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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 24, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can
be found in a prior Office action.
Feature “an estimate of the exact amount of time” in claim 9 is
understood to mean an estimate of the amount of time for the purpose of the current Office Action.
Claims 9,10,13,15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olsson et al (PG Pub 2013/0164567 A1), Neumeyer (PG Pub 2012/0130660 A1), Ludtke (PG Pub 2009/0033277 A1), Centen (PG Pub 2010/0022904 A1), and Coates (PG Pub 2013/0260188 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Olsson teaches a system comprising: a device (fig. 35); and a battery (fig. 37), coupled to the device and configured to power the device (paragraph [0057]), wherein the battery includes means (“electronic circuit”, paragraphs [0011][0073][0078]; 160 in paragraphs [0112]; process 2300 in paragraph [0192]; claim 33 of Olsson) for determining an end of life indicator of a condition of the battery relative to an end of life condition of the battery, wherein the battery further includes means (“electronic circuit”, paragraphs [0011][0073][0078]; 160 in paragraphs [0112]; process 2300 in paragraph [0192]; claim 33 of Olsson) for determining a runtime indicator of an exact amount of time or an estimate of the exact amount of time the battery can be used to power the device before needing to be at least one of recharged or replaced prior to the end of life condition of the battery; and a communication link configured to transmit (arrow from 2320 to 2340 inside a PCB of the battery; PCB is shown as 152 in fig. 1A) data externally (paragraphs [0068][0070][242]; fig. 21) to monitor a battery health of the battery.
Fig. 37 does not teach that the battery further includes a display on the battery displaying an exact amount of time or an estimate of the exact amount of time the battery can be used to power the device before needing to be at least one of recharged or replaced.
Embodiment shown in figs. 1-4 teaches a display (RGB LEDs 420, paragraph [0128]; visual indication by an LED, paragraph [0073]) on the battery (aligned with apertures 218 in fig. 2, paragraph [0128]; fig. 2 shows battery enclosure 100, paragraph [0114]) configured to display the end of life indicator, as determined by the battery, of the condition of the battery relative to the end of life condition of the battery (paragraph [0110], fig. 1B, which shows the inside of battery, paragraph [0018]; and the processing element can provide indication of “charge or discharge state, battery cycling information, remaining battery life” (paragraph [0110]), and wherein the display is further configured to display the runtime indicator, as determined by the battery, of state of charge of the battery (paragraph [0128]), for the known benefit of providing user indication of battery life.
Olsson teaches information such as current battery capacity and estimated remaining battery life can be obtained using parameters stored in memory 172 (paragraph [0110], fig. 1B, which shows the inside of battery, paragraph [0018]); and the processing element can provide indication of “charge or discharge state, battery cycling information, remaining battery life” (paragraph [0110]).
Olsson does not teach RGB LEDs 420 are to display an exact amount of time or an estimate of the exact amount of time the battery can be used before needing to be at least one of recharged or replaced; in other words, Olsson does not teach whether RGB LEDs 420 display the battery life in exact time such as in minutes, or just displaying it in colored bars.
In the same field of endeavor, Neumeyer teaches that consumers expect an accurate indication of battery life (paragraph [0003]) and to display remaining battery life (“visual representation”, paragraph [0028]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a display on the battery configured to display a runtime indicator of state of charge of an exact amount of time or an estimate of the exact amount of time the battery can be used before needing to be at least one of recharged or replaced, prior to an end of life condition of the battery, such as using battery-state-indicating LEDs 420 in Olsson, for the benefit of meeting consumers’ expectation of knowing battery life.
Olsson teaches the battery further comprising a sensor for at least one of measuring or monitoring an environmental condition (temperature, paragraph [0110]) of the battery, and wherein the battery is configured to determine the runtime indicator(charge/discharge states, paragraph [0110]) and the end of life indicator (remaining battery life, paragraph [0110]) based on at least one of the environmental condition (temperature, paragraph [0110]) and (“one or more”, paragraph [0110]) usage (battery age and charge/discharge history, paragraph [0110]).
Olsson does not teach to measure or monitor plural environmental conditions.
In the same field of endeavor, Ludtke teaches including plural environmental conditions such as temperature and pressure can more accurately infer battery charge state (paragraph [0102]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include plural sensors for at least one of measuring or monitoring plural environmental conditions of the battery, and to configure the battery to determine the runtime indicator and the end of life indicator based on the environmental conditions for the benefit of more accurately infer battery charge state.
Furthermore, in the same field of endeavor, Coates teaches accurate estimation of battery state lengthens battery life, improves performance, eliminate over-engineering (paragraph [0017]). It would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure the battery to display a runtime indicator of an exact amount of time or an estimate of the exact amount of time the battery, prior to an end of life condition of the battery, can be used to power the device before needing to be at least one of recharged or replaced, for the benefit of communicating the battery state to the user to prevent excessively frequent charging of the battery that wear out the battery and to prevent retiring the battery before its lifespan.
Furthermore, in the same field of endeavor, Coates teaches the battery is configured to determine the runtime indicator (state of charge SOC, paragraph [0023]) and the end of life indicator based on the measured or monitored environmental conditions (claim 20 and paragraph [0019]), for the benefit of accurately estimate the runtime indicator and the end of life indicator to prolong battery life (paragraph [0017]).
Olsson does not teach the device to be a medical device.
In the same field of endeavor, Centen teaches the device to be a defibrillator (paragraph [0108]), for the known benefit of providing a device that can restore heartbeats.
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the device to be a medical device, for the known benefit of providing a device that can restore heartbeats.
Regarding claim 10, Neumeyer teaches the system of claim 9, wherein the display is configured to display the exact amount of time in minutes (paragraph [0028]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure the battery to display the runtime indicator in minutes for the benefit of meeting consumers’ expectation of knowing battery life.
Regarding claim 13, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art in view of Olsson to configure the display to display the end of life indicator of the battery as an indication that the battery should be replaced, for the known benefit of alerting the user when it’s time to replace an old battery by displaying the information that is already available in the battery: Olsson teaches to calculate “remaining battery life” (paragraph [0110]), which indicates the battery’s end of life condition.
Regarding claim 15, Olsson teaches the system of claim 14, wherein the battery is structured and configured to at least one of measure or monitor the usage of the battery (“to measure, monitor, control, and/or store battery operational information and/or coupled device operational information” paragraph [0009]).
Regarding claim 16, Olsson teaches the system of claim 9 further comprising: wherein the communication link (3791, fig 37, paragraph [0255]) for transmits data to at least one of a central location of the battery, a specified location of the battery or a pre-selected location.
Regarding claim 17, Olsson teaches the system of claim 16, wherein the communication link (3790, fig 37) is coupled directly to the battery.
Regarding claim 18, Olsson teaches the system of claim 16, wherein the communication link is structured and configured to communicate at least one of wirelessly (3790, fig 37, paragraph [0255]) or via the cloud.
Regarding claim 19, Olsson does not teach the device to be a defibrillator.
Centen teaches the device to be a defibrillator (paragraph [0108]), for the known benefit of providing a device that can restore heartbeats.
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the device to be a defibrillator, for the known benefit of providing a device that can restore heartbeats.
Claim 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olsson et al (PG Pub 2013/0164567 A1), Neumeyer (PG Pub 2012/0130660 A1), Ludtke (PG Pub 2009/0033277 A1), Centen (PG Pub 2010/0022904 A1), and Coates (PG Pub 2013/0260188 A1), as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Recker et al (PG Pub 2010/0327766 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Olsso remains as applied in claim 9 above.
Olsso further teaches using color LEDs indicate battery status (paragraph [0071]).
Olsso does not teach an end of life indicator including the tricolored LED, wherein the tricolored LED includes at least one of: a green LED indicating the battery is in a good condition; a yellow LED indicating the battery is nearing an end of life; or a red LED indicating an immediate replacement of the battery.
In the same field of endeavor, Recker teaches an end of life indicator including the tricolored LED, wherein the tricolored LED includes at least one of: a green LED indicating the battery is in a good condition a yellow LED indicating the battery is nearing an end of life or a red LED indicating an immediate replacement of the battery (paragraph [0265]).
Recker further teaches to use any color LEDs to indicate the status (paragraph [0265]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make an end of life indicator including the tricolored LED configured to indicate a condition of the battery relative to the end of life condition of the battery, and wherein the tricolored LED included at least one of: a green LED indicating the battery was in a good condition; a yellow LED indicating the battery was nearing the end of life of the battery; or a red LED indicating an immediate replacement of the battery, since it was known that any color LED might be used to indicate the battery status.
Claim 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olsson et al (PG Pub 2013/0164567 A1), Neumeyer (PG Pub 2012/0130660 A1), Ludtke (PG Pub 2009/0033277 A1), Centen (PG Pub 2010/0022904 A1) and Coates (PG Pub 2013/0260188 A1), as applied to claims 9 above, and further in view of Suzuki et al (PG Pub 2007/0164707 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Olsson does not teach the display is configured to display the end of life indicator as a number of recharge cycles remaining before the battery should be replaced.
In the same field of endeavor, Suzuki teaches the display is configured to display the end of life indicator as a number of recharge cycles (L=L0-N, paragraphs [0062])0081]) remaining before the battery should be replaced, for the benefit of allowing the user to know in advance when the battery needs replacement.
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure the display to display the end of life indicator of the battery as a number of recharge cycles remaining before the battery should be replaced, for the benefit of allowing the user to know in advance when the battery needs replacement.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 24, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant stated that (pages 6-9, remarks) that the cited arts do not teach the added features. Olsson teaches the added features (paragraphs [0068][0111][0222]). Furthermore, currently cited art, Coates, also teaches the added features. See rejection above.
Applicant argues that (pages 9 and 10, remarks) there lacks motivation to combined the cited art. Examiner disagrees. Every motivation to combined each reference is indicated in the rejection above.
Applicant argues that (page 10, remarks) no ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention could have realized to display or the benefits of displaying the states of a battery. The cited references indicate the contrary. See rejection above.
Applicant argues that (page 11, second paragraph, remarks) combining Olsson and Neumeyer to achieve meeting consumers’ needs, by configuring the battery to display a runtime indicator of an exact amount of time or an estimate of the exact amount of time the battery, prior to an end of life condition of the battery, is the result of the combination, not a benefit of modifying Olsson in view of Neumeyer. Applicant points to Ex parte Wooten (Appeal 2023-000259, U.S. Pat. App. No. 15/255,198, 20 June 2023) to support the allegation. In the Wooten case, Applicants points to PTBA reasoning that
"for the purposes of allowing the cavity to extend through the second card when it is folded" was simply a result of the combination and not a reason one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to modify the first disclosure with content from the second disclosure (Id., page 4).
Examiner disagrees that the current situation is the same as that in Wooten. In Wooten case, the secondary reference is use to teach the missing element in the primary reference for the sake of having the missing element: to have the cavity extend through the cut-out. However, Neumeyer teaches more than what is missing in Olsson, it teaches the motivation of displaying the information, which is to satisfy battery buyers’ needs.
Applicant argues that (pages 11 and 12, remarks) that the Office Action uses Applicant’s disclosure as roadmap. Examiner disagrees. As taught in Neumeyer and Coates that there are many motivations to display information about battery state. See rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FEIFEI YEUNG LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1882. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8am to 4pm 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, Dale Page can be reached at 571 270 7877. 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.
/FEIFEI YEUNG LOPEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights