Patent Application 17834853 - BATTERY ELECTRONIC DEVICE AND BATTERY CHARGING - Rejection

Patent Application 17834853 - BATTERY ELECTRONIC DEVICE AND BATTERY CHARGING

Title: BATTERY, ELECTRONIC DEVICE AND BATTERY CHARGING METHOD

Application Information

• Invention Title: BATTERY, ELECTRONIC DEVICE AND BATTERY CHARGING METHOD
• Application Number: 17834853
• Submission Date: 2025-05-12T00:00:00.000Z
• Effective Filing Date: 2022-06-07T00:00:00.000Z
• Filing Date: 2022-06-07T00:00:00.000Z
• National Class: 320
• National Sub-Class: 146000
• Examiner Employee Number: 99266
• Art Unit: 2859
• Tech Center: 2800

Rejection Summary

• 102 Rejections: 0
• 103 Rejections: 3

Cited Patents

No patents were cited in this rejection.

Office Action Text

    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 06/07/2022 claims 1-19 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 06/07/2022 and 08/18/2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.  Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a).  The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.  Therefore, the method steps of claims 2-17 must be shown or the features canceled from the claims.  The applicant is advised to amend the drawings by adding flowcharts as necessary to show the method steps claimed.  No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to because the waveforms of Figs. 2-3 are unclear.  The applicant is advised to submit replacement sheets that are clear and legible.  Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. 
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. 
The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. 
Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 
If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive.  A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. 
The following title is suggested: “Cyclic Voltammetry Test To Determine A Battery Charging Process”.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 11-12, 15-16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yazami et al. (USPGPN 20230387485), as evidenced by Ogurtsov et al. (Study of the effects of nonlinear potential sweeps on Voltammetry. Ogurtsov et al. Electroanalysis, 21(1), 68–76. (2008). https://doi.org/10.1002/elan.200804375).
	First the examiner notes a charging stage is a stage (i.e., step, level, or phase) of charging with a charging rate and a cut-off voltage that are determined according to the current (i.e., present) and previous test results of the cyclic voltammetry test conducted on the battery as disclosed by the applicant in ¶ [5-7] of the disclosure.  For examination purposes a charging stage will be interpreted as a stage, step, level or phase, etc. of battery charging with a determined charging rate and cut-off voltage based on an electroanalytical test performed on the battery.
	With respect to claim 1, Yazami teaches a charging method of a battery (In Fig. 3 an adaptive charging protocol (e.g., ACP) based on non-linear voltammetry (e.g., NLV) charging of a battery, see ¶ [73]).
Yazami teaches a charging process of the battery comprises a plurality of charging stages (In Fig. 3 the ACP-NLV charging process comprises a series of charging steps, see ¶ [74]. Also, one of ordinary skill understands these charging steps are due to the repetitive iterations within the “NLV based charging process block” of Fig. 3).
Yazami teaches a voltammetry test is performed on the battery to obtain a current test result and it is determined that a current charging strategy needs to be updated (In Fig. 3 a NLV test is performed on the battery to adjust the charging profile (i.e., charging strategy) to improve the given charging requirements, see ¶ [73]).
Yazami teaches determining a charge cut-off voltage for each of the plurality of charging stages in a current charging process according to the current test result and a test result obtained from a last update of a charging strategy (In Fig. 3 a target end voltage (see ¶ [174]) is determined in step [J] for each repetitive iteration of the “NLV based charging process block” wherein the data frame (i.e., test results) are initially recorded in an initial-frame after step [D] (i.e., update path X) and updated after step [G] (i.e., update path Y) to update the charging profile. One of ordinary skill understands update path X is iteratively updated as the process loops if the exit criteria is not satisfied in step [K]).
Yazami teaches determining a charging rate for each of the plurality of charging stages in the current charging process according to the current test result, the test result obtained from the last update of the charging strategy, and the charge cut-off voltage determined for each of the plurality of charging stages in the current charging process (In Fig. 3 a charging rate is determined in step [F] (see ¶ [139-146]) for each of the plurality of charging steps in the iterative “NLV based charging process block” based on the previous NLV test results, the current NLV test results, and the set-voltage Vnlv-next calculated for that charging step. It is understood by one of ordinary skill that the current set-voltage is bounded by the target end voltage and the target end voltage is adjusted based on how the Vnlv-next is performing based on the feedback loop).
Yazami teaches charging the battery based on the charging rate and the charge cut-off voltage determined for each of the plurality of charging stages (In Fig. 3 the battery is charged based on the determined charging rate and the set-voltage for each of the charging stages in step [G], see ¶ [148-152]).
	However, Yazami fails to explicitly teach a cyclic voltammetry test.
	While, the applicant discloses a battery charging method based on cyclic voltammetry tests, Yazami teaches a similar adaptive charging system using non-linear voltammetry tests and real-time battery data such as voltage, current, and battery health to adjust charging behavior. 
Furthermore, as evidenced by Ogurtsov, a linear voltammetry test is a voltage linear sweep typically performed with a linear wave-form while non-linear voltammetry is performed using non-linear waveforms but both in effect are cyclical electroanalytical methods wherein the applied voltage is varied to obtain electrochemical results which may be illustrated in a current versus voltage plot to determine the electrochemical reactions within the battery.
	Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to have modified Yazami by applying linear cyclic voltammetry tests to the adaptive battery charging method. The benefit of this modification being the battery charging is optimized based on how the battery responds during use which would be monitored by an electroanalytical method such as a cyclic voltammetry test thereby extending the battery life and decreasing O&M (operational and maintenance) costs.
	With respect to claim 2, Yazami teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Yazami teaches determining that the current charging strategy needs to be updated according to a preset trigger condition, wherein the preset trigger condition comprises at least one of the following: a number of times the battery has been charged currently; the test result of the cyclic voltammetry test; a preset update period; and a health status of the battery (In Fig. 3 determining if updating the charging process is required is done in step [K] wherein it is determined if the system has reached the maximum end voltage, if the battery has gained the required full capacity, and a comparison of the charging current profiles, see ¶ [181-185]).
	With respect to claim 5, Yazami teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 2. Further, Yazami teaches determining whether the update period has started over currently; if the update period has started over currently, determining that the current charging strategy needs to updated; and if the update period has not started over currently, determining that the current charging strategy does not need to be updated (In Fig. 3 it is understood by one of ordinary skill that an update period comprises the iteration in the “NLV charging process block” wherein the charging strategy is updated if executed or not when the process exits this block).
	With respect to claim 6, Yazami teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 2. Further, Yazami teaches determining a state difference between the current health state of the battery and the health state of the battery in a last charging (In ¶ [73-75] the current state of health of the battery is considered with respect to the previous state of health as part of the ACP-NLV charging process).
However, Yazami fails to explicitly teach determining whether an absolute value of the state difference is greater than a second preset threshold; if the absolute value of the state difference is greater than the second preset threshold, determining that the current charging strategy needs to be updated; and if the absolute value of the state difference is not greater than the second preset threshold, determining that the current charging strategy does not need to be updated.
Using the absolute value of a difference and comparing it to a threshold to decide whether to update a process is a well-known and routine technique. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to compare the absolute value of a difference between two health states of the battery to a predetermined threshold in order to determine whether to update a battery charging strategy.
With respect to dependent claims 11, 12, 15, and 16, Yazami teaches the invention as discussed above in claims 1, 2, 5, and 6, respectively. Further, Yazami teaches wherein when it is determined that the current charging strategy does not need to be updated, the method further comprises: if a number of times the battery has been charged currently is zero, charging the current battery according to a preset charge cut-off voltage and a charging rate for each of the plurality of charging stages; and if the number of times the battery has been charged currently is greater than zero, charging the battery by using a most recently determined charging strategy (In Fig. 3 at startup in step B.1 the process determines if to charge using a constant current with a preset charge cut-off voltage and charging rate in step [C]. Otherwise, the process denoted by the block “NLV based charging process” is executed by the process which considers the recently determined NLV data frame for a charging process).
With respect to claim 18, Yazami teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Yazami teaches a battery which is charged by using the charging method (Fig. 1, battery (cell, pack) 2).
With respect to claim 19, Yazami teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 18. Further, Yazami teaches an electronic device, comprising the battery and a voltammetry test device (Fig. 1, battery 2 and components 1, 3-8 for performing the ACP-NLV testing/charging algorithm).
Claims 3-4, 7-8, 13-14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yazami et al. (USPGPN 20230387485), further in view of Dawkins (Calculus I - Area Between Curves. Dawkins, P. Paul’s Online Notes. (2007, August 17). https://tutorial.math.lamar.edu/classes/calci/areabetweencurves.aspx), and as evidenced by Ogurtsov et al. (Study of the effects of nonlinear potential sweeps on Voltammetry. Ogurtsov et al. Electroanalysis, 21(1), 68–76. (2008). https://doi.org/10.1002/elan.200804375).
With respect to claim 3, Yazami teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 2. Further, Yazami teaches determining whether the number of times the battery has been charged currently is greater than zero (In Fig. 3 it is understood that the process determines if the battery has already been charged before in the iterative “NLV based charging process” block).
Yazami teaches if the number of times the battery has been charged currently is greater than zero, determining a need of updating the current charging strategy according to the current test result and the test result obtained from the last update of the charging strategy (In Fig. 3 determining if updating the charging process is required is done in step [K] wherein a comparison of the charging current profiles is performed. One of ordinary skill understands the current NLV is compared with the previous NLV results).
Yazami teaches if the number of times the battery has been charged currently is not greater than zero, determining that there is no need to update the current charging strategy (In Fig. 3 it is understood that there is no need to update the charging process when initialized because the process is being first run so it has not gone through the iterative steps).
However, Yazami fails to explicitly teach an area of a curve wherein the area is an area of a region enclosed by the curve and a coordinate axis.
Dawkins teaches an area of a curve wherein the area is an area of a region enclosed by the curve and a coordinate axis (Dawkins  in pgs. 1-2 teaches how to obtain the area of a region enclosed by a curve and a coordinate axis).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to have modified the ACP-NLV charging method of Yazami with the math formula for calculating the area under a curve of Dawkins to calculate the area under a voltammetry curve as a way to decide if the battery’s behavior has changed and the charging process needs to be updated, since comparing curves is a common method in battery diagnostics and serves the same purpose as checking how the battery responds over time. The advantage of this modification being it provides a simple and reliable method for detecting changes in the battery’s internal electrochemical activity thereby reducing the cost of manufacturing using simpler hardware.
With respect to claim 4, Yazami teaches the invention as disclosed above in claim 3. Further, Yazami teaches determining and defining the current test result and defining the test result obtained from the last update as a reference test result (In Fig. 3 in the “NLV based charging process” block the previous iterations NLV data frame is compared with the current NLV data frame).
Yazami teaches determining that the current charging strategy needs to be updated and determining that the current charging strategy does not need to be updated (In Fig. 3 the charging process is determined if updating is required in step [K]). 
However, Yazami fails to explicitly teach the first area under a first curve, a second area under a second curve, calculating an area difference between the first area and the second area, and determining whether an absolute value of the area difference is greater than a first preset threshold.
Dawkins teaches the first area under a first curve, a second area under a second curve, calculating an area difference between the first area and the second area, and determining an absolute value of the area difference (Dawkins in pgs. 1-2 teaches how to obtain the absolute value of the area difference between two curves).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to have modified the ACP-NLV charging method of Yazami with the math formula for calculating the area under a curve of Dawkins to calculate the area under a voltammetry curve as a way to decide if the battery’s behavior has changed and the charging process needs to be updated, since comparing curves is a common method in battery diagnostics and serves the same purpose as checking how the battery responds over time. The advantage of this modification being it provides a simple and reliable method for detecting changes in the battery’s internal electrochemical activity thereby reducing the cost of manufacturing using simpler hardware.
However, Yazami fails to explicitly teach determining whether an absolute value of the area difference is greater than a first preset threshold; if the absolute value of the area difference is greater than the first preset threshold; and if the absolute value of the area difference is not greater than the first preset threshold.
Using the absolute value of a difference and comparing it to a threshold to decide whether to update a process is a well-known and routine technique. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to compare the absolute value of a difference between two voltammetry curve areas to a predetermined threshold in order to determine whether to update a battery charging strategy.
With respect to claim 7, Yazami teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 2. Further, Yazami teaches defining the determined charge cut-off voltage in a charging stage of any of the plurality of charging stages as a first charge cut-off voltage; determining a second charge cut-off voltage in the charging stage in the reference charging strategy and a second charging rate in the charging stage in the reference charging strategy (In Fig. 3 for each iteration of the “NLV based charging process block” a set-voltage calculated for that charging step is determined. Each newly determined set-voltage is dependent upon the voltage cut-off and charging strategy of the previous iteration. Furthermore, it is understood by one of ordinary skill that the current set-voltage is bounded by the target end voltage and the target end voltage is adjusted based on how the set-voltage is performing based on the feedback loop).
Yazami teaches selecting, among a voltammetry curve in the current test result, a first curve segment between a preset initial voltage and the first charge cut-off voltage in the charging stage and selecting, among the voltammetry curve in the reference test result, a second curve segment between the initial voltage and the second charge cut-off voltage in the charging stage (It is understood by one of ordinary skill the cut-off voltages are determined from a NLV curve obtained from the test).
Yazami teaches determining a first charging rate according to the determined first charge cut-off voltage, the second charge cut-off voltage, and the second charging rate, and taking the first charging rate as the determined charging rate in the charging stage (In Fig. 3 the current charging rate is determined based on the previous and current set-voltages and the previous charging rate).
However, Yazami fails to explicitly teach wherein a region that passes through the initial voltage and the first charge cut-off voltage in the charging stage respectively and is enclosed by a straight line parallel to a first coordinate axis for representing a voltage, the first curve segment, and a second coordinate axis perpendicular to the first coordinate axis is defined as a first region; wherein a region that passes through the initial voltage and the second charge cut-off voltage in the charging stage respectively and is enclosed by the straight line parallel to the first coordinate axis, the second curve segment, and the second coordinate axis is defined as a second region.
 Dawkins teaches wherein a region that passes through the initial value and the first cut-off value is enclosed by a straight line parallel to a first coordinate axis for representing the first curve segment, and a second coordinate axis perpendicular to the first coordinate axis is defined as a first region; wherein a region that passes through the initial value and the second cut-off value is enclosed by the straight line parallel to the first coordinate axis, the second curve segment, and the second coordinate axis is defined as a second region (Dawkins in pgs. 1-2 teaches how to obtain the area difference between two curves that are bound by an initial value and a final value).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to have modified the ACP-NLV charging method of Yazami with the math formula for calculating the area under a curve of Dawkins to calculate the area under a voltammetry curve as a way to decide if the battery’s behavior has changed and the charging process needs to be updated, since comparing curves is a common method in battery diagnostics and serves the same purpose as checking how the battery responds over time. The advantage of this modification being it provides a simple and reliable method for detecting changes in the battery’s internal electrochemical activity thereby reducing the cost of manufacturing using simpler hardware.
With respect to claim 8, Yazami teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 7. Further, Yazami teaches determining the first charging rate in any of the plurality of charging stages by using a formula (In ¶ [11] a formula describing the relationship for determining the charging rate among the plurality of charging stages of Fig. 3 is mathematically described).
However, Yazami fails to explicitly teach using the formula I’ = I * S’ * ΔU / (S * ΔU’); wherein I’ represents the first charging rate in the charging stage, I represents the second charging rate in the charging stage, S’ represents the area of the first region, S represents the area of the second region, and ΔU’ represents a difference between the first charge cut-off voltage in the charging stage and the initial voltage, and ΔU represents a difference between the second charge cut-off voltage in the charging stage and the initial voltage.
Even though the formula of Yazami differs in form from the formula described by the applicant, they are functionally the same because both are used to adjust the battery charging behavior based on changes in voltage and current. Each formula processes measurable battery responses to guide how charging should proceed, resulting in the same overall function of dynamically controlling the charging strategy in response to battery conditions. 
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to have used the mathematical formula in Yazami. The advantage of this modification being it provides a simple and reliable method for detecting changes in the battery’s internal electrochemical activity thereby reducing the cost of manufacturing using simpler hardware.
With respect to dependent claims 13, 14 and 17, Yazami teaches the invention as disclosed in claims 3 and 4, respectively. Further, Yazami teaches if the number of times the battery has been charged currently is zero, charging the current battery according to a preset charge cut-off voltage and a charging rate for each of the plurality of charging stages; and if the number of times the battery has been charged currently is greater than zero, charging the battery by using a most recently determined charging strategy (In Fig. 3 at startup in step B.1 the process determines if to charge using a constant current with a preset charge cut-off voltage and charging rate in step [C]. Otherwise, the process denoted by the block “NLV based charging process” is executed by the process which considers the recently determined NLV data frame for a charging process). 
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yazami et al. (USPGPN 20230387485), further in view of Yamazaki et al. (USPGPN 20200321605), and as evidenced by Ogurtsov et al. (Study of the effects of nonlinear potential sweeps on Voltammetry. Ogurtsov et al. Electroanalysis, 21(1), 68–76. (2008). https://doi.org/10.1002/elan.200804375).
With respect to claim 9, Yazami teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Yazami determining a second charge cut-off voltage of a charging stage of any of the plurality of charging stages in the reference charging strategy and when the second interval corresponding to the second charge cut-off voltage is defined as a reference interval and determining the first interval corresponding to the reference interval (In Fig. 3 the iterative process will adjust the set-voltage of any of the plurality of the charging stages using previous data as reference).
Yazami teaches determining a first charge cut-off voltage according to the determined reference interval and the corresponding first voltage interval, and the second charge cut-off voltage, and taking the first charge cut-off voltage as an updated charge cut-off voltage of the charging stage; and taking a preset charge cut-off voltage as a charge cut-off voltage of the charging stage for the last charging stage in the current charging process (In Fig. 3 the set-voltage is iteratively updated until charging reaches the final capacity at step [K] wherein it is understood by one of ordinary skill the last charging stage has been reached with an end voltage).
However, Yazami fails to explicitly teach determining a first voltage corresponding to N peak currents in a cyclic voltammetry curve of the current test result, and dividing a preset voltage test range into N+1 first voltage intervals according to the N first voltages, wherein N is a positive integer and determining a second voltage corresponding to M peak currents in the cyclic voltammetry curve of the reference test result, and dividing the voltage test range into M+1 second voltage intervals according to the M second voltages, wherein M is a positive integer.
Yamazaki teaches determining a first voltage corresponding to N peak currents in a cyclic voltammetry curve of the current test result, and dividing a preset voltage test range into N+1 first voltage intervals according to the N first voltages, wherein N is a positive integer (In Figs. 15A/B a cyclic voltammetry curve of a current test result includes N+1 voltage intervals according to N first voltages corresponding to N peak currents obtained with a preset voltage test range, see ¶ [168-171]).
Yamazaki teaches determining a second voltage corresponding to M peak currents in the cyclic voltammetry curve of the reference test result, and dividing the voltage test range into M+1 second voltage intervals according to the M second voltages, wherein M is a positive integer (In Figs. 15A/B a cyclic voltammetry curve of a current test result includes M+1 voltage intervals according to M second voltages corresponding to M peak currents obtained with a preset voltage test range, see ¶ [168-171]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to have modified the ACP-NLV charging method of Yazami with the cyclic voltammetry curve analysis of Yamazaki to determine adjustments to the cut-off voltage. The advantage to this modification being that utilizing cyclic voltammetry testing methods to monitor the electrochemical properties during battery usage improves the efficiency (in ¶ [175] in Yamazaki) and thereby improving O&M (operational and maintenance) costs due to the improved monitoring.
With respect to claim 10, Yazami teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 9. Further, Yazami teaches calculating the first charge cut-off voltage at any of the plurality of charging stages by using the following formula (In ¶ [11] a formula describing the relationship for determining the charging rate and voltages among the plurality of charging stages of Fig. 3 is mathematically described).
However, Yazami fails to explicitly teach using the formula (Vi+1–Vi) / (Vi+1’–Vi’) = (Va–Vi) / (Va’–Vi’); wherein V represents a voltage of one terminal of the reference interval, Vi+1 represents a voltage of another terminal of the reference interval, Vi+1' represents a voltage of one terminal of the first voltage interval corresponding to the reference interval, Vi' represents a voltage of another terminal of the first voltage interval corresponding to the reference interval, Va represents the second charge cut-off voltage of the charging stage, and Va' represents the first charge cut-off voltage of the charging stage.
Even though the formula of Yazami differs in form from the formula described by the applicant, they are functionally the same because both are used to adjust the battery charging behavior based on changes in voltage and current. Each formula processes measurable battery responses to guide how charging should proceed, resulting in the same overall function of dynamically controlling the charging strategy in response to battery conditions. 
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to have used the mathematical formula in Yazami. The advantage of this modification being it provides a simple and reliable method for detecting changes in the battery’s internal electrochemical activity thereby reducing the cost of manufacturing using simpler hardware.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 
	SUN (USPGPN 20220045535) teaches a charging control method includes that: for each charging stage among the multiple charging stages, a current rate of change threshold corresponding to a present charging stage is determined; a polling duration and current adjustment step corresponding to the present charging stage are determined, a ratio of the current adjustment step to the polling duration being greater than the current rate of change threshold; and in the present charging stage, a charging current value is detected according to the polling duration, and in response to determining the charging current value is greater than a specified current threshold, a current is adjusted according to the current adjustment step.
	Yazami et al. (USPGPN 20210167620) teaches an adaptive charging protocol (ACP) implemented for fast-charging a rechargeable battery having electrode terminals connected to terminals of a power supply provided to apply time-varying voltages to the electrodes, comprising, before starting a charging operation for the battery, the steps of: detecting the existence of historical data on previous charging operations for the battery, in case of detection, processing the historical data to adjust charging parameters in view of optimizing the charging operation; in absence of detection, electrically testing the battery to get data on variations of the state of charge (SOC) for the battery, in view of building a learning model on the SOC variations to be used for optimizing the charging operation.	
Conclusion
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 07:30 am -04:30 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