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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim limitation “battery module, power management module, first enabling module, control module, filtering module” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoon. (EP 1,429,442).
Re Claim 1; Yoon discloses A control circuit for a battery device, used to be electrically connected between a battery module and an output port of the battery device → Yoon’s circuit interfaces between VBATT and MSM【Fig. 2, ¶[0013]】
wherein the control circuit comprises: a first power management module, a control module, and a first enabling module → Voltage controller 230 = first power management module; MSM = control module; enable signal generator 220 = first enabling module【¶[0013]–[0023]】
the first power management module is configured to receive a first enabling signal of a trigger element of the battery device and a first voltage output by the battery module → Regulator 233 receives VBATT and enable signal from ON_SW or OFF_STATE_RD【¶[0040]】
and convert the first voltage into a second voltage to supply power to the control module and the first enabling module → Regulator 233 outputs 2.7V_D to MSM and enable signal generator【¶[0040]】
the control module is configured to control the first enabling module to output a second enabling signal to the first power management module → MSM sets OFF_STATE_WR, which influences OFF_STATE_RD via flip-flop and inverter【¶[0014]–[0022]】
and when the control module is abnormally reset, the first enabling module outputs the second enabling signal to the first power management module. → Flip-flop retains OFF_STATE_RD = 1 during abnormal reset, enabling regulator【¶[0045]–[0052]】
Re Claim 2; Yoon discloses wherein the first enabling module comprises a logic element → TR switch 222d and diodes 223a/b act as logic elements【¶[0027], [0033]】
a first input pin, a second input pin, and a third input pin of the logic element are all electrically connected to the control module → MSM outputs OFF_STATE_WR and ON_SW to enable signal generator【¶[0014], [0023]–[0031]】
a power pin of the logic element is electrically connected to a power supply → Powered via VBATT and 2.7V_D【¶[0035]–[0040]】
a grounding pin of the logic element is grounded → Ground connections shown in Fig. 2【¶[0029], [0031]】
and an output pin of the logic element is electrically connected to the first power management module. → Output routed to regulator 233 enable pin【¶[0034], [0040]】
Re Claim 3; Yoon discloses further comprising a second power management module... configured to convert the second voltage into a third voltage to supply power to the control module. → Voltage conditioning via capacitors and resistors between regulator and MSM【¶[0037]–[0040]】
Re Claim 4; Yoon discloses further comprising a third power management module... configured to convert the second voltage into a fourth voltage to supply power to the first enabling module. → Capacitors 234–236 stabilize voltage for enable signal generator【¶[0041]–[0043]】
Re Claim 5; Yoon discloses further comprising a second enabling module... configured to output a third enabling signal to the first power management module. → Diodes 223a/b and resistor 221a route signals from MSM to regulator【¶[0024], [0033]–[0034]】
Re Claim 6; Yoon discloses further comprising a filtering module... configured to filter the first voltage output by the battery module and then provide the same to the first power management module. → Capacitors 232, 234–236 filter VBATT before regulation【¶[0039]–[0043]】
Re Claim 7; Yoon discloses wherein the first power management module comprises a power management chip and a first diode... connected to the enabling pin. → Regulator 233 = power management chip; diode 217 connects flip-flop to regulator enable pin【¶[0022], [0040]】
Re Claim 8; Yoon discloses wherein the first power management module further comprises a second diode... connected to the enabling pin of the power management chip. → Diode 223a routes PS_HOLD to regulator enable pin【¶[0034]】
Re Claim 9; Yoon discloses wherein the first power management module further comprises a third diode... connected to the enabling pin of the power management chip. → Diode 223b routes ON_SW to regulator enable pin【¶[0034]】
Re Claim 10; Yoon discloses further comprising a switching element... to supply power to the switching element and the control module. → TR switch 222d acts as switching element for ON_SW signal【¶[0031]】
Re Claim 11; Yoon discloses wherein the control module is abnormally set when a load resistor... changes suddenly or a program... is not controlled by logic. → Yoon describes abnormal reset due to battery contact loss or logic failure【¶[0045]–[0052]】
Re Claim 12; Yoon discloses wherein the first enabling signal is configured to control the working of the first power management module to convert the first voltage into the second voltage. → Enable signal (EN) activates regulator 233 to convert VBATT to 2.7V_D【¶[0040]】
Re Claim 13; Yoon discloses wherein the control module is further configured to output a latch signal to latch an output state of the first enabling module. → Flip-flop 215 latches OFF_STATE_RD based on OFF_STATE_WR from MSM【¶[0045]–[0052], Fig. 3】
Re Claim 14; Yoon discloses wherein when the control module detects that the battery device is at an idle state... output a sleep signal to the first power management module. → OFF_STATE_WR = 0 resets OFF_STATE_RD, disabling regulator and entering sleep【¶[0049]–[0051]】
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
I. Response to §112 Arguments
Applicant argues that terms such as battery module, power management module, first enabling module, control module, and filtering module do not invoke §112(f) because the specification provides sufficient structure.
Examiner Response
The argument is not persuasive.
A claim term that uses the word “module” combined with purely functional language is a classic nonce term that invokes §112(f) unless the specification provides definite structure for performing the claimed function. MPEP §2181 and Williamson v. Citrix make clear that “module” is a non-structural substitute for “means.”
Applicant asserts that the specification discloses structure, but the cited passages merely identify black-box ICs (U1, U2, U3) without describing the specific circuitry that performs the claimed functions. For example:
The “first enabling module” is said to be “logic element U1, a D-type trigger,” but the specification does not disclose the internal structure of U1 beyond a truth table.
The “control module” is identified as “control chip U2,” but again no internal circuitry is disclosed.
The “first power management module” is identified as “chip U3,” but the specification does not disclose the structure that performs the claimed conversion function.
A truth table or a reference to a commercial IC does not constitute corresponding structure under §112(f). The Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that merely naming a component or providing a functional block diagram is insufficient.
Thus, the §112 rejection is properly maintained.
II. Response to §102 Rejection Over Yoon (EP 1 429 442)
Applicant argues that Yoon does not anticipate because:
Yoon’s circuit is not a “battery management system,”
Yoon’s control module does not behave like the claimed control module,
Yoon’s enable signal is not the claimed “second enabling signal,” and
Yoon solves a different problem.
Examiner Response
These arguments are not persuasive.
A. Yoon Discloses the Same Functional Architecture
Yoon discloses:
A power charge unit (210)
An enable signal generator (220)
A voltage control unit (230)
A flip-flop-based enabling mechanism that maintains state during abnormal conditions
These correspond directly to the claimed:
First power management module
First enabling module
Control module
Battery module
Yoon explicitly states:
“The power charger 210 generates a second state signal (OFF_STATE_RD)… The second state signal is outputted to the voltage controller 230 as an enable signal (EN).” (Yoon ¶[0014])
This is exactly the claimed behavior: a module generates an enabling signal that controls the power management module.
B. Applicant’s Argument About “Abnormal Reset” Is Not Supported
Applicant asserts that in Yoon, if the control module resets, the enabling signal stops. This is contradicted by Yoon’s own disclosure.
Yoon explains that the JK flip-flop maintains the previous state during abnormal power loss:
“If the state signal becomes a floating state by unintentional power off… the final value of the second state signal (OFF_STATE_RD) is maintained… since the flip-flop is equipped inside the battery.” (Yoon ¶[0045])
This is the same functional behavior claimed: the enabling module maintains the enabling signal during abnormal reset/power loss.
C. Applicant’s “Different Problem” Argument Is Not Persuasive
Applicant argues that Yoon solves a different problem (loose battery contact). However, under In re Dillon and KSR, the motivation to combine does not require identical problems—only that the prior art teaches the claimed structure or that the modification is predictable.
Yoon’s architecture is expressly designed to:
Maintain power integrity
Prevent unintended shutdown
Preserve system state during abnormal conditions
These are the same functional goals recited in the present application.
D. Applicant’s “Battery System vs. Mobile Terminal” Argument Is Not Persuasive
Applicant argues that Yoon’s modules are in the mobile terminal, not the battery system.
However, Yoon explicitly states:
“The inverter 211, resistors 212–214, and JK flip-flop 215 are equipped inside of the battery.” (Yoon ¶[0016]–[0020])
Thus, Yoon does disclose circuitry located within the battery system.
E. Applicant’s Argument That Yoon Cannot Be Modified Is Not Persuasive
Applicant asserts that modifying Yoon would require “a complete overhaul.” This is incorrect.
Yoon already discloses:
A power management module
A control module
An enabling module
A flip-flop that maintains state during abnormal reset
A battery-integrated circuit architecture
The claimed invention is simply a re-labeling of these same functional blocks.
Thus, anticipation is proper.
III. Dependent Claims
Because the rejection of claim 1 is maintained, the dependent claims remain unpatentable. Applicant has not presented separate arguments for these claims.
IV. Conclusion
Applicant’s arguments do not overcome the §112 or §102 rejections. The cited reference (Yoon) discloses each and every limitation of claim 1, and the §112(f) analysis remains correct.
All rejections are therefore maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL KESSIE whose telephone number is (571)272-4449. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pmEst.
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, Rexford Barnie can be reached at (571) 272-7492. 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.
/DANIEL KESSIE/
03/10/2026
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836