DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
In the communication filed on 07/17/2026 claims 1-20 are pending. Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 were amended by incorporating new limitations not previously presented.
Response to Arguments and Amendments
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed 07/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues in pages 9-12 of the Remarks dated 07/17/2026 that Zhang and Novak individually or in combination fail to disclose the newly amended limitations, specifically “determining a direction of change in the temperature of the device using the current temperature and one or more previous temperature measurements” and “selecting, based on the determined direction of change in the temperature, one of a rising-threshold set comprising a plurality of rising temperature thresholds or a falling-threshold set comprising a plurality of falling temperature thresholds” (emphasis added). Specifically, the applicant argues that Novak’s dT/dt does not disclose the direction of change as now claimed by the applicant. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Novak in ¶[06] teaches “real-time measurements of the actual temperature of the battery” and “a rate of change of the actual temperature of the battery”. It is well-known that measuring a value in real-time allows for determining its direction by capturing continuous data points close together, allowing one of ordinary skill in the art to calculate the immediate rate of change (e.g., the slope or derivative) and see whether the current values are increasing, decreasing, or staying flat thus a direction of change is determined. Thus, Novak teaches determining a direction of change in temperature as disclosed by the applicant.
The remaining arguments are moot as the applicant’s arguments for the remaining claims were based on dependency of the independent claims.
The drawing objections are withdrawn due to the amendments made by the applicant.
This Office Action is made Final due to the amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 11-13, 15-16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (USPN 11563243) and further in view of Novak et al. (USPGPN 20170199249).
With respect to independent claims 1, 8, and 15, Zhang teaches a device comprising a processor, at least one temperature sensor, and a memory storing instructions (Fig. 5; charging control device 200 comprising processor 220, sensor component 214, and memory 204 storing instructions for the operation of device 220, see col. 11 lines 33-36, col. 11 lines 43-55 and col. 12 lines 31-50).
Zhang teaches that the instructions, when read by the processor, cause the device to measure, using the at least one temperature sensor, a current temperature of the device drawing power at a charge current level (Figs. 1 & 3; step S11 a real-time temperature is monitored during charging a battery, see col. 5 lines 32-48).
Zhang teaches select one of a rising-threshold set comprising a plurality of rising temperature thresholds or a falling-threshold set comprising a plurality of falling temperature thresholds (Fig. 6; Tb is the battery temperature monitored in real-time and compared to a plurality of identified temperature thresholds T1 < Tc1 < Tc2 < T2, see col. 9 lines 1-10. TC2 is the rising temperature threshold and Tc1 is the falling temperature threshold. The “rising-threshold set” or the “falling-threshold set” depends upon how the real-time temperatures are measured from least to greatest or greatest to least values).
Zhang teaches when the selected set is the falling-threshold set, select a falling temperature threshold from the falling-threshold set as a current temperature threshold and increase the charge current level of the device when the current temperature is below the selected falling temperature threshold for a first period of time (When Tb ≤ Tc1 [Tb is real-time temperature, Tc1 is the falling temp. threshold] the battery is charged at an increased charging current during a first Δt, see col. 9 lines 22-24).
Zhang teaches when the selected set is the rising-threshold set, select a rising temperature threshold from the rising-threshold set as the current temperature threshold and decrease the charge current level of the device when the current temperature is above the selected rising temperature threshold for the first period of time (When Tb ≥ Tc2 [Tb is the real-time temperature, Tc2 is the rising temp. threshold] the battery charging current is decreased at the current reduction rate S1 during a first Δt, see col. 9 lines 11-20).
However, Zhang fails to explicitly teach determine a direction of change in the temperature of the device using the current temperature and one or more previous temperature measurements.
Novak teaches determine a direction of change in the temperature of the device using the current temperature and one or more previous temperature measurements (¶[65-66]; the formula dT/dt teaches a rate of temperature change that determines temperature change by comparing the current temperature to an earlier temperature over a time interval. ¶[06] teaches “real-time measurements of the actual temperature of the battery” and “a rate of change of the actual temperature of the battery”. It is well-known that measuring a value in real-time allows for determining its direction by capturing continuous data points close together, allowing one of ordinary skill in the art to calculate the immediate rate of change (e.g., the slope or derivative) and see whether the current values are increasing, decreasing, or staying flat thus a direction of change is determined).
Knowing the direction a value is changing helps you predict future outcomes and spot problems early. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Zhang’s system with Novak’s temperature change determination method in order to account for changes of temperature to make determination for change in charging current. The advantage of this modification being that the battery cells may be protected avoiding catastrophic cell failures by maintaining the temperature and charging within safe limits (see ¶[57] of Novak).
With respect to dependent claims 2, 9, and 16, Zhang teaches the invention as discussed above in claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively. Further, Zhang teaches determine the current temperature is above the rising temperature threshold for a second period of time; and set the charge current level of the device to a lowest charge current level (The battery is monitored for every Δt [i.e., period of time] and if Tb ≥ Tc2 is still the case at a second Δt then charging is decreased at the current reduction rate S2 [S2 > S1]).
With respect to dependent claims 4, 11, and 18, Zhang teaches the invention as discussed above in claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively. Further, Zhang teaches determine the current temperature is below the falling temperature threshold for a second period of time; and increase the charge current level by one level (When Δt2 for Tb ≤ Tc1 elapses the battery is restored to the original charge, see col. 9 lines 22-24).
With respect to dependent claims 5, 12, and 19, Zhang teaches the invention as discussed above in claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively. Further, Zhang teaches wherein the power is used to charge a battery (abstract; power for charging a battery).
With respect to dependent claims 6 and 13, Zhang teaches the invention as discussed above in claims 1 and 8, respectively. Further, Zhang teaches wherein the current temperature comprises a battery temperature (abstract; real-time temperature of a battery).
Claims 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang and Novak as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Uemura (WIPO Patent WO-2014045324-A1).
With respect to dependent claims 3, 10, and 17, Zhang teaches the invention as discussed above in claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively. However, Zhang fails to explicitly teach determine when the current temperature is above an alert threshold and immediately set the charge current level of the device to a lowest charge current level.
Uemura teaches determine when the current temperature is above an alert threshold and immediately set the charge current level of the device to a lowest charge current level (¶[69]; when the battery temperature exceed 80°C [i.e., an alert threshold] charging to the battery is stopped).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted Zhang’s system by adding the temperature alert thresholds and current level changing features disclosed by Uemura. The advantage of this modification being the safety of the medical device is ensured by monitoring the battery’s operating temperature information and a cheaper processing unit may be used thereby reducing cost (in ¶[70] of Uemura).
Claims 7, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang and Novak as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Raikar et al. (USPGPN 20200203958).
With respect to dependent claims 7 and 14, Zhang teaches the invention as discussed above in claims 1 and 8, respectively. However, Zhang fails to explicitly teach wherein the current temperature comprises a processor temperature.
Raikar teaches wherein the current temperature comprises a processor temperature (¶[56]; the temperature of the processor is considered as a temperature affecting battery charging performance).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted Zhang’s system with the battery temperature and processor temperature features disclosed by Raikar. The advantage of this modification being the safety of the battery is ensured by modifying the charge current and/or the power drive current based on the temperature of the battery (in ¶[58] of Raikar).
With respect to dependent claim 20, Zhang teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 15. However, Zhang fails to explicitly teach wherein the current temperature is selected from the group consisting of a battery temperature and a processor temperature.
Raikar teaches wherein the current temperature is selected from the group consisting of a battery temperature and a processor temperature (¶[56]; the temperature of the battery and the temperature of the processor are both considered as temperatures that affect battery charging performance).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted Zhang’s system with the battery temperature and processor temperature features disclosed by Raikar. The advantage of this modification being the safety of the battery is ensured by modifying the charge current and/or the power drive current based on the temperature of the battery (in ¶[58] of Raikar).
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The additional prior art identified by the applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) were considered by the examiner, however, for examination purposes were not relied upon for citation purposes.
Butler et al. (USPGPN 20190307952) is about safely charging a wearable medical infusion pump without overheating the insulin or other temperature-sensitive parts inside it. The pump uses a rechargeable battery that can be charged wirelessly on an inductive charging pad. During charging, the system measures temperature inside the pump at one or more locations. If the temperature gets too high, or rises too quickly, the system can slow down charging or stop it altogether.
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 Frank A Silva whose telephone number is (703)756-1698. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 09:30 am -06:30 pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Drew Dunn can be reached at 571-272-2312. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/FRANK ALEXIS SILVA/Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/DREW A DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
