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/amendments with respect to the claims 10, 11, and 13-15 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection.
It is noted that the applicant did not argue over Claim 16, and the scope is generally the same, so the rejection of Claim 16 will be the same as well.
New claim objections will be applied. The examiner noticed that the applicant’s specification (¶[14]) corresponded with the interpretation of the claim interpretation, so the interpretation objection will be withdrawn. The abstract amendment is accepted.
Claim Objections
Claims 10, 11, 13-16 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities (note, deleted text not included in counted lines):
Claim 10 final two lines: applicant has two periods. Emend to remove 1.
Claim 16 lines 13 and 14: applicant has claimed “to to”. Emend to remove 1.
Claim 15, in light of the new matter rejection below, it is noted that the term “generate” will be interpreted as the original language of “receive”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The change from “receive” to “generate” by the IC die does not appear to be supported by the originally filed disclosure.
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 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsukamoto et al (USPGPN 20130106192, hereinafter Tsuka) in view of Wu (USPGPN 20130314026) and Huang et al (USPGPN 20160064979)
Independent Claim 16, Tsuka teaches a device (Figs. 1-6) comprising:
a battery charger (127) to output a first voltage (it is noted that as the output of 127 is the same node as the battery voltage output, this “first voltage” is equivalent to the battery voltage even if 127 is turned off, as one of ordinary skill in the art understands);
a voltage regulator coupled to the battery charger (123 & 131, see ¶’s [43-46, 53, 73, 79-91] for operation of 131), the voltage regulator to output a second voltage based on the first voltage (it is noted that as the output of 127 is the same node as the battery voltage output, this “first voltage” is equivalent to the battery voltage even if 127 is turned off, as one of ordinary skill in the art understands);
an integrated circuit (IC) die (221, 225, & 209 via 41;
121 if 123 is the regulator) coupled to receive power from the voltage regulator based on the second voltage, and further to output a first signal which indicates that the IC die is able to accommodate a power state wherein the voltage regulator is disabled (¶’s [27, 44, 45, 50, 53, 83, 101, esp. 44, 45, 83]; one of the cited IC die circuits, see claim objection, 209, 221, & 225, notification of lower power mode interpreted as first signal);
a controller circuit (121) coupled to the IC die and the voltage regulator, the controller circuit to generate, based on the first signal, a second signal to disable the voltage regulator (¶’s [27, 44, 45, 50, 53, 83, 101, esp. 44, 45, 83]); and
a connector (node between 127 and 129) to receive a battery pack (129, ¶[111]) which is to be charged with the battery charger;
first switch circuitry (117) coupled to the controller circuit and to the connector, wherein based on the second signal, the first switch circuitry is to cause second switch circuitry (115) of the battery pack is to enable an output of a third voltage from the battery pack.
To advance prosecution, assuming the applicant amends the claims to require something along the split signal 563 which is sent to both 530 and Qe, Tsuka fails to explicitly teach this feature claimed. Furthermore, to advance prosecution, the examiner notes that while Tsuka teaches the current set of claims with respect to the battery charger voltage and the battery being the second output, the circuit is not the same as demonstrated by applicant’s Fig. 5. Thus, assuming the applicant uses improved language over the battery charger, the battery, and the voltage regulator, these features are not explicitly taught by Tsuka.
Wu teaches a splitting of a control signal from a controller used to control two different elements (see esp. Figs. 1 & 2, inside of circuit 12 controlled by control circuit 14, PWM control signal and Q7 causes both of Q8 and Q9 to be switched, which then causes Q2 to be turned on in some situations while Q8 may connect with bus B in some situations). One of ordinary skill in the art understands that by having the control pin supply multiple switches with a single control signal, it serves to provide improved efficiency and reduced costs of the operation when there are limited pins and one wants to not have multiple control circuits [which could drive up costs].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tsuka with Wu to provide improved costs and efficiency.
To advance prosecution, the examiner notes that while Tsuka teaches the current set of claims with respect to the battery charger voltage and the battery being the second output, the circuit is not the same as demonstrated by applicant’s Fig. 5. Thus, assuming the applicant uses improved language over the battery charger, the battery, and the voltage regulator, these features are not explicitly taught by Tsuka.
Huang teaches a circuit where a charger output is connected to both a regulator/modifier and a battery, where the battery charger output [bus connecting 117, 123, 125, 126] can be applied to the voltage regulator/modifier (124, or can bypass the voltage regulator/modifier (Figs. [5B & 8, esp. 5B]). One of ordinary skill in the art understands that by not having a conversion circuit between the battery and the bus connecting with the voltage modifier/regulator, it serves to reduce the costs [less items required], weight [less items mean less weight], and efficiency [less conversion means less power lost to conversion operations/elements] of the system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tsuka in view of Wu with Huang to provide improved costs, efficiency, and weight.
Dependent Claim 18, the combination of Tsuka, Huang, and Wu teaches third switch circuitry coupled between the voltage regulator and an output terminal of the battery charger, wherein based on the second signal, the third switch circuitry is to selectively decouple the first voltage from the battery charger to the voltage regulator (while not taught by Tsuka explicitly, Huang in 126 teaches this 3rd switch in Fig. 5B). One of ordinary skill in the art understands that by not having a conversion circuit between the battery and the bus connecting with the voltage modifier/regulator, it serves to reduce the costs [less items required], weight [less items mean less weight], and efficiency [less conversion means less power lost to conversion operations/elements] of the system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tsuka in view of Wu with Huang to provide improved costs, efficiency, and weight.
Claims 10, 11, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsukamoto et al (USPGPN 20130106192, hereinafter Tsuka) in view of Wu (USPGPN 20130314026), Gottlieb (USPGPN 20070074056), and Huang et al (USPGPN 20160064979)
Independent Claim 10, Tsuka teaches a system (Figs. 1-6) comprising:
a battery charger (127) to output a first voltage (it is noted that as the output of 127 is the same node as the battery voltage output, this “first voltage” is equivalent to the battery voltage even if 127 is turned off, as one of ordinary skill in the art understands);
a battery pack (129) to receive a charge from the battery charger (129, ¶[111]);
a voltage regulator (123 & 131, see ¶’s [43-46, 53, 73, 79-91] for operation of 131) coupled to the battery charger, the voltage regulator to output a second voltage based on the first voltage (it is noted that as the output of 127 is the same node as the battery voltage output, this “first voltage” is equivalent to the battery voltage even if 127 is turned off, as one of ordinary skill in the art understands);
an integrated circuit (IC) die (221, 225, & 209 via 41;
121 if 123 is the regulator) coupled to receive power from the voltage regulator based on the second voltage, and further to output a first signal to indicate that the IC die is able to accommodate a power state with the voltage regulator being disabled (¶’s [27, 44, 45, 50, 53, 83, 101, esp. 44, 45, 83]; one of the cited IC die circuits, see claim objection, 209, 221, & 225, notification of lower power mode interpreted as first signal);
a controller circuit (121) coupled to the IC die and the voltage regulator, the controller circuit to generate, based on the first signal, a second signal to disable the voltage regulator (¶’s [27, 44, 45, 50, 53, 83, 101, esp. 44, 45, 83]); and
first switch circuitry coupled between an output terminal of the battery pack and an input terminal of the battery charger, wherein based on the second signal, the first switch circuitry is to selectively disable a first conductive path (117), wherein a third voltage is to be provided from the battery charger to the input terminal while the first conductive path is enabled (115).
Tsuka is silent to controller to cause the voltage regulator to be enabled in response to a real time clock [RTC] wake event. To advance prosecution, assuming the applicant amends the claims to require something along the split signal 563 which is sent to both 530 and Qe, Tsuka fails to explicitly teach this feature claimed. Furthermore, to advance prosecution, the examiner notes that while Tsuka teaches the current set of claims with respect to the battery charger voltage and the battery being the second output, the circuit is not the same as demonstrated by applicant’s Fig. 5. Thus, assuming the applicant uses improved language over the battery charger, the battery, and the voltage regulator, these features are not explicitly taught by Tsuka.
Wu teaches a splitting of a control signal from a controller used to control two different elements (see esp. Figs. 1 & 2, inside of circuit 12 controlled by control circuit 14, PWM control signal and Q7 causes both of Q8 and Q9 to be switched, which then causes Q2 to be turned on in some situations while Q8 may connect with bus B in some situations). One of ordinary skill in the art understands that by having the control pin supply multiple switches with a single control signal, it serves to provide improved efficiency and reduced costs of the operation when there are limited pins and one wants to not have multiple control circuits [which could drive up costs].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tsuka with Wu to provide improved costs and efficiency.
Tsuka is silent to controller to cause the voltage regulator to be enabled in response to a real time clock [RTC] wake event. To advance prosecution, the examiner notes that while Tsuka teaches the current set of claims with respect to the battery charger voltage and the battery being the second output, the circuit is not the same as demonstrated by applicant’s Fig. 5. Thus, assuming the applicant uses improved language over the battery charger, the battery, and the voltage regulator, these features are not explicitly taught by Tsuka.
Huang teaches a circuit where a charger output is connected to both a regulator/modifier and a battery, where the battery charger output [bus connecting 117, 123, 125, 126] can be applied to the voltage regulator/modifier (124, or can bypass the voltage regulator/modifier (Figs. [5B & 8, esp. 5B]). One of ordinary skill in the art understands that by not having a conversion circuit between the battery and the bus connecting with the voltage modifier/regulator, it serves to reduce the costs [less items required], weight [less items mean less weight], and efficiency [less conversion means less power lost to conversion operations/elements] of the system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tsuka in view of Wu with Huang to provide improved costs, efficiency, and weight.
Tsuka is silent to controller to cause the voltage regulator to be enabled in response to a real time clock [RTC] wake event.
Gottlieb teaches controller to cause the voltage regulator to be enabled in response to a real time clock [RTC] wake event (abstract, ¶’s [28-34] in Figs. [1, 3], where Gottlieb teaches this circuitry’s functionality serves to reduce power consumption and costs (¶’s [05, 06, 09, 34]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tsuka in view of Wu and Huang with Gottlieb to provide reduced costs and power consumption.
Dependent Claim 11, the combination of Tsuka, Gottlieb Huang, and Wu teaches first switch circuitry coupled to the controller circuit and to the battery pack, wherein based on the second signal, the first switch circuitry is to is to provide to the battery pack an asserted or de-asserted system present signal (117 represents the switch, in Tsuka for a de-asserted system, while 117 off represents an asserted present signal)
Dependent Claim 13, the combination of Tsuka, Gottlieb Huang, and Wu teaches third switch circuitry coupled between the voltage regulator and an output terminal of the battery charger, wherein based on the second signal, the third switch circuitry is to selectively decouple the first voltage from the battery charger to the voltage regulator (while not taught by Tsuka explicitly, Huang in 126 teaches this 3rd switch in Fig. 5B). One of ordinary skill in the art understands that by not having a conversion circuit between the battery and the bus connecting with the voltage modifier/regulator, it serves to reduce the costs [less items required], weight [less items mean less weight], and efficiency [less conversion means less power lost to conversion operations/elements] of the system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tsuka in view of Wu and Gottlieb with Huang to provide improved costs, efficiency, and weight.
Dependent Claims 15, the combination of Tsuka, Gottlieb, Huang, and Wu teaches during the power state, a first power rail is to be enabled, and the IC die is to generate[receive, see claim interpretation] a real time clock signal which is generated based on the first power rail (each of the circuits have bypass circuitry which provides power to the equivalent of Tsuka’s IC die when the regulator is disabled, where a control signal to control any switches would be considered real-time as one of ordinary skill in the art understands).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsukamoto et al (USPGPN 20130106192, hereinafter Tsuka) in view of Wu, Huang, and Gottlieb, further in view of Kawasaki et al (USPGPN 20110288705, hereinafter Kawa)
Dependent Claim 14, the combination of Tsuka, Huang, Gottlieb, and Wu teaches circuitry to deliver power to the controller (Tsuka 123)
Tsuka fails to explicitly teach first circuitry coupled to receive the third voltage via a path of the battery charger, the first circuitry further coupled to receive from the voltage circuit a third voltage which is based on the first voltage, the first circuitry to delivery power to the controller circuit with one of the third voltage or the fourth voltage.
Kawa teaches first circuitry coupled to receive the third voltage via a path of the battery charger which is independent of the second switch circuitry, the first circuitry further coupled to receive from the voltage circuit a third voltage which is based on the first voltage, the first circuitry to delivery power to the controller circuit with one of the third voltage or the fourth voltage (analogous to Tsuka and the present application, Kawa in Figs. [2-4, esp. 2] demonstrates two separate power supplies providing power to auxiliary power supply for controller 452, see ¶’s [36, 37, 40]). One of ordinary skill in the art understands that by having multiple power supply circuits for a load, the redundancy serves to improve the reliability that the load will be powered even if one of the two circuits fails.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tsuka in view of [Huang, Gottlieb, and Wu] with Kawa to provide improved reliability.
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 JOHN T TRISCHLER whose telephone number is (571)270-0651. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30A-3:30P (often working later), M-F, ET, Flexible. 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 5712722312. 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 T TRISCHLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights