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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Kim only has one “identifier” and therefore fails to teach the charging flag bit is marked with a second identifier, and closing a charging function of the charging box, which is then followed by starting the charging of the earphones. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The invention of Kim, in view of Schinner, performs the first detection which sets the charging flag bit with a first identifier, as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 presented in the Non-Final Office action mailed 03/05/2026. Furthermore, Kim determines that the charging box is greater than a first preset electric power threshold in step 1530 (Fig.15) at which point charging of the charging box is stopped and charging of the external device begins. The charging flag bit of claim 1 would inherently have two states, a “0” state and a “1” state, since a single bit of computing data is represented in this manner. Therefore, a state of “0” or “1” (first identifier) for the charging flag bit can represent a prohibited charging state of the charging box, and the opposite state (second identifier) would be used to indicate the allowed charging state of the charging box.
Applicant further argues that Schinner and Yoon fail to teach the second “identifier” of the charging flag bit. This argument is considered moot since the examiner has explained above that the charging flag bit of Kim includes a second “identifier”, and therefore does not rely on Schinner or Yoon to challenge this argument.
Applicant further argues that Kim does not disclose the technical advantages of how to operate when the electric power level of the charging box is lower than the minimum working power threshold to solve the technical problem that the Bluetooth earphone cannot be normally used due to the low electric power of the charging box. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As disclosed in the previous rejection of claim 1, Kim teaches stopping charging of the earphones in response to a detection that the electric power level of the charging box is below a minimum working power threshold (¶0172: if the remaining capacity is below a designated value the battery of the electronic device is charged by the external supply, instead of transmitting wireless power; ¶0117: wireless power receiving device may be earphones).
Additionally, Applicant argues that Kim and Schinner do not disclose the sequential relationship between the steps of “upon detecting that the external power supply is connected, judging whether a charging current of the external power supply is smaller than a charging current required by the earphones; and in responding to that the charging current … is smaller than the charging current required by the earphones, executing the acquiring the electric power level of the charging box is lower than the minimum working power threshold, marking a charging flag bit … and upon detecting that the charging flag bit is marked … closing the charging function of the earphones, and charging the charging box by the external power supply.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Kim teaches the sequential relationship claimed in that it detects the connection of the external power supply (Fig.8, 804), and in response to the detection, it determines a capability of the external power supply (¶0202: the electronic device may determine whether or not to transmit wireless power based on the support of fast charging 9V/15W; ¶0203: electronic device may adjust the transmission period [to the external device]), and in response to the determination of the external power supply power capability, a determination is made to see if the electric power level of the charging box is below a minimum working power threshold, and when this condition is true, the earphones are not charged and the charging box is charged (¶0203: if the wired charging device does not support fast charging, the electronic device may determine to not transmit power based on the remaining capacity of the battery; ¶0207: if the capacity of the battery is less than 50%, the electronic device may stop transmitting power [to the external device] and charge the battery). Examiner has previously conceded that Kim fails to teach the charging flag bit being set and checked, and the comparison of a charging current requirement of the earbuds to the charging current of the external power supply, but the sequence is shown in the explanation above and the limitations not taught by Kim are obvious modifications as presented and supported in the 35 U.S.C. 103 Rejection of claim 1 presented below.
Lastly, Applicant argues that Yoon’s technical solution would be affected if combined with Kim and Schinner since Yoon’s technical solution is “the processor manages the power of at least one of the first battery and the second battery such that the first remaining time to use the first battery and the second remaining time to use the second battery become substantially identical”. However, Kim is being modified, not Yoon. Further, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Yoon’s first battery and second battery are the batteries within the earphones (¶0093: first external electronic device includes a first battery and second external electronic device includes a second battery), and not a battery within a charging box. Therefore, it is unclear how Yoon’s technical solution would be affected by a combination with Kim and Schinner since Yoon would still be capable of balancing the remaining time to use both earphones, during the condition when the earphones are being charged by an external power supply.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-7, 9, & 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (USPGPN 2020/0119581 A1 – filed Oct. 15, 2019), in view of Schinner (USPGPN 2003/0189418 A1 – published Oct. 9, 2003) and Yoon et al. (USPGPN 2019/0379216 A1 – filed Dec. 19, 2017).
Regarding Claim 1, Kim teaches a management method of earphone charging paths, comprising:
upon detecting that an external power supply is connected (¶0108: adaptive fast charge communication occurring requires a detection of a connection of an external power supply), acquiring an electric power level of a charging box (¶0172: comparing the remaining capacity indicates the remaining capacity is acquired; Examiner interprets the limitation “charging box” as a self-contained piece of electronic equipment, as defined by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, which is used for charging; Fig.5, 501 is a self-contained piece of electronic equipment used for charging a wireless power receiving device), and judging whether the electric power level of the charging box is lower than a minimum working power threshold (¶0172: compare the remaining capacity of the battery with a designated value);
in responding to that the electric power level of the charging box is lower than the minimum working power threshold, closing a charging function of earphones (¶0172: instead of transmitting wireless power; ¶0117: wireless power receiving device may be earphones), and charging the charging box (Electronic Device 101/501/601/701/901, Figs.1, 5, 6B, 7B, & 9) by the external power supply (¶0172: battery of the electronic device is charged by the external supply); and
executing the acquiring the electric power level of the charging box, and judging whether the electric power level of the charging box is lower than the minimum working power threshold (as presented above), after a determination of the external power supply capabilities (¶0108: determining the type of the external power supply, adaptive fast charge or quick charge, which includes the power transfer information);
wherein after the in responding to that the electric power level of the charging box is lower than the minimum working power threshold, closing the charging function of earphones, and charging the charging box by the external power supply, the method further comprises:
upon detecting that the electric power level of the charging box after being charged is greater than a first preset electric power threshold (1530), closing a charging function of the charging box (1505; ¶0275: wired charging of the electronic device battery stops);
starting the charging function of the earphones (1505: charging of the external device begins) and charging the earphones by the external power supply and the charging box (¶0153: electrical device is charging the external electrical device while connected to an external power supply), wherein the first preset electric power threshold is greater than the minimum working power threshold (1520).
Kim fails to explicitly teach in responding to that the electric power level of the charging box is lower than the minimum working power threshold, marking a charging flag bit of the charging box and/or the earphones with a first identifier;
upon detecting that the charging flag bit is marked with the first identifier, closing the charging function of the earphones, and charging the charging box by the external power supply;
upon detecting that the external power supply is connected, judging whether a charging current of the external power supply is smaller than a charging current required by the earphones; and
in responding to that the charging current of the external power supply is smaller than the charging current required by the earphones, executing the acquiring the electric power level of the charging box, and judging whether the electric power level of the charging box is lower than the minimum working power threshold;
marking the charging flag bit with a second identifier (use of a software flag as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1) upon detecting the electric power level of the charging box is greater than the first preset electric power threshold; and
starting the charging function of the earphones upon detecting the charging flag bit is marked with the second identifier.
However, Schinner teaches that it is common in the art to set a flag based on a condition (Claim 17: set a software flag when the battery has insufficient remaining charge level) which is then used to determine if an operation should occur (Claim 19: operational mode is performed if the software flag is not set).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method taught by Kim to use software flags, as taught by Schinner, to track if the power level of the charging box was below the minimum working power threshold or greater than the first preset electric power threshold, and determine whether the earphones charging should be closed or the charging box charging should be closed based on the first or second identifier indicated by that charging flag bit. Doing so allows the software to check a stored condition state rather than performing the comparison, which can avoid continued comparing of the power level to the threshold.
Moreover, Yoon teaches a charging system which determines if the charging power of an external power supply is below the power needed by earbuds (¶0116: determines whether the charge power of the external electronic devices is larger than the power supplied by an external power supply).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method taught by Kim, in view of Schinner, to include a determination step of determining if the supplied power from the external power supply meets the required charging power of the earbuds. Doing so would allow the system to ensure the earbud batteries are charged efficiently.
Note that the applicant’s claims refer to a comparison of charging currents, and not charging powers, for the determination stage. Someone of ordinary skill in the art would know that based on the power law, a current can be derived from a power using the voltage. Therefore, the comparison step taught by the prior art is functionally equivalent to the comparison step claimed, since they both are comparing the charging need of the earbuds with the charging potential of the external power supply.
Regarding Claim 5, Kim, as modified, further teaches in responding to that the charging current of the external power supply is not smaller than the charging current required by the earphones (comparison step disclosed in the rejection of claim 1), charging the earphones and the charging box by the external power supply (¶0137: charging power from the external power supply may be used to charge the electronic device battery and the wearable device).
Regarding Claim 6, Kim, as modified, further teaches in responding to that the electric power level of the charging box is not lower than the minimum working power threshold (¶0172: if the remaining capacity is greater than or equal to a designated value), marking the charging flag bit with a second identifier (use of a software flag as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1), and closing a charging function of the charging box (¶0273: wired charging of the electronic device may be blocked when charging of the external electronic device begins);
and upon detecting that the charging flag bit is marked with the second identifier, starting the charging function of the earphones, and charging the earphones by the external power supply and the charging box (¶0172: electronic device transmits first electronic power, which is transmitted to the external electronic device).
Regarding Claim 7, Kim (Fig.15), as modified, further teaches acquiring the electric power level of the charging box after charging the earphones (1540 shows the electric power level is monitored), and judging whether the electric power level of the charging box after charging the earphones is lower than a second preset electric power threshold (1540), wherein the second preset electric power threshold is less than the first preset electric power (1530) threshold and greater than the minimum working power threshold (1520);
in responding to that the electric power level of the charging box after charging the earphones is lower than the second preset electric power threshold, marking the charging flag bit with the first identifier (use of a software flag as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1); and
upon detecting that the charging flag bit is marked with the first identifier, closing the charging function of the earphones (1507; ¶0275: wireless charging of the external electronic device is stopped), starting the charging function of the charging box, and charging the charging box by the external power supply (1507; ¶0275: wired charging of the electronic device is continued after being stopped in step 1505).
Regarding Claim 9, Kim teaches a management device of earphone charging paths, comprising a processor (Fig.1, 120), a memory (Fig.1, 130), and a management program of the earphone charging paths stored in the memory and executable by the processor, wherein when the management program of the earphone charging paths is executed by the processor (¶0327: instructions are stored in memory for the processor to execute), operations of the management method of the earphone charging paths according to claim 1 are implemented (Kim, in view of Schinner and Yoon, as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding Claim 15, Kim teaches a non-transitory storage medium, wherein a management program of the earphone charging paths is stored in the computer readable storage medium, when the management program of the earphone charging paths is executed by a processor (¶0327: instructions are stored in a non-transitory storage medium for a processor to execute), the operations of the management method of the earphone charging paths according to claim 1 are implemented (Kim, in view of Schinner and Yoon, as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOHN P ONDRASIK whose telephone number is (703)756-1963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 a.m. - 5 p.m. 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, Julian Huffman can be reached at (571) 272-2147. 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.
/JOHN P ONDRASIK/ Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/JULIAN D HUFFMAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights