under load, while still maintaining discharge to the load to then also add a probing pulse”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The remaining arguments are moot as the applicant’s arguments for the remaining claims were based on dependency of the independent claims.
The 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection is withdrawn due to the amendments.
The drawing objections are withdrawn due to the amendments.
The title objection is withdrawn due to the amendments.
The disclosure objection is withdrawn due to the amendments.
This Office Action is made Final due to the amendments.
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.
The factual inquiries 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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghantous et al. (USPGPN 20190120910) and further in view of Ladpli et al. (USPGPN 20190207274).
With respect to claim 1, Ghantous teaches a method of charging a battery (Figs. 7a-7b; a method for adaptively charging a battery based on stimulus results, see ¶ [05]).
Ghantous teaches applying a first charging current to the battery (Figs. 7a-7b; prior to applying a stimulus to the battery, a first portion of the “charging process” is conducted. Thus, this is understood by one of ordinary skill to be a first charging current applied to the battery 118, see ¶ [06]. See ¶ [46] for an explanation of “charging process” as taught by Ghantous).
Ghantous teaches applying a probing pulse to the battery, wherein the probing pulse comprises a rest period at a current less than the first charging current (Figs. 7a-7b; in steps 703/723 a current stimulus is applied to the battery. In ¶ [76 and 142] the stimulus current is characterized by the amplitude, the measurement period, and the number of samples taken over this period. In ¶ [143] the stimulus current has very little impact, if any, on depleting charge from the battery. In Fig. 4f the pulse waveform includes a rest period Trest. One of ordinary skill understands that this step/edge current stimulus is a small controlled probing pulse specifically for measurement purposes and is smaller than the charging current).
Ghantous teaches determining a battery parameter based on data from the probing pulse, the battery parameter correlated with battery cell degradation (Figs. 7a-7b; in steps 705-709/725-731 a battery parameter based on data collected from the current stimulus is determined. This battery parameter data collected is used to determine and avoid battery cell degradation, see ¶ [44, 157-158]).
Ghantous teaches altering the first charging current to a second charging current different from the first charging current based on the battery parameter (Figs. 7a-7b; in steps 711/733 the charge process is modified based on the battery parameter from the previous steps. One of ordinary skill understands changing the charge process consists of altering the first charging current to a second charging current different from the first charging current, see ¶ [128, 135]).
However, Ghantous fails to explicitly teach determining a battery parameter based on detrended data.
Ladpli teaches determining a battery parameter based on detrended data (¶ [118]; a battery parameter is determined based on detrended data by comparing a new guided-wave signal to baseline signals from a fresh battery to remove long-term trends).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply Ladpli’s method for determining a battery parameter based on detrended data to Ghantous’ apparatus, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to be aware that known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
With respect to claim 2, Ghantous teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Ghantous teaches wherein the probing pulse comprises a unipolar pulse (Fig. 4f; the probing pulse is unipolar).
With respect to claim 3, Ghantous teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Ghantous teaches wherein the rest period comprises a current magnitude of 0 Amps (Fig. 4f; the rest period Trest comprises a current magnitude of 0 Amps).
With respect to claim 4, Ghantous teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Ghantous teaches wherein the rest period is less than 30 seconds (In ¶ [115] full or partial relaxation time are in orders less than 30 seconds).
With respect to claim 5, Ghantous teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Ghantous teaches wherein an open circuit voltage is approximated during the rest period (In ¶ [54, 156], the OCV is measured when current is 0 Amps which is during Trest illustrated in Fig. 4f).
With respect to claim 6, Ghantous teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 5. Further, Ghantous teaches the battery parameter is based on the approximated open circuit voltage (In ¶ [156-157] the battery parameters are based on the measured OCV).
With respect to claim 7, Ghantous teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Ghantous teaches wherein the probing pulse further comprises an active period prior to the rest period, and wherein during the active period, a charging current is applied to the battery (Fig. 4f; the active period Tcharge before the rest period Trest consists of applying a charging current to the battery).
With respect to claim 8, Ghantous teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 7. Further, Ghantous teaches wherein determining the battery parameter during the probing pulse comprises evaluating a discrete section of the probing pulse (Figs. 4a-4b; illustrate the probing pulses with discrete sections used to evaluate the battery parameters).
With respect to claim 9, Ghantous teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 8. Further, Ghantous teaches wherein the discrete section of the probing pulse comprises a voltage transition between the active period and the rest period (In ¶ [92] the stimulus is applied accounting for a battery’s response to the harmonic frequencies and specifically the reaction of the battery terminal voltage (i.e., voltage transition) between the active periods and the rest periods as illustrated in Figs. 4a-4b).
With respect to claim 10, Ghantous teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 9. Further, Ghantous teaches wherein determining the battery parameter comprises analysis of time domain data associated with the voltage transition (In ¶ [92] the monitoring of the reaction of the battery terminal voltage is time domain data associated with the voltage transition. This data is used for determining the battery parameters).
With respect to claim 11, Ghantous teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. First, the examiner notes in ¶ [90] of the disclosure an electrodynamic parameter are those that may be correlated to behavior with the battery. For examination purposes an electrodynamic parameter will be interpreted as a parameter which may be correlated to behavior with the battery such as but not limited to SOC, SOH, relaxation time, full charge capacity, material transport in the electrode or electrolyte, reactions within or at the interface of the electrodes, etc.
Further, Ghantous teaches the battery parameter comprises an electrodynamic parameter (In ¶ [44] a non-limiting list of battery parameters which refer to parameters of, or associated with, a battery and its use).
With respect to claim 12, Ghantous teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Ghantous teaches wherein applying the first charging current to the battery comprises applying a first direct current (DC) charging current (Figs. 4a-4b; the charging current applied to the battery comprises a DC charging current).
With respect to claim 13, Ghantous teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Ghantous teaches wherein applying the first charging current comprises applying a first waveform-based charging current (Figs. 4c-4e; the charging current applied to the battery comprises a waveform-based charging current).
With respect to claim 14, Ghantous teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1.
Further, Ghantous teaches wherein the probing pulse is applied at State of Charge (SOC) intervals, upon a cell voltage reaching a voltage threshold, upon a cell temperature reaching a temperature threshold, or a time interval (In ¶ [57] the CPV measurement is taken to determine a battery parameter such as SOC. For a cell voltage reaching a voltage threshold see Fig. 5b wherein the applied stimulus to obtain battery parameter data is based on Vmax. In ¶ [89] the cell temperature is measured and a known temperature dependence of material properties is known which is understood by one of ordinary skill to be the temperature thresholds of the battery. The time intervals are the partial relaxation time intervals taken into consideration for obtaining the response of the battery parameters).
With respect to claim 15, Ghantous teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Ghantous teaches wherein the battery cell degradation comprises at least one selected from a group consisting of electrode plating, solid-electrolyte interphase (SEI) layer growth, and cell failure (In ¶ [75] battery cell degradation includes thickening of the SEI layer or metallic plating of lithium. In ¶ [94] degradation includes imminent danger of failure).
With respect to claim 16, Ghantous teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Ghantous teaches wherein the second charging current is less than the first charging current (Figs. 7a-7b; in steps 711/733 the charge process is modified based on the battery parameter from the previous steps. One of ordinary skill understands the second charging current may be altered to be less than the first charging current).
With respect to claim 17, Ghantous teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Ghantous teaches wherein altering the first charging current to the second charging current is further based battery temperature (Figs. 7a-7b; in steps 711/733 the altering of the charging current depends upon measured battery temperature obtained in previous steps of the method, see ¶ [91]).
With respect to claim 18, Ghantous teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Ghantous teaches wherein altering the first charging current to the second charging current is further based on a maximum charging current limit (In ¶ [67] the adaptive charging method keeps charging within safe boundaries. One of ordinary skill understands altering the charging current is upper bounded by a maximum charging current limit to avoid damaging the battery).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghantous et al. (USPGPN 20190120910), in view of Ladpli et al. (USPGPN 20190207274), and further in view of Shimura (USPGPN 20190036373), as evidenced by Timur et al. (Basics of PID controllers: Working Principles, pros & cons. Timur et al. Integra Sources. (2024, December 4). https://www.integrasources.com/blog/basics-of-pid-controllers-design-applications/).
With respect to claim 19, Ghantous teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. However, Ghantous fails to explicitly teach wherein applying the first charging current is performed using proportional integral derivate (PID) control.
Shimura teaches wherein applying the first charging current is performed using proportional integral derivate (PID) control (In ¶ [47] the charge current is controlled using PID control).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have added the PID control capabilities of Shimura to Ghantous’ battery degradation monitoring and charging modification system. The advantage of this modification being PID provides a greater accuracy than simpler on/off controllers, the algorithm is more energy efficient, and cost effective to implement (as evidenced by Timur).
Claims 20-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghantous et al. (USPGPN 20190120910).
With respect to claim 20, Ghantous teaches a method of operating a battery (Figs. 7a-7b; a method for adaptively charging a battery based on stimulus results, see ¶ [05]).
Ghantous teaches operating the battery at a first operating rate (Figs. 7a-7b; prior to applying a stimulus to the battery, a first portion of the “charging process” is conducted. Thus, this is understood by one of ordinary skill to be a first charging current applied to the battery 118, see ¶ [06]. See ¶ [46] for an explanation of “charging process” as taught by Ghantous).
Ghantous teaches applying a probing pulse to the battery, wherein the probing pulse comprises a rest period (Figs. 7a-7b; in steps 703/723 a current stimulus is applied to the battery. In ¶ [76 and 142] the stimulus current is characterized by the amplitude, the measurement period, and the number of samples taken over this period. In ¶ [143] the stimulus current has very little impact, if any, on depleting charge from the battery. In Fig. 4f the pulse waveform includes a rest period Trest. One of ordinary skill understands that this step/edge current stimulus is a small controlled probing pulse specifically for measurement purposes and is smaller than the charging current).
Ghantous teaches determining a battery parameter during the probing pulse, the battery parameter correlated with battery cell degradation (Figs. 7a-7b; in steps 705-709/725-731 a battery parameter based on data collected from the current stimulus is determined. This battery parameter data collected is used to determine and avoid battery cell degradation, see ¶ [44, 157-158]).
Ghantous teaches altering the first operating rate to a second operating rate different from the first operating rate based on the battery parameter (Figs. 7a-7b; in steps 711/733 the charge process is modified based on the battery parameter from the previous steps. One of ordinary skill understands changing the charge process consists of altering the first charging current to a second charging current different from the first charging current, see ¶ [128, 135]).
Although Ghantous fails to explicitly teach the methods of Figs. 7a-7b are used during discharging a battery to alter a discharging rate, Ghantous considers a “charge cycle” as the process of charging a rechargeable battery and discharging it with a particular load, see ¶ [47].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the battery degradation monitoring and charging modification method for cases that include discharging the battery (i.e., providing power to a load). The advantage to this modification being a wider monitoring range of battery performance is considered thereby maintaining optimal device performance and improving battery longevity.
With respect to claim 21, Ghantous teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 20. Further, Ghantous teaches wherein the probing pulse comprises a unipolar pulse (Fig. 4f; the probing pulse is unipolar).
With respect to claim 22, Ghantous teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 20. Further, Ghantous teaches wherein the rest period comprises a current value of 0 Amps (Fig. 4f; the rest period Trest comprises a current magnitude of 0 Amps).
With respect to claim 23, Ghantous teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 20. Further, Ghantous teaches wherein the probing pulse further comprises an active period prior to the rest period, and wherein during the active period, a current is applied the battery (Fig. 4f; the active period Tcharge before the rest period Trest consists of applying a charging current to the battery).
Although Ghantous fails to explicitly teach the methods of Figs. 7a-7b are used during discharging a battery to alter a discharging rate, Ghantous considers a “charge cycle” as the process of charging a rechargeable battery and discharging it with a particular load, see ¶ [47].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the battery degradation monitoring and charging modification method for cases that include discharging the battery (i.e., providing power to a load). The advantage to this modification being a wider monitoring range of battery performance is considered thereby maintaining optimal device performance and improving battery longevity.
With respect to claim 24, Ghantous teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 23. Further, Ghantous teaches wherein determining the battery parameter during the probing pulse comprises evaluating a discrete section of the probing pulse (Figs. 4a-4b; illustrate the probing pulses with discrete sections used to evaluate the battery parameters).
With respect to claim 25, Ghantous teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 24. Further, Ghantous teaches wherein the discrete section of the probing pulse comprises a voltage transition between the active period and the rest period (In ¶ [92] the stimulus is applied accounting for a battery’s response to the harmonic frequencies and specifically the reaction of the battery terminal voltage (i.e., voltage transition) between the active periods and the rest periods as illustrated in Figs. 4a-4b).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Frank A Silva whose telephone number is (703)756-1698. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 09:30 am -06:30 pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Drew Dunn can be reached at 571-272-2312. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/FRANK ALEXIS SILVA/Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/DREW A DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859