DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
In the communication dated March 26, 2026, claims 1-2, 4-12 and 14-20 are pending. Claims 1 and 11 are currently amended and claims 3 and 13 are previously cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Huang and Lin fail to teach the “charging resistance of the conductor” and rather teach calculating the internal resistance of the battery cell.
In light of the amendments and the arguments, Han et al. KR20140058090A is newly cited, as detailed in the rejection below. Han details a known voltage drop calculation which includes the resistance of a wire and a charging current.
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, 6-7, 9-12, 15-16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. US20160064963A1 in view of Lin et al. US20120105013A1 and Han et al. KR20140058090A.
Regarding claim 1. Huang discloses a method for controlling charging (FIG. 11 and 16) of a wearable computing device (¶128 – smart watch, smart glasses), the method comprising:
determining, via a power management circuit (¶87 – battery management unit) of the wearable computing device (¶128 – smart watch, smart glasses), a first input voltage (FIG. 10 at 208; ¶216) at a charging interface (160) of the wearable computing device by an external power supply (100/180) (¶169 – charging device supp voltage drop at the input interface 160 of the mobile device) that is coupled to the charging interface via a conductor (FIG. 1 at 160 which is electrically connected to the charging device 100; ¶142 – electrical connector to be received by input interface 160)
the wearable computing device to draw a first charging current (204) from the external power supply (100/180) (FIG. 10 –an initial current is set) to begin charging the wearable computing device (206) and measuring a second input voltage (208) (FIG. 10-11 if the voltage is not above a threshold then the voltage is measured again; ¶234 – if threshold is not exceeded, then the current is increased and a new voltage is measured)
increasing, via the power management circuit, a current draw of the wearable computing device to a second charging current (FIG. 16 – draw more current at 1608; ¶240);
calculating, via the power management circuit, an expected voltage drop (¶168 – 4.8V) between the external power supply (100/180) and the wearable computing device (150) when the wearable computing device is drawing the second charging current (FIG. 11 – after an initial current is set, the voltage is measured and it is determined that the voltage drop does not exceed the threshold and thus is increased and cycles back to measuring the current at the newly set level);
determining, via the power management circuit, whether an actual voltage drop (¶168 – 4.7V) between the external power supply and the wearable computing device when the wearable computing device is drawing a charging current is greater than a threshold voltage drop (¶168 lower threshold voltage is 4.75V), the threshold voltage drop being greater than the expected voltage drop (¶168 – 4.8V); and
responsive to determining the actual voltage drop is greater than the threshold voltage drop (¶168 – 4.7V is the result of a voltage drop greater than the threshold of 4.75V), reducing, via the power management circuit, the current draw of the wearable computing device (FIG. 11 at 308, 310, 314; ¶229 – if the measured voltage is below the threshold voltage – or having a large voltage drop – the current is decreased).
Huang does not explicitly disclose that the determination of a voltage occurs when the device is not being charged and that the start of drawing the first charging current is responsive to determining the first input voltage; calculating, via the power management circuit, a charging resistance of the conductor as a function of the first input voltage, the second voltage, and the first charging current; calculating, via the power management circuit, an expected voltage drop between the external power supply and the wearable computing device when the wearable computing device is drawing the second charging current as a function of the calculated charging resistance of the conductor and the second charging current.
Lin discloses that the determination of a voltage occurs when the device is not being charged (¶16 – charging is paused and voltage measured; ¶22 – charging is paused and algorithm calculates at step 58 a post-interrupt voltage V2);
the start of drawing the first charging current is responsive to determining the first input voltage (¶16 – the voltage is used to estimate a resistance prior to the pause in charging to resume charging the battery, thus the restarting of charging is responsive to the determined voltage);
calculating, via the power management circuit, a charging resistance as a function of the first input voltage, the second voltage, and the first charging current (¶22 – equation (3) R=(V1-V23)/I [Wingdings font/0xE0] Ohm’s law)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the determination of Lin to the controlling method of Huang in order to provide an accurate and stable information of the SOC to maintain precise charge control to avoid overcharging and undercharging (Lin; ¶8).
Lin does not explicitly disclose that the charging resistance is a charging resistance of the conductor; calculating, via the power management circuit, an expected voltage drop between the external power supply and the wearable computing device when the wearable computing device is drawing the second charging current, as a function of the calculated charging resistance of the conductor and the second charging current.
Han discloses calculating, via the power management circuit (170), a charging resistance of the conductor as a function of the first input voltage, the second voltage, and the first charging current resistance of the wire at the current temperature (page 6, 2nd full paragraph - current resistance Rt of a wire, here, Rt = ΔV / I2) can be obtained)
Han discloses calculating, via the power management circuit (170), an expected voltage drop (ΔV, in this case, ΔV = V1 - V2) between the external power supply (abstract - voltage measurement unit measures a voltage of a wire to which the AC power is inputted) and the computing device (abstract – voltage measuring unit) when the computing device is drawing the second charging current (I2), as a function of the calculated charging resistance of the conductor (calculates the current resistance of the wire) and the second charging current (I2) (last paragraph of page 6, continuing to page 7; abstract) (it should be noted, that calculating the voltage drop and/or resistance may be performed using any of the variable of resistance, current and voltage – a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand how to manipulate Ohm’s Law to use known variables to determine an unknown).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the voltage drop calculation of Han, using Ohms Law, to determine a voltage drop change due to a change in the charging current, as taught by Huang, in order to maintain a safe voltage difference, preventing overvoltage of the secondary battery and not exceed a permissible capacity of a household electric wire (Han; page 2, ¶3-5).
Regarding claim 4. Huang discloses reducing the current draw of the wearable computing device comprises reducing, via the power management circuit, the current draw of the wearable computing device from the second charging current to the first charging current (FIG. 11 – the measuring and increasing/decreasing of the current is repeated, thus, after it increases it can also decrease in subsequent measurements).
Regarding claim 6. Huang discloses that the conductor comprises a charging cable (¶142).
Regarding claim 7. Huang discloses the charging cable comprises a universal serial bus (USB) charging cable (¶142).
Regarding claim 9. Huang discloses that the threshold voltage drop is greater than the expected voltage drop by at least about 100 millivolts (although ¶138 discloses the voltage drop over the threshold of 0.05V, or 50 mV, the reference further discusses voltage drops in ¶170 where the voltage maybe over the lower threshold by 0.3V which is 300 mV).
Regarding claim 10. Huang discloses that the external power supply comprises a charger (100) configured to be plugged into an alternating current wall outlet (180) (FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 11. Huang discloses a wearable computing device (150) (¶128 – smart watch, smart glasses) comprising:
an energy storage device (battery 152);
a charging interface (input interface 160); and
a power management circuit (¶87 – battery management unit) electrically coupling the charging interface (input interface 160) to the energy storage device (battery 152) (FIG. 1) the power management circuit configured to:
determine a first input voltage at the charging interface (FIG. 10 at 208; ¶216) an external power supply (100/180) (¶169 – charging device supp voltage drop at the input interface 160 of the mobile device) to which the wearable computing device is coupled via a conductor coupling the external power supply to the charging interface of the wearable computing device (FIG. 1 at 160 which is electrically connected to the charging device 100; ¶142 – electrical connector to be received by input interface 160);
cause the wearable computing device (206) to draw a first charging current (100/180) (FIG. 10 –an initial current is set) from the external power supply (100/180) (FIG. 11 –an initial current is set) to begin charging the wearable computing device and measure a second input voltage (208) (FIG. 10-11 if the voltage is not above a threshold then the voltage is measured again; ¶234 – if threshold is not exceeded, then the current is increased and a new voltage is measured);
increase a current draw of the wearable computing device to a second charging current (FIG. 16 – draw more current at 1608; ¶240);
calculate an expected voltage drop (¶168 – 4.8V) between the external power supply (100/180) and the wearable computing device (150) when the wearable computing device is drawing the second charging current (FIG. 11 – after an initial current is set, the voltage is measured and it is determined that the voltage drop does not exceed the threshold and thus is increased and cycles back to measuring the current at the newly set level) as a function of the calculated charging resistance of the conductor and the second charging current (¶168 – the electric cable 184 can have a resistance that results in a voltage drop to 4.8 volts);
determine whether an actual voltage drop (¶168 – 4.7V) between the external power supply and the wearable computing device when the wearable computing device is drawing a charging current is greater than a threshold voltage drop (¶168 lower threshold voltage is 4.75V), the threshold voltage drop being greater than the expected voltage drop (¶168 – 4.8V); and
reduce the current draw of the wearable computing device (FIG. 11 at 308, 310, 314; ¶229 – if the measured voltage is below the threshold voltage – or having a large voltage drop – the current is decreased) in response to determining the actual voltage drop is greater than the threshold voltage drop (¶168 – 4.7V is the result of a voltage drop greater than the threshold of 4.75V).
Huang does not explicitly disclose that the determination of a voltage occurs when the wearable computing device is not being charged and that the start of drawing the first charging current is responsive to determining the voltage; calculate a charging resistance of the conductor as a function of the first input voltage, the second input voltage, and the first charging current; calculate an expected voltage drop between the external power supply and the wearable computing device when the wearable computing device is drawing the second charging current as a function of the calculated charging resistance of the conductor and the second charging current.
Lin discloses that the determination of a voltage occurs when the device is not being charged (¶16 – charging is paused and voltage measured; ¶22 – charging is paused and algorithm calculates at step 58 a post-interrupt voltage V2);
the start of drawing the first charging current is responsive to determining the first input voltage (¶16 – the voltage is used to estimate a resistance prior to the pause in charging to resume charging the battery, thus the restarting of charging is responsive to the determined voltage);
calculate a charging resistance as a function of the first input voltage, the second voltage, and the first charging current (¶22 – equation (3) R=(V1-V23)/I [Wingdings font/0xE0] Ohm’s law)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the determination of Lin to the controlling method of Huang in order to provide an accurate and stable information of the SOC to maintain precise charge control to avoid overcharging and undercharging (Lin; ¶8).
Lin does not explicitly disclose that the charging resistance is a charging resistance of the conductor; calculate an expected voltage drop between the external power supply and the wearable computing device when the wearable computing device is drawing the second charging current, as a function of the calculated charging resistance of the conductor and the second charging current
Han discloses calculate a charging resistance of the conductor as a function of the first input voltage, the second voltage, and the first charging current e resistance of the wire at the current temperature (page 6, 2nd full paragraph - current resistance Rt, here, Rt = ΔV / I2) can be obtained)
Han discloses calculate an expected voltage drop (ΔV, in this case, ΔV = V1 - V2) between the external power supply (abstract - voltage measurement unit measures a voltage of a wire to which the AC power is inputted) and the computing device (abstract – voltage measuring unit) when the computing device is drawing the second charging current (I2), as a function of the calculated charging resistance of the conductor (calculates the current resistance of the wire) and the second charging current (I2) (last paragraph of page 6, continuing to page 7; abstract) (it should be noted, that calculating the voltage drop and/or resistance may be performed using any of the variable of resistance, current and voltage – a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand how to manipulate Ohm’s Law to use known variables to determine an unknown).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the voltage drop calculation of Han, using Ohms Law, to determine a voltage drop change due to a change in the charging current, as taught by Huang, in order to maintain a safe voltage difference, preventing overvoltage of the secondary battery and not exceed a permissible capacity of a household electric wire (Han; page 2, ¶3-5).
Regarding claim 12. Huang discloses that the energy storage device comprises a rechargeable battery (¶138 – battery 152 can be a rechargeable battery).
Regarding claim 15. Huang discloses the charging interface (160) comprises a plurality of charging pins, each of the charging pins couplable to a corresponding contact of the conductor (112) (¶139 input interface can be a port such as a micro-USB port which is known to include pins).
Regarding claim 16. Huang discloses the first charging current is in a range from about 50 milliamps (mA) to about 200 mA (¶295 - circuitry can charge the battery between 50-100 mA which is within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 19. Huang discloses that the power management circuit is configured to reduce the current draw of the wearable computing device (FIG. 11 at 308, 310, 314; ¶229 – if the measured voltage is below the threshold voltage – or having a large voltage drop – the current is decreased) to the first charging current in response to determining the actual voltage drop is greater than the threshold voltage drop (¶168 – 4.7V is the result of a voltage drop greater than the threshold of 4.75V).
Regarding claim 20. Huang discloses a display configured to display content for viewing by a user (FIG. 1 at 158).
Claims 2 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. US20160064963A1 in view of Lin et al. US20120105013A1 and Han et al. KR20140058090A and in further view of Schiff et al. US20200227933A1.
Regarding claim 2 and claim 18. Huang does not explicitly teach that the threshold voltage drop corresponds to a voltage drop at which charging the wearable computing device at the second charging current puts the external power supply at risk of collapsing.
Schiff discloses that the threshold voltage drop corresponds to a voltage drop at which charging the wearable computing device at the second charging current puts the external power supply at risk of collapsing (¶3 – need to maintain a system voltage above a given minimum voltage level. Power bursts increase the risk that a system will drop below a minimum allowed system which causes a black screen).
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the teaching that a voltage drop below a threshold may cause a system black screen and/or loss of data (Schiff; ¶3).
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. US20160064963A1 in view of Lin et al. US20120105013A1 and Han et al. KR20140058090A in further view of Lin CN112689935A (hereinafter Lin2).
Regarding claim 5 and claim 14. Huang does not explicitly teach that the first input voltage at the charging interface of the wearable computing device when the wearable computing device is not being charged by the external power supply corresponds to a voltage at the external power supply.
Lin2 discloses that the first input voltage at the charging interface of the wearable computing device (last paragraph of page 9 - external device includes a smart wristband watch) when the wearable computing device is not being charged by the external power supply corresponds to a voltage at the external power supply (page 7, 2nd full paragraph - obtain the voltage of the device when its connected to a charging interface and the voltage of the charging interface is equal to the voltage of the device to be charged).
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the teachings of Lin with Huang in order to prevent damage from a hot plug during the charging process (Lin2; page 7, 2nd full paragraph).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. US20160064963A1 in view of Lin et al. US20120105013A1 and Han et al. KR20140058090A in further view of Nielsen et al. US20080036476A1.
Regarding 8. Huang does not explicitly teach that the resistance of the charging cable is in a range from about 5 ohms to about 20 ohms.
Nielsen teaches the resistance of a cable is 7.4 ohms which is between 5-20 ohms (¶81).
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a cable made with materials having a specific resistance. Further, a person of ordinary skill knows that the length of the cord affects the resistance of a cable.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. US20160064963A1 in view of Lin et al. US20120105013A1 and Han et al. KR20140058090A in further view of Cordes et al. US20080297112A1
Regarding claim 17. Although Huang discloses increasing the current when the voltage is above the threshold, Huang does not explicitly teach that the second charging current is in a range from about 450 milliamps (mA) to about 600 mA.
Cordes teaches that the current is increased from 100 mA to 500 mA which is within the range of 450 milliamps (mA) to about 600 mA.
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the determination of Cordes to the start of charging of Huang in order to efficiently recharge a battery (Cordes; ¶17/22).
Related Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yao et al. US20220190626A1 Yao, using Ohms Law, determines a voltage drop change due to a change in the charging current, in order to maintain a safe voltage difference, preventing overvoltage of the secondary battery (Yao; ¶10). However, Yao calculates this voltage drop using the internal resistance of the battery.
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 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
Prosecution Insights