DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
In the communication dated October 22, 2025, claims 1-14, 31-37 and 39-43 are pending. Claims 1, 11, 14, 31 and 41 are amended and claims 15-30, 38 and 44-62 are cancelled.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 October 22, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The applicant argues that the rejection fails to establish that the prior art teaches the specific continuous high-C charging configuration.
Bertness discloses the charging of a battery and a booster simultaneously. In the combination of Arends US20160285289A1 and newly cited Kaite et al. US20010017533A1, Arends discloses charging a vehicle at a base rate of 1 C-3 C and that while operating in the base charging mode the battery charger can concurrently charge both the power storage device of the battery charger and the one or more batteries (¶12/17). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, 1-3C can be interpreted as a fast charge since, although a termed a base rate by Arends, 1C-3C is still a fast rate of charge. Kaite further evidences this since it is taught that fast charging occurs between 0.5C and 4C. Unless it can be shown that the charging of the vehicle at a base rate as taught by Arends cannot be performed within a fast charging range of 4C, as taught by Kaite, then it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply a fast/high charge rate to the charging of Bertness in order to reduce the amount of time spent charging.
The applicant argues that Bertness does not disclose a specific phase sequency where different imitations apply during different phases, while Hanada discloses dividing charge/discharging requests among multiple groups, not to the claimed phase sequence with different capacity limitations (see page 11 of the applicant’s remarks).
The claim states “the charging capacity is limited, during the additional charging phase, by a charging power limitation of the main charging unit”. However, inherently, the charging of the battery is limited by the capabilities of the charging unit. The charging unit cannot output more power than it is capable of. When the system of Bertness is set to operate in a particular mode, such as “charge vehicle battery”,
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
FIG. 6C/D - The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 351.
FIG. 8A – there are two boxes labeled 420, but none of the boxes are labeled 430. In the second instance, the box should be labeled 430.
FIG. 8A – some sort of linkage between elements should be shown. For instance, arrows to indicate a flow. Further, it is unclear from the drawings whether 410-430 are related to 210-215 and some sort of linking element should be shown or each set of elements should have its own figure.
FIG. 8B - it is unclear from the drawings whether 610-630, 640-660, 670-690, 700-720 and 730 are related. Some sort of linking element should be shown (i.e. arrows) or each set of elements should have its own figure.
FIG. 8C - it is unclear from the drawings whether 810 and 820-830 are related. Some sort of linking element should be shown (i.e. arrows) or each set of elements should have its own figure.
FIG. 8D - it is unclear from the drawings whether 910-920 and 930-960 are related. Some sort of linking element should be shown (i.e. arrows) or each set of elements should have its own figure.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 1-14, 31-37 and 39-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the charging capacity" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the additional charging phase, the charging capacity for charging the battery cells” in lines 15-16. It is uncertain whether this is the first part of the charging capacity or a second part of the charging capacity or a different charging capacity.
Similar language appears in claims 14 and 31 and thus the claims are rejected for the same reasoning as claim 1.
Claims 2-13, 32-37 and 39-43 are rejected at least due to their dependency from a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 9-14, 31-34 and 39-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bertness et al. US20030011344A1 in view of Arends US20160285289A1 and Kaite et al. US20010017533A1.
Regarding claim 1, Bertness discloses a charging system (FIG. 1-1) comprising:
a booster unit (106);
a main charging unit (104) that has a charging capability and is configured to continuously provide, during a first charging phase of a charging process a charging current for charging battery cells (cells within battery 102; the charging is considered continuous as the charging is not a single point in time, but rather over a continuous duration, however long it may be), wherein a first part of the charging capacity is used for charging the battery cells and a second part of the charging capacity is used to charge the booster unit during the first charging phase (¶12 – when the system is used for charging the vehicle battery 102, it can also simultaneously recharge an internal battery of a booster 106);
wherein the charging process further comprises an additional charging phase that follows the first charging phase (¶11 – mode selection switch 108 includes different positions such as “charge vehicle battery”, “charge booster battery”, “charge vehicle battery and booster battery”, “jump-start vehicle battery”, “test vehicle battery”, “test booster battery”, “use booster battery as direct current source”, “use booster battery as alternating current source”, “combine output of booster battery and charger”, etc. - thus including an additional charging process)
wherein the first part of the charging capacity is limited by a first charging current limitation of the battery cells (¶17 - the voltage provided is proportional to a current flowing through a vehicle battery);
wherein the main charging unit (104) is further configured to use, during the additional charging phase, the charging capacity for charging the battery cells, wherein the charging capacity is limited, during the additional charging phase, by a charging power limitation of the main charging unit (¶11 - other charging configurations include charging the vehicle or booster battery, thus, the power input into the system for charging is no longer divided but is used only to charge the vehicle or booster battery thus, being constrained only by the charger).
Bertness does not explicitly disclose providing a high-C charging current of at least 4C.
Arends discloses charging a vehicle at a base rate of 1 C-3 C and that while operating in the base charging mode the battery charger can concurrently charge both the power storage device of the battery charger and the one or more batteries (¶12/17).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to use a higher rate of charge, as taught by Arends, to charge the vehicle battery of Bertness in order to provide known fast charging range to the battery (¶16-17).
Although 3C is less than the claimed 4C, it is known that in order to decrease the amount of time spent charging, the charging rate should be increased. Kaite discloses fast charging a battery between 0.5 and 4C, although it is preferable for the range to be 1-3C (¶23).
Unless it can be shown that the charging of the vehicle at a base rate as taught by Arends, which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is a fast charge, cannot be performed within a fast charging range of 4C, as taught by Kaite, then it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply a fast/high charge rate to the charging of Bertness in order to reduce the amount of time spent charging.
Regarding claim 2, Bertness does not explicitly disclose that the charging current limitation of the battery cells is a maximal charging current limitation of the battery cells.
Arends discloses the charging current limitation of the battery cells is a maximal charging current limitation of the battery cells (¶71 - microprocessor 210 may limit the battery charger 200 to below a maximum C-rate threshold)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to use a high rate of charge, as taught by Arends, to charge the vehicle battery of Bertness in order reduce the likelihood of accidents and misuse (¶68).
Regarding claim 3, Bertness discloses that the booster unit (106) is configured to discharge and output a booster charging current for charging the battery cells during a second charging phase of the charging process (¶11 – use booster battery as a DC or AC source );
Bertness discloses that the main charging unit (104) is configured to charge the battery cells during the second charging phase (¶11 – combine output of booster battery and charger) under a main charging unit current limitation (a charging system is inherently limited by the amount that a charging unit is enabled to charge as a person of ordinary skill in the art would know that the charger cannot exceed the system limits).
Regarding claim 4, Bertness does not explicitly disclose that the main charging unit current limitation is a maximal main charging unit current limitation.
Arends discloses the main charging unit current limitation is a maximal main charging unit current limitation (¶71 - microprocessor 210 may limit the battery charger 200 to below a maximum C-rate threshold)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to use a high rate of charge, as taught by Arends, to charge the vehicle battery of Bertness in order reduce the likelihood of accidents and misuse (¶68).
Regarding claim 9, Bertness discloses the additional charging phase is a third charging phase, wherein the booster unit (106) is configured to discharge and output a booster charging current for charging the battery cells during a third charging phase (¶11- mode allows the use of the booster battery as an AC or DC source);
Bertness discloses the main charging unit (104) is configured to charge the battery cells during the third charging phase (¶11 – combine output of the boost battery and the charger) under a charging power limitation of the main charging unit (a charging system is inherently limited by the amount that a charging unit is enabled to charge as a person of ordinary skill in the art would know that the charger cannot exceed the system limits).
Regarding claim 10, Bertness does not explicitly disclose the charging power limitation of the main charging unit is a maximal charging power limitation of the main charging unit.
Arends discloses the charging power limitation of the main charging unit is a maximal charging power limitation of the main charging unit (¶34 - power supply can output 120 watts).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to use a high rate of charge, as taught by Arends, to charge the vehicle battery of Bertness in order reduce the likelihood of accidents and misuse (¶68).
Regarding claim 11, Bertness discloses the main charging unit (104) is configured to use, during a fourth charging phase of the charging process, the first part of the charging capacity for charging the battery cells (¶11 – charge the vehicle battery); and
Bertness discloses the main charging unit (104) is further configured to use the second part of the charging capacity, during the fourth charging phase, to charge the booster unit (¶11 – charge vehicle battery and booster battery).
Bertness discloses the first part of the charging capacity is limited by the charging current limitation of the battery cells (¶17 - the voltage provided is proportional to a current flowing through a vehicle battery).
Regarding claim 12, Bertness does not explicitly disclose that the charging current limitation of the battery cells is a maximal charging current limitation of the battery cells.
Arends discloses the charging current limitation of the battery cells is a maximal charging current limitation of the battery cells (¶71 - microprocessor 210 may limit the battery charger 200 to below a maximum C-rate threshold)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to use a high rate of charge, as taught by Arends, to charge the vehicle battery of Bertness in order reduce the likelihood of accidents and misuse (¶68).
Regarding claim 13, Bertness discloses that the booster unit (106) is configured to discharge and output a booster charging current for charging the battery cells (¶11 – use the booster battery as a DC or AC source), following the fourth charging phase (under the broadest reasonable interpretation is any time period in which charging occurs) and at an absence of the main charging unit (¶11 – system does not need to be connected to a power outlet when using the booster battery as a power source).
Regarding claim 14, Bertness discloses a charging system (FIG. 1-1) comprising:
a booster unit (106);
a charging management unit (microprocessor 228) that is in electrical communication with the booster unit (106), with battery cells (120) and with an interface (112) (FIG. 1-1 and 2-1);
wherein the charging management system (FIG. 1-1) is configured to:
receive charging current supplied by a main charging unit (104), a first charging phase of a charging process (¶11 - system set to charge vehicle battery and boost battery);
continuously provide the charging for charging the battery cells during the first charging phase current (cells within battery 102; the charging is considered continuous as the charging is not a single point in time, but rather over a continuous duration, however long it may be), wherein a first part of the charging current is used to charge the battery cells and a second part of the charging current is used to charge the booster unit during the first charging phase (¶12 – when the system is used for charging the vehicle battery 102, it can also simultaneously recharge an internal battery of a booster 106);
wherein the charging process further comprises an additional charging phase that follows the first charging phase (¶11 – mode selection switch 108 includes different positions such as “charge vehicle battery”, “charge booster battery”, “charge vehicle battery and booster battery”, “jump-start vehicle battery”, “test vehicle battery”, “test booster battery”, “use booster battery as direct current source”, “use booster battery as alternating current source”, “combine output of booster battery and charger”, etc. - thus including an additional charging process)
wherein the first part of the charging capacity is limited by a first charging current limitation of the battery cells (¶17 - the voltage provided is proportional to a current flowing through a vehicle battery).
use, during the additional charging phase, the charging capacity for charging the battery cells, wherein the charging capacity is limited, during the additional charging phase, by a charging power limitation of the main charging unit (¶11 - other charging configurations include charging the vehicle or booster battery, thus, the power input into the system for charging is no longer divided but is used only to charge the vehicle or booster battery thus, being constrained only by the charger).
Bertness does not explicitly disclose providing a high-C charging current of at least 4C.
Arends discloses charging a vehicle at a base rate of 1 C-3 C and that while operating in the base charging mode the battery charger can concurrently charge both the power storage device of the battery charger and the one or more batteries (¶12/17).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to use a higher rate of charge, as taught by Arends, to charge the vehicle battery of Bertness in order to provide known fast charging range to the battery (¶16-17).
Although 3C is less than the claimed 4C, it is known that in order to decrease the amount of time spent charging, the charging rate should be increased. Kaite discloses fast charging a battery between 0.5 and 4C, although it is preferable for the range to be 1-3C (¶23).
Unless it can be shown that the charging of the vehicle at a base rate as taught by Arends, which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is a fast charge, cannot be performed within a fast charging range of 4C, as taught by Kaite, then it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply a fast/high charge rate to the charging of Bertness in order to reduce the amount of time spent charging.
Regarding claim 31, Bertness discloses a method for charging battery cells, the method comprises:
continuously providing, by a main charging unit (104) that has a charging capability, during a first charging phase of a charging process, a charging current for charging battery cells (cells within battery 102; the charging is considered continuous as the charging is not a single point in time, but rather over a continuous duration, however long it may be), wherein a first part of the charging capacity is used for charging the battery cells (cells within battery 102) and a second part of the charging capacity is used to charge a booster unit (106) during the first charging phase (¶12 – when the system is used for charging the vehicle battery 102, it can also simultaneously recharge an internal battery of a booster 106).
wherein the charging process comprises an additional charging phase that follows the first charging phase (¶11 – mode selection switch 108 includes different positions such as “charge vehicle battery”, “charge booster battery”, “charge vehicle battery and booster battery”, “jump-start vehicle battery”, “test vehicle battery”, “test booster battery”, “use booster battery as direct current source”, “use booster battery as alternating current source”, “combine output of booster battery and charger”, etc. - thus including an additional charging process);
wherein the first part of the charging capacity is limited by a first charging current limitation of the battery cells (¶17 - the voltage provided is proportional to a current flowing through a vehicle battery); and
using, by the main charging unit (104), during the additional charging phase, the charging capacity for charging the battery cells, wherein the charging capacity is limited, during the additional charging phase, by a charging power limitation of the main charging unit (¶11 - other charging configurations include charging the vehicle or booster battery, thus, the power input into the system for charging is no longer divided but is used only to charge the vehicle or booster battery thus, being constrained only by the charger).
Bertness does not explicitly disclose providing a high-C charging current of at least 4C.
Arends discloses charging a vehicle at a base rate of 1 C-3 C and that while operating in the base charging mode the battery charger can concurrently charge both the power storage device of the battery charger and the one or more batteries (¶12/17).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to use a higher rate of charge, as taught by Arends, to charge the vehicle battery of Bertness in order to provide known fast charging range to the battery (¶16-17).
Although 3C is less than the claimed 4C, it is known that in order to decrease the amount of time spent charging, the charging rate should be increased. Kaite discloses fast charging a battery between 0.5 and 4C, although it is preferable for the range to be 1-3C (¶23).
Unless it can be shown that the charging of the vehicle at a base rate as taught by Arends, which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is a fast charge, cannot be performed within a fast charging range of 4C, as taught by Kaite, then it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply a fast/high charge rate to the charging of Bertness in order to reduce the amount of time spent charging.
Regarding claim 32, Bertness does not explicitly disclose that the charging current limitation of the battery cells is a maximal charging current limitation of the battery cells.
Arends discloses the charging current limitation of the battery cells is a maximal charging current limitation of the battery cells (¶71 - microprocessor 210 may limit the battery charger 200 to below a maximum C-rate threshold)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to use a high rate of charge, as taught by Arends, to charge the vehicle battery of Bertness in order reduce the likelihood of accidents and misuse (¶68).
Regarding claim 33, Bertness discloses discharging and outputting, by the booster unit, a booster charging current for charging the battery cells during a second charging phase (¶11 – use booster battery as a DC or AC source );
Bertness discloses charging by the main charging unit (104), the battery cells during the second charging phase (¶11 – combine output of booster battery and charger) under a main charging unit current limitation (a charging system is inherently limited by the amount that a charging unit is enabled to charge as a person of ordinary skill in the art would know that the charger cannot exceed the system limits).
Regarding claim 34, Bertness does not explicitly disclose that the main charging unit current limitation is a maximal main charging unit current limitation.
Arends discloses the main charging unit current limitation is a maximal main charging unit current limitation (¶71 - microprocessor 210 may limit the battery charger 200 to below a maximum C-rate threshold)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to use a high rate of charge, as taught by Arends, to charge the vehicle battery of Bertness in order reduce the likelihood of accidents and misuse (¶68).
Regarding claim 39, Bertness discloses wherein the additional charging phase is a third charging phase, wherein the method further comprises discharging and outputting, by the booster unit (106), a booster charging current for charging the battery cells during a third charging phase (¶11- mode allows the use of the booster battery as an AC or DC source);
Bertness discloses charging, by the main charging unit, the battery cells during the third charging phase (¶11 – combine output of the boost battery and the charger) under a charging power limitation of the main charging unit (a charging system is inherently limited by the amount that a charging unit is enabled to charge as a person of ordinary skill in the art would know that the charger cannot exceed the system limits).
Regarding claim 40, Bertness does not explicitly disclose the charging power limitation of the main charging unit is a maximal charging power limitation of the main charging unit.
Arends discloses the charging power limitation of the main charging unit is a maximal charging power limitation of the main charging unit (¶34 - power supply can output 120 watts).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to use a high rate of charge, as taught by Arends, to charge the vehicle battery of Bertness in order reduce the likelihood of accidents and misuse (¶68).
Regarding claim 41, Bertness discloses using, by the main charging unit (104) and during a fourth charging phase of the charging process (¶11 – charge vehicle battery and booster battery) , the first part of the charging capacity for charging the battery cells (¶17 - the voltage provided is proportional to a current flowing through a vehicle battery).
Bertness discloses using the second part of the charging capacity, during the fourth charging phase, for charging the booster unit (¶11 – charge vehicle battery and booster battery).
Bertness discloses the first part of the charging capacity is limited by the charging current limitation of the battery cells (¶17 - the voltage provided is proportional to a current flowing through a vehicle battery).
Regarding claim 42, Bertness does not explicitly disclose that the charging current limitation of the battery cells is a maximal charging current limitation of the battery cells.
Arends discloses the charging current limitation of the battery cells is a maximal charging current limitation of the battery cells (¶71 - microprocessor 210 may limit the battery charger 200 to below a maximum C-rate threshold)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to use a high rate of charge, as taught by Arends, to charge the vehicle battery of Bertness in order reduce the likelihood of accidents and misuse (¶68).
Regarding claim 43, Bertness discloses that discharging and outputting, by the booster unit (106), a booster charging current for charging the battery cells (¶11 – use the booster battery as a DC or AC source), following the fourth charging phase (under the broadest reasonable interpretation is any time period in which charging occurs) and at an absence of the main charging unit (¶11 – system does not need to be connected to a power outlet when using the booster battery as a power source).
Claims 5 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bertness et al. US20030011344A1 in view of Arends US20160285289A1 and Kaite et al. US20010017533A1 in further view of Yang et al. US20180312072A1.
Regarding claim 5, Bertness does not explicitly disclose a duration of the second charging phase ranges between at least 10-70% state of charge (SoC) of the battery cells
Yang discloses a duration of the second charging phase ranges between at least 10-70% state of charge (SoC) of the battery cells (¶68- target amount of the battery is set to 70%; ¶86 the minimum amount of charging may be set to 10%).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ Yang’s teachings, further comprising relating a level of the high-C charging current to user predefined specifications comprising a specified charging duration and/or a specified target SOC and boosting the charging above the high-C charging current by delivering additional energy to the battery cells to modify Bertness’s invention by using a portable terminal or any other terminal to control or manage an effective power transfer between the power source and the chargeable device based on few settings about user’s or drivers input or a control pattern (Yang; ¶8-10).
Regarding claim 35, Bertness does not explicitly disclose wherein a duration of the second charging phase ranges between at least 10-70% state of charge (SoC) of the battery cells.
Yang discloses a duration of the second charging phase ranges between at least 10-70% state of charge (SoC) of the battery cells (¶68- target amount of the battery is set to 70%; ¶86 the minimum amount of charging may be set to 10%).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ Yang’s teachings, further comprising relating a level of the high-C charging current to user predefined specifications comprising a specified charging duration and/or a specified target SOC and boosting the charging above the high-C charging current by delivering additional energy to the battery cells to modify Bertness invention by using a portable terminal or any other terminal to control or manage an effective power transfer between the power source and the chargeable device based on few settings about user’s or drivers input or a control pattern (Yang; ¶8-10).
Claims 6-8 and 36-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bertness et al. US20030011344A1 in view of Arends US20160285289A1 and Kaite et al. US20010017533A1 in further view of Hanada et al. US20180226812A1.
Regarding claim 6, Bertness discloses that the booster unit (106) is configured to boost the charging current during the second charging phase (¶11 – use booster battery as a DC or AC source) in compliance with one of more preferences (¶11 – mode selection switch 108 allows a user to select which mode the system operates)
Bertness does not explicitly disclose that the preferences concern a specified charging duration and/or a specified target state of charge
Hanada discloses charging due to preferences concerning a specified charging duration and/or a specified target state of charge (¶44-45 – management device has an operation time SOC calculation and is charged according to the total operation SOC).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide an additional charging phase as taught by Hanada to the charging of Bertness in order to provide each device with a complete charge.
Regarding claim 7, Bertness discloses that the one or more preferences are one or more user preferences fed to a user interface (¶13 – LED indicates different statuses such as the charge level and a mode selection switch 18 that allows a user to change the mode according to the LED indication).
Regarding claim 8, Bertness discloses the user interface (¶13 – mode selection switch).
Regarding claim 36, Bertness discloses boosting, by the booster unit (106), the charging current during the second charging phase (¶11 – use booster battery as a DC or AC source) in compliance with one of more preferences (¶11 – mode selection switch 108 allows a user to select which mode the system operates)
Bertness does not explicitly disclose that the preferences concern a specified charging duration and/or a specified target state of charge
Hanada discloses charging due to preferences concerning a specified charging duration and/or a specified target state of charge (¶44-45 – management device has an operation time SOC calculation and is charged according to the total operation SOC).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide an additional charging phase as taught by Hanada to the charging of Bertness in order to provide each device with a complete charge.
Regarding claim 37, Bertness discloses that the one or more preferences are one or more user preferences fed to a user interface (¶13 – LED indicates different statuses such as the charge level and a mode selection switch 18 that allows a user to change the mode according to the LED indication).
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sarkar et al. US20130229153A1 discloses a fast charging system that sustains a high charge rate – see FIG. 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAMELA JEPPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-4094. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Drew Dunn can be reached on 571-272-2312. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PAMELA J JEPPSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/DREW A DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859