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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/05/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 15, & 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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, 3-5, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 19, & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (USPGPN 2019/0229547 A1 – published Jul. 25, 2019), in view of Basehore et al. (USPGPN 2021/0152004 – filed 2019).
Regarding Claim 1, Lim (Figs. 3A & 4) teaches a charging management and control method, comprising:
obtaining, by an electronic device, first data in response to detecting that an external power supply is connected, wherein the first data represents a status when the electronic device detects that the external power supply is connected (312);
starting, by the electronic device, to perform charging in response to detecting that the external power supply is connected (316 & 317);
determining, by the electronic device, a first duration and a second duration based on the first data (317: first charge section and charge stop section), wherein the first duration represents a first predicted charging duration for which the electronic device performs charging based on a first charging parameter (first charge section 441 charging until determined charge stop time 412), and wherein the second duration represents a second predicted charging duration for which the electronic device performs charging based on a second charging parameter (charge stop section 443 maintaining charge until determined recharge start time 413), wherein an initial predicted charging duration is obtained by inputting the first data into a first charging model (Fig.3A, 313; ¶0067 & 0068: the processor determines a charge end time based on situation information and charge start time, situation information includes the user’s use pattern to determine a charge end time, therefore the system is estimating a future event, a charge end time, based on the basis of knowledge, user’s use pattern, or said differently, predicting the charge duration), and the first duration and the second duration are obtained by inputting the initial predicted charging duration into a second charging model (Fig.3A, 315 & 316; ¶0076: processor determines a charge stop time; ¶0079: the processor divides the time period between the charging start time and the charge end time, the predicted charging duration, into a first charge section and a charge stop section);
performing, by the electronic device, charging based on the first charging parameter, wherein duration of the charging is a first actual charging duration, and wherein the first actual charging duration represents an actual charging duration for which the electronic device performs the charging based on the first charging parameter (first charge section 441); and
performing, by the electronic device, charging based on the second charging parameter when the first actual charging duration is equal to the first duration, wherein duration of the charging is a second actual charging duration, and wherein the second actual charging duration represents an actual charging duration for which the electronic device performs charging based on the second charging parameter (charge stop section 442, ¶0057: charge stop section may still be provided power to maintain a constant voltage state);
wherein charging efficiency with which the electronic device performs charging based on the first charging parameter is higher than charging efficiency with which the electronic device performs charging based on the second charging parameter (SOC increases during first charge section while charge stop section does not).
Lim fails to explicitly teach wherein the first charging model is obtained by training with historical charging data of a plurality of users, and the second charging model is obtained by training with predicted charging durations obtained by inputting historical charging data of a specific user into the first charging model.
However, Basehore teaches a charging system which uses a model that generates a an initial predicted charging duration, in which the model is trained by historical charging data of a plurality of users (¶0055: training data 161, used to train the predictive model 122, includes training data generated and collected from other systems 100) and the model generates first and second predicted charging durations (Fig.1I: 151 & 153), in which the model is trained with predicted charging durations using historical charging data of a specific user (¶0047: the predictive model outputs a predictive charge pattern 126; ¶0052: the predictive charge pattern 126 identifies a prediction confidence level 134; ¶0070: the prediction confidence level 134 is used to adjust the temporary charge level to reduce user disappointment if the prediction is not accurate, which includes adjusting the first and second charging durations; Examiner’s Note: the adjustment being made to reduce user disappointment indicates the prediction model uses past user behavior of the system to determine the confidence level and therefore the charging model is trained on historical user behavior).
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 system taught by Lim with basehore to use an AI charging model obtained by training with historical charging data of a plurality of users, and training with predicted charging durations obtained by inputting historical charging data of a specific user into the model. Doing so helps reduce battery capacity degradation, as evidenced by Basehore (¶0002).
Lim, as modified, discloses the claimed invention except Lim, as modified, teaches a single charging model generating the initial predicted charging duration, the first predicted charging duration, and the second predicted charging duration, instead of a first charging model generating the initial predicted charging duration and a second charging model generating the first and second predicted charging durations. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to split the charging model of Lim, as modified, into the claimed first and second charging models, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 1. It is not novel to split neural networks and one would be motivated to make this change to allow for easier reusability of a specific function of the program.
Regarding Claim 3, Lim, as modified, further teaches wherein the first data comprises one or more of a time at which the external power supply is connected, a remaining battery level when the electronic device detects that the external power supply is connected, a charger type, a time zone in which the electronic device is located, screen-on/screen-off information of the electronic device, an alarm clock ringing time that is set in the electronic device, a to-do list reminder time point that is set in the electronic device, or sensor data of the electronic device (Fig.3A, 312: voltage of the battery, which equates to remaining battery level, and time when connection of the power source occurs are data used in the charging method).
Regarding Claim 4, Lim, as modified, further teaches wherein the first data comprises a time at which the external power supply is connected, and wherein the time at which the external power supply is connected is within a night time period (¶0071: long-time charge mode may be performed when a charge start time/connection time is midnight).
Regarding Claim 5, Lim, as modified, fails to explicitly teach wherein the night time period is 23:00 p.m.to 6:00 a.m. local time.
Lim, as modified, discloses the claimed invention except for Lim, as modified, identifies a connection time of midnight (24:00 p.m.) as an example of a night time period connection instead of a time range of 23:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to identify a night time period as the hours of 23:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m., since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Doing so would overlap with a common period of time at which a user is asleep after connecting an electronic device to a charger.
Regarding Claim 11, Lim, as modified, further teaches wherein the performing, by the electronic device, charging based on the second charging parameter comprises: performing charging or stopping charging by the electronic device based on the second charging parameter (as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1, charge stop section still provides power).
Regarding Claim 12, Lim, as modified, further teaches wherein the first charging parameter comprises a first charging cut-off voltage ( Fig.7, charge stop voltage 722) and first charging input power (Fig.7, first charge section 731 increases power), wherein the second charging parameter comprises a second charging cut-off voltage ( Fig.7, first critical voltage 721) and second charging input power (Fig.7, charge ratio decreases due to allowing the battery to discharge, or a charge input of zero), wherein the first charging cut-off voltage is greater than the second charging cut- off voltage (Fig.7, 722 is greater than 721), and wherein the first charging input power is greater than the second charging input power (first charge section increases the charge ratio while the charging based on the second charging parameter allows the charge ratio to decrease).
Regarding Claim 14, Lim, as modified, further teaches wherein a sum of the first duration and the second duration is not less than a sixth threshold (Fig.3A, 314).
Regarding Claim 15, Lim (Figs. 1, 3A, & 4) teaches an electronic device, comprising:
an interface (150/160); and
at least one processor (120) coupled to the interface and configured to:
obtain first data in response to detecting that an external power supply is connected, wherein the first data represents a status when the electronic device detects that the external power supply is connected (312);
start charging in response to detecting that the external power supply is connected (316 & 317);
determining a first duration and a second duration based on the first data (317: first charge section and charge stop section), wherein the first duration represents a first predicted charging duration for which the electronic device performs charging based on a first charging parameter (first charge section 441 charging until determined charge stop time 412), and wherein the second duration represents a second predicted charging duration for which the electronic device performs charging based on a second charging parameter (charge stop section 443 maintaining charge until determined recharge start time 413), wherein an initial predicted charging duration is obtained by inputting the first data into a first charging model (Fig.3A, 313; ¶0067 & 0068: the processor determines a charge end time based on situation information and charge start time, situation information includes the user’s use pattern to determine a charge end time, therefore the system is estimating a future event, a charge end time, based on the basis of knowledge, user’s use pattern, or said differently, predicting the charge duration), and the first duration and the second duration are obtained by inputting the initial predicted charging duration into a second charging model (Fig.3A, 315 & 316; ¶0076: processor determines a charge stop time; ¶0079: the processor divides the time period between the charging start time and the charge end time, the predicted charging duration, into a first charge section and a charge stop section);
perform charging based on the first charging parameter, wherein duration of the charging is a first actual charging duration, and wherein the first actual charging duration represents an actual charging duration for which the electronic device performs the charging based on the first charging parameter (first charge section 441); and
perform charging based on the second charging parameter when the first actual charging duration is equal to the first duration, wherein duration of the charging is a second actual charging duration, and wherein the second actual charging duration represents an actual charging duration for which the electronic device performs charging based on the second charging parameter (charge stop section 442, ¶0057: charge stop section may still be provided power to maintain a constant voltage state),
wherein a charging efficiency with which the electronic device performs charging based on the first charging parameter is higher than a charging efficiency with which the electronic device performs charging based on the second charging parameter (SOC increases during first charge section while charge stop section does not).
Lim fails to explicitly teach wherein the first charging model is obtained by training with historical charging data of a plurality of users, and the second charging model is obtained by training with predicted charging durations obtained by inputting historical charging data of a specific user into the first charging model.
However, Basehore teaches a charging system which uses a model that generates a an initial predicted charging duration, in which the model is trained by historical charging data of a plurality of users (¶0055: training data 161, used to train the predictive model 122, includes training data generated and collected from other systems 100) and the model generates first and second predicted charging durations (Fig.1I: 151 & 153), in which the model is trained with predicted charging durations using historical charging data of a specific user (¶0047: the predictive model outputs a predictive charge pattern 126; ¶0052: the predictive charge pattern 126 identifies a prediction confidence level 134; ¶0070: the prediction confidence level 134 is used to adjust the temporary charge level to reduce user disappointment if the prediction is not accurate, which includes adjusting the first and second charging durations; Examiner’s Note: the adjustment being made to reduce user disappointment indicates the prediction model uses past user behavior of the system to determine the confidence level and therefore the charging model is trained on historical user behavior).
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 system taught by Lim with basehore to use an AI charging model obtained by training with historical charging data of a plurality of users, and training with predicted charging durations obtained by inputting historical charging data of a specific user into the model. Doing so helps reduce battery capacity degradation, as evidenced by Basehore (¶0002).
Lim, as modified, discloses the claimed invention except Lim, as modified, teaches a single charging model generating the initial predicted charging duration, the first predicted charging duration, and the second predicted charging duration, instead of a first charging model generating the initial predicted charging duration and a second charging model generating the first and second predicted charging durations. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to split the charging model of Lim, as modified, into the claimed first and second charging models, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 1. It is not novel to split neural networks and one would be motivated to make this change to allow for easier reusability of a specific function of the program.
Regarding Claim 17, Lim, as modified, further teaches wherein the first data comprises one or more of a time at which the external power supply is connected, a remaining battery level when the electronic device detects that the external power supply is connected, a charger type, a time zone in which the electronic device is located, screen-on/screen-off information of the electronic device, an alarm clock ringing time that is set in the electronic device, a to-do list reminder time point that is set in the electronic device, or sensor data of the electronic device (Fig.3A, 312: voltage of the battery equates to remaining battery level, and time when connection of the power source occurs are data used in the charging method).
Regarding Claim 19, Lim, as modified, further teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
perform charging or stopping charging by the electronic device based on the second charging parameter (as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1, charge stop section still provides power).
Regarding Claim 20, Lim teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program to be executed by at least one processor in an electronic device (¶0144: software stored on non-transitory storage to be executed by the electronic device), the program including instructions to:
obtain first data in response to detecting that an external power supply is connected, wherein the first data represents a status when the electronic device detects that the external power supply is connected (312);
start charging in response to detecting that the external power supply is connected (316 & 317);
determining a first duration and a second duration based on the first data (317: first charge section and charge stop section), wherein the first duration represents a first predicted charging duration for which the electronic device performs charging based on a first charging parameter (first charge section 441 charging until determined charge stop time 412), and wherein the second duration represents a second predicted charging duration for which the electronic device performs charging based on a second charging parameter (charge stop section 443 maintaining charge until determined recharge start time 413), wherein an initial predicted charging duration is obtained by inputting the first data into a first charging model (Fig.3A, 313; ¶0067 & 0068: the processor determines a charge end time based on situation information and charge start time, situation information includes the user’s use pattern to determine a charge end time, therefore the system is estimating a future event, a charge end time, based on the basis of knowledge, user’s use pattern, or said differently, predicting the charge duration), and the first duration and the second duration are obtained by inputting the initial predicted charging duration into a second charging model (Fig.3A, 315 & 316; ¶0076: processor determines a charge stop time; ¶0079: the processor divides the time period between the charging start time and the charge end time, the predicted charging duration, into a first charge section and a charge stop section);
perform charging based on the first charging parameter, wherein duration of the charging is a first actual charging duration, and wherein the first actual charging duration represents an actual charging duration for which the electronic device performs the charging based on the first charging parameter (first charge section 441); and
perform charging based on the second charging parameter when the first actual charging duration is equal to the first duration, wherein duration of the charging is a second actual charging duration, and wherein the second actual charging duration represents an actual charging duration for which the electronic device performs charging based on the second charging parameter (charge stop section 442, ¶0057: charge stop section may still be provided power to maintain a constant voltage state),
wherein a charging efficiency with which the electronic device performs charging based on the first charging parameter is higher than a charging efficiency with which the electronic device performs charging based on the second charging parameter (SOC increases during first charge section while charge stop section does not).
Lim fails to explicitly teach wherein the first charging model is obtained by training with historical charging data of a plurality of users, and the second charging model is obtained by training with predicted charging durations obtained by inputting historical charging data of a specific user into the first charging model.
However, Basehore teaches a charging system which uses a model that generates a an initial predicted charging duration, in which the model is trained by historical charging data of a plurality of users (¶0055: training data 161, used to train the predictive model 122, includes training data generated and collected from other systems 100) and the model generates first and second predicted charging durations (Fig.1I: 151 & 153), in which the model is trained with predicted charging durations using historical charging data of a specific user (¶0047: the predictive model outputs a predictive charge pattern 126; ¶0052: the predictive charge pattern 126 identifies a prediction confidence level 134; ¶0070: the prediction confidence level 134 is used to adjust the temporary charge level to reduce user disappointment if the prediction is not accurate, which includes adjusting the first and second charging durations; Examiner’s Note: the adjustment being made to reduce user disappointment indicates the prediction model uses past user behavior of the system to determine the confidence level and therefore the charging model is trained on historical user behavior).
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 system taught by Lim with basehore to use an AI charging model obtained by training with historical charging data of a plurality of users, and training with predicted charging durations obtained by inputting historical charging data of a specific user into the model. Doing so helps reduce battery capacity degradation, as evidenced by Basehore (¶0002).
Lim, as modified, discloses the claimed invention except Lim, as modified, teaches a single charging model generating the initial predicted charging duration, the first predicted charging duration, and the second predicted charging duration, instead of a first charging model generating the initial predicted charging duration and a second charging model generating the first and second predicted charging durations. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to split the charging model of Lim, as modified, into the claimed first and second charging models, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 1. It is not novel to split neural networks and one would be motivated to make this change to allow for easier reusability of a specific function of the program.
Claim(s) 2 & 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim, in view of Basehore, as applied to claims 1 & 15 above, and further in view of Masuda et al. (USPGPN 2014/0236379 A1 – published Aug. 21, 2014).
Regarding Claim 2, Lim, as modified, further teaches after performing, by the electronic device, charging based on the second charging parameter: performing by the electronic device, charging when the second actual charging duration is equal to the second duration (Fig.4, second charge section 443 after recharge start time 413).
Lim fails to explicitly teach the charging is based on the first charging parameter.
However, Masuda teaches a charging method wherein a charging period (Fig.6, time t4 to t5, second stage external charging) after charging based on a second charging parameter (Fig.6, time t3 to t4, non-charging period) is based on a first charging parameter (¶0073: first stage charging uses power Pc1; ¶0075: second stage charging until t5 uses power Pc1).
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 Lim, in view of Basehore, with Masuda to base the charging that occurs after the second charging period on the first charging parameter. Doing so allows the battery to reach a full charge at a faster rate.
Regarding Claim 16, Lim, as modified, further teaches after charging based on the second charging parameter: perform charging when the second actual charging duration is equal to the second duration (Fig.4, second charge section 443 after recharge start time 413).
Lim fails to explicitly teach the charging is based on the first charging parameter.
However, Masuda teaches a charging method wherein a charging period (Fig.6, time t4 to t5, second stage external charging) after charging based on a second charging parameter (Fig.6, time t3 to t4, non-charging period) is based on a first charging parameter (¶0073: first stage charging uses power Pc1; ¶0075: second stage charging until t5 uses power Pc1).
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 Lim, in view of Basehore, with Masuda to base the charging that occurs after the second charging period on the first charging parameter. Doing so allows the battery to reach a full charge at a faster rate.
Claim(s) 6 & 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim, in view of Basehore, as applied to claims 1 & 15 above, and further in view of Baek et al. (USPGPN 2013/0268466 A1 – published Oct. 10, 2013).
Regarding Claim 6, Lim, as modified, (Fig.7) further teaches stopping (discharging is stopped at time “A”) charging based on the second charging parameter (charging based on the second charging parameter is equated to the first decreasing charge ratio slope at charge stop time 731; ¶0125: the charge stop section may be a state when the processor blocks power to the battery and the device can consume power); and
starting charging based on a third charging parameter (charging occurs again at time “A”), wherein a charging efficiency with which the electronic device performs charging based on the third charging parameter is higher than the charging efficiency with which the electronic device performs charging based on the second charging parameter (charge ratio increases instead of decreasing).
Lim, as modified, fails to explicitly teach stopping charging in response to detecting a first event; and
wherein the first event comprises one or more of a quantity of screen-on times of the electronic device is greater than a first threshold, screen-on duration of the electronic device is greater than a second threshold, a quantity of screen-off times of the electronic device is greater than a third threshold, screen-off duration of the electronic device is less than a fourth threshold, power consumption of the electronic device is greater than a fifth threshold, the electronic device starts or uses a video application, or the electronic device starts or uses a game application.
However, Baek teaches that it is common for a charge ratio, or in other words, an SOC to be related to a battery capacity, or in other words, an amount of power (¶0062: SOC of 100% is a battery capacity of 1000mAH).
Lim, as modified, teaches the claimed invention except that the charging based on a third charging parameter is performed when a first event occurs, the first event being that a charge ratio consumed has exceeded a threshold (¶0128: battery is charged to charge stop voltage 722, then decreases to first critical voltage 721, and is charged again; examiner equates the charge ratio decreasing to the first critical voltage to determining an amount of the charge ratio consumed has exceeded a threshold, since the charge stop and first critical voltages are known and therefore the difference threshold between them is known), instead of the value being a power consumption. Baek teaches that a charge ratio, or in other words, an SOC is equivalent to a battery capacity, or in other words, an amount of power (¶0062: SOC of 100% is a battery capacity of 1000mAH). Therefore, because these two measurements were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the charge ratio measurement for a battery capacity measurement.
Regarding Claim 18, Lim, as modified, (Fig.7) further teaches the at least one processor is configured to:
stop (discharging is stopped at time “A”) charging based on the second charging parameter (charging based on the second charging parameter is equated to the first decreasing charge ratio slope at charge stop time 731; ¶0125: the charge stop section may be a state when the processor blocks power to the battery and the device can consume power); and
start charging based on a third charging parameter (charging occurs again at time “A”), wherein a charging efficiency with which the electronic device performs charging based on the third charging parameter is higher than the charging efficiency with which the electronic device performs charging based on the second charging parameter (charge ratio increases instead of decreasing).
Lim, as modified, fails to explicitly teach stopping charging in response to detecting a first event; and
wherein the first event comprises one or more of a quantity of screen-on times of the electronic device is greater than a first threshold, screen-on duration of the electronic device is greater than a second threshold, a quantity of screen-off times of the electronic device is greater than a third threshold, screen-off duration of the electronic device is less than a fourth threshold, power consumption of the electronic device is greater than a fifth threshold, the electronic device starts or uses a video application, or the electronic device starts or uses a game application.
However, Baek teaches that it is common for a charge ratio, or in other words, an SOC is related to a battery capacity, or in other words, an amount of power (¶0062: SOC of 100% is a battery capacity of 1000mAH).
Lim, as modified, teaches the claimed invention except that the charging based on a third charging parameter is performed when a first event occurs, the first event being that a charge ratio consumed has exceeded a threshold (¶0128: battery is charged to charge stop voltage 722, then decreases to first critical voltage 721, and is charged again; examiner equates the charge ratio decreasing to the first critical voltage to determining an amount of the charge ratio consumed has exceeded a threshold, since the charge stop and first critical voltages are known and therefore the difference threshold between them is known), instead of the value being a power consumption. Baek teaches that a charge ratio, or in other words, an SOC is equivalent to a battery capacity, or in other words, an amount of power (¶0062: SOC of 100% is a battery capacity of 1000mAH). Therefore, because these two measurements were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the charge ratio measurement for a battery capacity measurement.
Claim(s) 7 & 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim, in view of Basehore and Baek, as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Masuda.
Regarding Claim 7, Lim (Fig.7), as modified, further teaches performing, by the electronic device, charging based on the third charging parameter, wherein a duration of the charging is a third actual charging duration (time period between time point “A” and the second decreasing charge ratio line), and wherein the third actual charging duration represents an actual charging duration for which the electronic device performs the charging based on the third charging parameter; and
performing, by the electronic device, charging based on a fourth charging parameter (second decreasing charge ratio line between time points “A” and “B”), wherein a duration of the charging is a fourth actual charging duration (time period between the start of the second decreasing charge ratio line and time point “B”), and wherein the fourth actual charging duration represents an actual charging duration for which the electronic device performs the charging based on the fourth charging parameter;
wherein a charging efficiency with which the electronic device performs charging based on the third charging parameter is higher than a charging efficiency with which the electronic device performs the charging based on the fourth charging parameter (charging based on the third charging parameter increases the charge ratio while charging based on the fourth charging parameter decreases the charge ratio).
Lim, as modified, fails to explicitly teach charging based on the fourth charging parameter when the third actual charging duration is equal to third duration, wherein the third duration represents predicted charging duration for which the electronic device performs the charging based on the third charging parameter; and
wherein the third duration is determined by using second data, and the second data represents a status of the electronic device when the electronic device detects the first event.
However, Masuda teaches a method for charging a battery where a charging period is determined based on a required charging amount needed (¶0078: charging period tc2 is calculated based on a required charging amount).
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 Lim, in view of Basehore and Baek, with Masuda to determine a third actual charging duration based on second data, the required charging amount needed, to increase the charge ratio from the first critical voltage to the charge stop voltage. Doing so allows the system to adjust a charging period time based on a temperature of the battery, as evidenced by Masuda.
Regarding Claim 8, Lim, as modified, further teaches wherein the second data comprises one or more of a time at which the electronic device detects the first event, a remaining battery level of the electronic device when the electronic device detects the first event (as disclosed in the rejection of claim 6, first critical voltage ), a charger type, a time zone in which the electronic device is located, screen- on/screen-off information of the electronic device, an alarm time that is set in the electronic device, a to-do list time that is set in the electronic device, or a sensor data of the electronic device.
Claim(s) 9, 10, & 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim, in view of Basehore, Baek, and Masuda, as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Mizukami et al. (USPGPN 2019/0334354 A1 – published Oct. 31, 2019).
Regarding Claim 9, Lim, as modified, further teaches performing, by the electronic device, in response to detecting a second event, charging based on the first charging parameter (as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1), wherein the second event represents a user-preset time recorded by the electronic device (¶0059: situation information used to determine charging may be schedule information of a user stored in the electronic device); and
Lim, as modified, fails to explicitly teach performing, by the electronic device, charging based on the second charging parameter when the remaining battery level of the electronic device reaches a first threshold through charging; and
performing, by the electronic device, charging based on a fifth charging parameter when a first time arrives, wherein the first time is a time before the user-preset time.
However, Mizukami (Fig.17) teaches a battery charging method which charges a battery in response to a specific schedule time point (¶0095: chargeable time period is determined on the basis of time set by a specific schedule), charging is performed based on a first charging parameter until a battery level threshold is reached (S300 & S314), at which point charging based on a second charging parameter is performed (S318), until a first time which is before the user-preset time (S320) when the system charges based on a fifth charge parameter (S322).
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 system taught by Lim, in view of Basehore, Baek, and Masuda, with Mizukami to include charging to a threshold charge level, switching to a second charge parameter-based charging until a first time before the user-preset time, and continuing charging based on a fifth charge parameter after the first time. Doing so allows a system to prioritize charging based on a user-preset time over a recognized pattern ensuring a charged battery for scheduled events outside of the recognized pattern.
Regarding Claim 10, Lim, as modified, further teaches wherein the second event comprises one or more of an alarm clock ringing time, a reminder time point specified in a memo, a time point specified in a schedule (as disclosed in the rejection of claim 9 above, schedule information), or a to-do list reminder time point set in the electronic device.
Regarding Claim 13, Lim, as modified, further teach wherein the third charging parameter is the same as the first charging parameter (Fig.7 charge ratio increase rate up to charge stop time 711 is the same as the charge ratio increase between time point “A” and the charge stop voltage time point between, between time points “A” & “B”), and the fourth charging parameter is the same as the second charging parameter (Fig. 7, charge ratio decrease rate between charge stop time 711 and time point “A” is the same as the charge ratio decrease rate between the charge stop voltage timepoint, between time points “A” & ”B”, and time point “B”).
Lim, as modified, fails to explicitly teach the fifth charging parameter is the same and the first charging parameter.
However, Masuda teaches a charging method wherein a charging period (Fig.6, time t4 to t5, second stage external charging) after charging based on a second charging parameter (Fig.6, time t3 to t4, non-charging period) is based on a first charging parameter (¶0073: first stage charging uses power Pc1; ¶0075: second stage charging until t5 uses power Pc1).
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 further modified the method taught by Lim, in view of Basehore, Baek, Masuda, and Mizukami, with Masuda to base the charging that occurs after the second charging period, charging based on the fifth charge parameter, to be equal to the first charging parameter. Doing so allows the battery to reach a full charge at a faster rate.
Conclusion
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