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 . As pe the remarks of 11/25/2025, claims 1, 7 and 14 are amended. Applicant further amended the specification as per the previous objection to the title as being undescriptive. The amendment to the title is persuasive, and the previous objection has been withdrawn. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 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 present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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, 6-7,13-14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al (US 2021/0218263) in view of Kwon et al. (US 2022/0140621).
With respect to claims 1, 7 and 14, Sun et al (Hereinafter, Sun) discloses a charging method applied to an electronic equipment provided with at least two charging paths to charge a battery (Fig. 10, 103 and 104: first charging module and second charging module), comprising: obtaining a temperature value corresponding to a charging path of the at least two charging paths (Fig. 10, 101: temperature acquisition module); obtaining a current or temperature coefficient (a measure of how much the resistance of a material changes )based on the temperature value corresponding to the charging path (Para. # 0031: the first temperature is obtained; the electronic device may compare the first temperature with the first temperature threshold); wherein
PNG
media_image1.png
621
706
media_image1.png
Greyscale
branch current of the at least two charging paths are able to be adjusted (Par. # 0049: the first constant-current can be adjusted slowly to the second constant-current for charging, and thus it can increase an average charging current ) determining a branch current in the charging path based on the current and a total charging current of the electronic equipment (Para. # 0034, 0035: multiple constant currents such as the first constant current I1, a second constant current I2, and a third constant current I3); and controlling the charging path to charge the battery correspondingly based on the branch current of the charging path (a charging process, a current for controlling the temperature is changed from a constant current I1 to another constant current).
SUN, however, does not expressly disclose the charging paths based on a total charging current, a sum of the branch currents of the at least two charging paths.
Kwon discloses, on the other hand, the charging path based on the current a total charging current (see Para. # 0006,0138 and 142: first charging path and a second charging path regulated by the regulators and as in para.# 0045: the first regulating circuit 131 and the second regulating circuit 132 may receive temperature sensed by the temperature sensor, and regulate the first balancing current and the second balancing current; and determine whether a total charging current flowing through the first battery and the second battery is below a third reference value. As in par. # 138); further a sum of the branch currents of the at least two charging paths (Par.# 79).
PNG
media_image2.png
535
759
media_image2.png
Greyscale
SUN and Kwon are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor namely charging method and charging integrated circuit.
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added a multiple charging paths and a total charging current to the charging method of SUN in view of the teachings of Kwon for effective charging delivery to a load that requires more current than a single charge path can supply, and the sum current (I1 and I2) is beneficial when high charging current (I1+I2) put together as needed by the load for effective use.
With respect to claims 6, 13 and 20, the combined references of Sun and Kwon disclose the charging method applied to the electronic equipment as describe above, further Sun discloses comprising: re-obtaining the temperature value corresponding to the charging path of the at least two charging paths, in response to determining that the battery has been charged based on the branch current for a preset duration (Para. # 0031: In response to that the first temperature is less than the first temperature threshold, the electronic device may be charged in the same manner, that is to say, the battery continues to be subjected to the constant-current charging at the first constant current, and operation 21 is to be performed). Further Kwon teaches temperature value corresponding to first and second charging path (Para. # 0031 and 0033: in response to that the first temperature is less than the first temperature threshold, the electronic device may be charged in the same manner, that is to say, the battery continues to be subjected to the constant-current charging at the first constant current, and operation 21 is to be performed).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 8 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, including overcoming the objection or/and rejection sated above. Claims 3-5; 9-12 and 16-19 are dependent on objected claims 2, 8 and 15 respectively.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments and arguments filed in the remarks of 11/25/2025 have been considered but are not persuasive to overcome the rejections based on the references described (see the above office action).
Applicant argued that Kwon discloses current regulation based on the received temperature and selected to charge one of the battery or both first and second battery, and silent charging based on the sum of the branch currents. Kwon describes that the configuration is to charge the first battery and the second battery connected to each other in parallel in a first charging mode through a first charging path; and a second charger configured to charge the first battery and the second battery connected to each other in series in a second charging mode through a second charging path. As seen above, the second charging configuration, which is connected in series putting current one and current two together (sum), which is regulated by the regulation circuit. As also explained in paragraph 45, the regulation of these currents are based on temperature consideration as it’s obvious the heat produced during charging is in consideration of the various temperature measured by the measuring device or temperature detection (temperature sensors activities) of the electronics in order to control heat damage during the process. Furthermore, reference Sun also describes the current-temperature change, where the coefficient values for temperature comes and obviously known that it tells how voltage or current or both behave in an electric circuit, in this particular case, the charging behavior (FIG. 5 illustrates a current change curve 3 and a curve 4 of the electronic device's temperature change accordingly: para. # 0041). Therefore, the argument is not found persuasive. 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 extension fee 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YALKEW FANTU whose telephone number is (571)272-8928. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00AM-4:00PM.
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, Taelor Kim can be reached at 571-270-7166. 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.
/YALKEW FANTU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859