DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
In the communication filed on 12/01/2025 claims 1-8, 10-16, and 18-20 are pending. Claims 1, 10, and 19 are amended to include new limitations not previously presented. Claims 9 and 17 are cancelled. Claims 1, 10, and 19 are independent.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, filed 12/01/2025, with respect to the rejections of independent claims 1 and 10 under 35 USC 102 and the rejection of independent claim 19 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejections are made below in view of a newly applied prior art reference in combination with a new consideration of the previously applied references. The applicant’s amendments to the claims introduce new limitations which change the scope of the claims and therefore a new consideration and search has been performed in view of these amendments.
The remaining arguments are moot as the applicant’s arguments for the remaining claims were based on dependency of the independent claims.
The drawing objections and the specification objections are withdrawn.
This Office Action is made Final due to the amendments.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 7 replace “a” with --the-- so that it reads “the load” in order to avoid a lack of antecedent basis. For examination purposes below this limitation will be interpreted as “the load”, however, appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 8 replace “a” with --the-- so that it reads “the load” in order to avoid a lack of antecedent basis. For examination purposes below this limitation will be interpreted as “the load”, however, appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-8, 10, 12, 14-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (USPGPN 20110006731) and further in view of Yoshida (UPSPGN 20150008885).
With respect to independent claims 1 and 10, Wang teaches a battery pack and method comprising a battery cell (Figs. 9-10; battery pack 904 and method for the battery pack 904 comprising battery cells 310).
Wang teaches a controller configured to control charging of the battery cell, using a charging switch (Fig. 9; a battery controller 920 configured to control charging of the battery cells 310 using a charging switch 430).
Wang teaches adjusting a discharge current by controlling a discharge switch of the battery pack (Fig. 9; ¶[41]; one of ordinary skill understands a discharge current is supplied from the battery pack 304/904 to the system load 910 by controlling a discharging switch 432 of the battery pack 304/904. The elements labeled the same as in Fig. 4 have similar functions as those in Fig. 9, see ¶[83]).
Wang teaches wherein the controller is configured to identify a voltage of a load, a voltage of the battery cell and a reference voltage (Fig. 9; controller 920 identifies a voltage of load 910, voltages of the battery cells 310, and a plurality of reference voltages).
Wang teaches adjust a charging current to be supplied to the battery cell by controlling the charging switch to prevent the voltage of a load from being less than a voltage of the battery cell while power is being supplied to the battery cell and the load (Fig. 9; ¶[84-88]; the battery controller 920 dynamically adjusts the battery charging current via charging switch 430 based on battery cell 310 status, adapter 902 capacity, and system load 910 so that the system load 910 continues to receive sufficient power while the battery is charged).
However, Wang fails to explicitly teach prevent the voltage of a load from being less than the reference voltage when a voltage of the battery cell is equal to or less than the reference voltage, wherein the reference voltage is a lowest voltage to be supplied to the load.
Yoshida teaches prevent the voltage of a load from being less than the reference voltage when a voltage of the battery cell is equal to or less than the reference voltage, wherein the reference voltage is a lowest voltage to be supplied to the load (¶[10]; “...wherein the battery control unit specifies a minimum voltage unit in which the voltage is lowest, on the basis of the voltages measured by the measurement unit, when the discharge of the battery unit is performed, and outputs a first signal for reducing a discharge current in the discharge before the minimum voltage unit is over-discharged...”).
The controller acts as a safety barrier to prevent over-discharge damage to the battery while ensuring the load does not experience sudden voltage drops. As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill the art to have adapted Yoshida’s voltage limit control to Wang’s battery pack. The benefit of this being preventing over-discharge and over-charge conditions from damaging the battery (see ¶[12] of Yoshida).
With respect to dependent claim 3, Wang teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Wang teaches wherein the controller further comprises a discharge switch and is configured to control discharging of the battery cell, using the discharge switch (Fig. 9; ¶ [41]; one of ordinary skill understands a discharge current is supplied from the battery pack 304/904 to the system load 910 by controlling a discharging switch 432 of the battery pack 304/904. The elements labeled the same as in Fig. 4 have similar functions as those in Fig. 9, see ¶ [83]).
With respect to dependent claims 4 and 12, Wang teaches the invention as discussed above in claims 3 and 10, respectively. Further, Wang teaches turn off the charging switch when charging protection conditions are satisfied (¶ [69]; battery charging is terminated by switching off the charging switch 430 when any undesirable condition (e.g., over-voltage, over-current, and over-temperature) has occurred).
However, Wang fails to explicitly teach turn off the discharge switch when discharge protection conditions are satisfied.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Wang’s battery protection logic to include battery discharge protection logic, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to be aware that known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to dependent claims 6 and 14, Wang teaches the invention as discussed above in claims 3 and 10, respectively. Further, Wang teaches wherein the controller is configured to reduce a charging current by controlling the charging switch when the charging current exceeds a target charging current (Fig. 7; the charging current is reduced when a target charging current is exceeded in steps 706-728. One of ordinary skill understands the charging switch is controlled by the controller to reduce the charging current).
However, Wang fails to explicitly teach reduce the discharge current by controlling the discharge switch when the discharge current exceeds a target discharge current.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Wang’s battery protection logic to include battery discharge logic, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to be aware that known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to dependent claims 7 and 15, Wang teaches the invention as discussed above in claims 6 and 14, respectively. Further, Wang teaches wherein the controller is configured to turn on the charging switch to increase the charging current when the charging current is less than the target charging current (Fig. 7; the charging current is increased in step 710 from CCn wherein n=n+1 to a maximum n=max in step 716 when the charging current is less than maximum target at step 706. One of ordinary skill understands the charging switch is controlled by the controller to increase the charging current).
However, Wang fails to explicitly teach turn on the discharge switch to increase the discharge current when the discharge current is less than the target discharge current.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Wang’s battery protection logic to include battery discharge logic, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to be aware that known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to dependent claims 8 and 16, Wang teaches the invention as discussed above in claims 3 and 10, respectively. Further, Wang teaches wherein the controller is configured to reduce the charging current by controlling the charging switch so that the voltage of the battery cell remains at a target voltage when the voltage of the battery cell reaches the target voltage (Figs. 5-7; a constant voltage charging stage is reached when the average cell voltage > preset voltage V2. One of ordinary skill understands the charging switch is controlled to reduce the charging current so that the battery cell remains at the preset voltage V2).
With respect to dependent claim 18, Wang teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 10. Further, Wang teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising computer-readable instructions to cause a computer to perform the method (¶ [38]; the command converter 426 can be implemented by a processor. ¶ [87]; the battery controller 920 operates similar way to the steps described in relation to Fig. 5-Fig. 7 and inherently the command converter 426. One of ordinary skill understands for a processor to perform instructions it would need a memory comprising the computer-readable instructions).
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang and Yoshida, and further in view of Tikhonski et al. (USPGPN 20200350779).
With respect to dependent claims 2 and 11, Wang teaches the invention as discussed above in claims 1 and 10, respectively. Further, Wang teaches wherein the controller is configured to turn off the charging switch when the charging of the battery cell is completed (Fig. 5; steps 528-530 charging is terminated when the battery cells are fully charged. ¶ [41]; charging is terminated when the charging switch 430 is switched off).
However, Wang fails to explicitly teach turn on the charging switch when the voltage of the load is less than the voltage of the battery cell after the charging of the battery cell is completed.
Tikhonski teaches turn on the charging switch when a voltage of the load is less than a voltage of the battery cell after the charging of the battery cell is completed (¶ [46-52, esp. 46 and 51]; “... the system 300 is configured so that the battery 308 provides power to the load 305 when the voltage from the PSU 301 feeding the distribution bus 304 decreases below a threshold level (e.g., below an allowable lower limit of a specified load voltage tolerance range) ...” and “... the FETs 310 and 311 in the “ON” state and the battery 308 sharing load current with the PSU 301 will continue until the low energy threshold of the energy storage element(s) in the PSU 301 is reached, at which time the PSU 301 will cease operation or switch off. At switch-off of the PSU 301, the battery 308 will take over powering the load 305.” One of ordinary skill understands this battery operation of power switching from the PSU 301 to the battery 308 would be in a state wherein the battery 308 is fully charged).
Wang discloses the claimed invention except for turning on the charging switch when a voltage of the load is less than a voltage of the battery cell after the charging of the battery cell is completed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Wang’s battery pack by including Tikhonski’s PSU to battery logic for supplying power to the load, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to employ/use a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, products) in the same way is obvious.
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang and Yoshida, and further in view of Moon et al. (USPGPN 20200153055).
With respect to dependent claims 5 and 13, Wang teaches the invention as discussed above in claims 4 and 12, respectively.
First, the examiner notes at least one charging switch and at least one discharge switch refers to “at least one charging switch 385” and “at least one discharge switch 380” as illustrated in Fig. 3 of the disclosure. For examination purposes the at least one charging switch and the at least one discharge switch will be interpreted as additional charging and discharge switches in series.
However, Wang fails to explicitly teach wherein the controller further comprises at least one charging switch and at least one discharge switch, and is configured to turn off the at least one charging switch when the charging protection conditions are satisfied, and turn off the at least one discharge switch when the discharge protection conditions are satisfied.
Moon teaches wherein the controller further comprises at least one charging switch and at least one discharge switch, and is configured to turn off the at least one charging switch when the charging protection conditions are satisfied, and turn off the at least one discharge switch when the discharge protection conditions are satisfied (Fig. 4; a first protection circuit 411 and a second protection circuit 412. ¶ [52-53, 56, and 65]; one of ordinary skill understands the first protection circuit 411 and the second protection circuit are turned off when a charging or discharging protection condition is met. The protection circuit module 340 is the protection circuit 302 which includes the first protection circuit 411 and the second protection circuit 412).
Wang discloses the claimed invention except for the additional charging and discharge switches. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Wang’s battery pack by adding Moon’s additional protection switches and logic, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to be aware that known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kristjansson et al. (USPGPN 20200395765), in view of Wang et al. (USPGPN 20110006731), and further in view of Yoshida (UPSPGN 20150008885).
With respect to independent claim 19, Kristjansson teaches an electronic device comprising a first printed circuit board (PCB) comprising a charging connector (Fig. 1; an electronic device 100 comprising a device section 150 comprising a charging node 102. One of ordinary skill understands device section 150 comprises a printed circuit board).
Kristjansson teaches a charging circuit connected to the charging connector (Fig. 1; a charge circuit 115 connected to the charging node 102).
Kristjansson teaches a first load connected to the charging circuit through a wiring line (Fig. 1; a load 110 connected to the charge circuit 115 through a wiring line).
Kristjansson teaches a first battery pack (Fig. 1; a battery pack 104).
Kristjansson teaches the first battery pack comprises a first battery cell (Fig. 1; the battery pack 104 comprises a battery cell 103).
However, Kristjansson fails to explicitly teach a first controller configured to be connected to the wiring line to control charging and discharge of the first battery cell, using a first charging switch and a first discharge switch, wherein the first controller is configured to identify a voltage of the first load, a voltage of the first battery cell, and a reference voltage, and adjust a charging current supplied to the first battery cell by controlling the first charging switch to prevent a voltage of the first load from being less than a reference voltage when a voltage of the first battery cell is less than a threshold value while power is being supplied to the first load and the first battery pack through the charging circuit, wherein the reference voltage is a lowest voltage to be supplied to the first load.
Wang teaches a first controller configured to be connected to the wiring line to control charging and discharge of the battery cell, using a first charging switch and a first discharge switch (Fig. 9; a battery controller 920 configured to be connected to the wiring line to control charging of the battery cells 310 using a charging switch 430. ¶ [41]; one of ordinary skill understands a discharge current is supplied from the battery pack 304/904 to the system load 910 by controlling a discharging switch 432 of the battery pack 304/904. The elements labeled the same as in Fig. 4 have similar functions as those in Fig. 9, see ¶ [83]).
Wang teaches wherein the first controller is configured to identify a voltage of the first load, a voltage of the first battery cell and a reference voltage (Fig. 9; controller 920 identifies a voltage of load 910, voltages of the battery cells 310, and a plurality of reference voltages).
Wang teaches wherein the first controller is configured to adjust a charging current supplied to the first battery cell by controlling the first charging switch to prevent the voltage of the first load from being less than a voltage of the first battery cell while power is being supplied to the first load and the first battery pack through the charging circuit (Fig. 9; ¶ [87-88]; one of ordinary skill understands while power is being delivered to both the battery pack 904 and the load 910, if the battery cell voltage is at or below the reference level, the controller uses the charging switch 430 to reduce the charging current so the load voltage stays at or above the reference voltage).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Kristjansson’s electronic device by adding Wang’s battery and load charging current logic, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to be aware that known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
However, Kristjansson fails to explicitly teach prevent the voltage of the first load from being less than the reference voltage when a voltage of the first battery cell less than a threshold value, wherein the reference voltage is a lowest voltage to be supplied to the first load.
Yoshida teaches prevent the voltage of the first load from being less than the reference voltage when a voltage of the first battery cell less than a threshold value, wherein the reference voltage is a lowest voltage to be supplied to the first load (¶[10]; “...wherein the battery control unit specifies a minimum voltage unit in which the voltage is lowest, on the basis of the voltages measured by the measurement unit, when the discharge of the battery unit is performed, and outputs a first signal for reducing a discharge current in the discharge before the minimum voltage unit is over-discharged...”).
The controller acts as a safety barrier to prevent over-discharge damage to the battery while ensuring the load does not experience sudden voltage drops. As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill the art to have adapted Yoshida’s voltage limit control to Wang’s battery pack. The benefit of this being preventing over-discharge and over-charge conditions from damaging the battery (see ¶[12] of Yoshida).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kristjansson, Wang, and Yoshida, and further in view of Kim et al. (USPGPN 20200036198).
With respect to dependent claim 20, Kristjansson teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 19. Further, Kristjansson teaches a second PCB comprising a second load (Fig. 1; a device section 152 comprising a load 111. One of ordinary skill understands the device section 152 comprises a printed circuit board).
Kristjansson teaches a flexible device configured to connect the first PCB to the second PCB (Fig. 1; the wires running through the central hinged portion 112 connect device sections 150 and 152. Device sections 150/152 are known by one of ordinary skill to be printed circuit boards).
Kristjansson teaches a second battery pack comprising a second controller and a second battery cell connected to the second controller, wherein the wiring line is connected to the second load and the second controller through the flexible device (Fig. 1; a second battery pack 106 comprising a battery monitor 114, wherein the wiring line is connected to the load 111 and the battery monitor 114 through the central hinged portion 112. The second battery pack 106 comprises battery cells 105 and 107).
However, Kristjansson fails to explicitly teach a flexible printed circuit board (FPCB).
Kim teaches a flexible printed circuit board (FPCB) (Fig. 4; flexible PCB 430).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Kristjansson’s electronic device by adding Kim’s flexible printed circuit board, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to be aware that known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Song et al. (USPGPN 20200335835) teaches a battery pack and charging method that try to reduce battery swelling during charging. The pack includes one or more battery cells, a battery management unit, a switch unit, and a cell balancing device.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Frank A Silva whose telephone number is (703)756-1698. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 09:30 am -06:30 pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Drew Dunn can be reached at 571-272-2312. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/FRANK ALEXIS SILVA/Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/DREW A DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights