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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/23/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is responsive to RCE filed on 2/23/2026.
Claims 1, 4, 11 and 20 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending and presented for examination.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Regarding rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112
Applicant Argues
Claims have been amended such that the rejections under 112(a) and 112(b) should be withdrawn.
Examiner Responds
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive in-part. The Applicant has made a genuine attempt to address all clarity issues identified in the previous office action. However, the amendments to the claims have not satisfied all issues related to clarity and ambiguity, and the rejection under 112(b) is maintained for the reasons discussed below.
Regarding rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant Argues
The cited prior art of Leung in view of Bizjak fails to teach or suggest the features of claim 1 as amended.
Examiner Responds
Applicant’s arguments are over amended features and have been fully considered but are moot, as claim 1 is not rejected as being unpatentable over Leung in view of Bizjak.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 14 recites that “the PWM signal includes a PWM frequency and PWM duty cycle.” However, “a PWM frequency” has already been introduced. Amending the claim to recite “the PWM signal includes [[a]] the PWM frequency and a PWM duty cycle” will overcome this objection.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Rejections under §112(a) and (b) were set forth in the previous Office action dated 12/16/2025. In response to the Office action, Applicant amended claims 1, 11 and 20 and on page 10 of the remarks dated 2/23/2026 notes “that paragraphs [0047]-[0058] describe a process of determining characteristics of a PWM signal, in particular, PWM frequency.”
MPEP 2173.03 states “[a] claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty.”
Claim 1 recites the processor is arranged to: detect the input voltage of the input power signal; and measure the output voltage of the boosted electrical power signal. However, this is unclear, as the limitation of “measure the output voltage of the boosted electrical power signal” in unclear in view of paragraph [0050] of the instant specification, as [0050] recites that the processor is arranged to determine the starting voltage of the battery as a boosted power signal has yet to be created ([0050] “The starting voltage of the battery is determined with PWM duty cycle set to 0% (no boost voltage created). Output voltage from adaptive charge controller 204 (Vout) which is the voltage of output capacitor 312 (C1 of FIG. 3), which is connected to battery cells(e.g., battery 208) is measured, PWM rate and frequency is determined from look-up table 400, using the highest index number for a voltage Vout range (e.g. for Vout measured at 7V, index row 12 would be selected.”). The ambiguity introduced above is further amplified in the subsequent limitation in which a first value of PWM frequency is determined based on the boosted electrical power signal and the input voltage of the input power signal, however no boost voltage has been created yet.
Claim 1 also recites to “control the PWM signal based on the first value of PWM frequency” and additionally recites to “set the first value of PWM frequency for the PWM signal based on determining that the output current does not match the value for the current stored in memory”. However, this is unclear as “control the PWM signal based on the first value of PWM frequency” and “set the first value of PWM frequency for the PWM signal” are interpreted as performing the same function (i.e., if the output current does not match the value for the current stored in memory, then the first value of PWM frequency for the PWM is signal is still set into the PWM signal).
Claim 1 also recites to “set a second value of PWM frequency for the PWM signal using the second value stored in memory”. However, this is unclear. If the set parameter of the PWM frequency (i.e., “a second value”) is different than “the second value” stored in memory, then “the second value stored in memory” lacks antecedent basis; or if the set parameter of the of the PWM frequency (i.e., “a second value”) is the same as “the second value stored in memory” then the claim appears to require to set the second PWM frequency using the second PWM frequency.
Dependent claims 2-10 are likewise rejected due to inheriting the deficiency of claim 1.
Independent claims 11 and 20 are rejected as per claim 1. Dependent claims 12-19 are likewise rejected due to inheriting the deficiency of claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-13, 15-16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEUNG (US20150091497A1) in view of SIESSEGGER (US20170093159A1) in view of GIULIANO (US20220131466A1) (hereinafter – “LEUNG-SIESSEGGER-GIULIANO”).
Regarding claim 1
Regarding claim 1, LEUNG teaches an adaptive charge controller (Abstract: “charger may be provided that includes logic […] to determine an operation mode”) comprising:
an input interface arranged to receive an input electrical power signal ([0012] Leung discloses an electronic device with a port to receive input power, and that the electronic device includes a charger. FIG. 3 below shows the electronic device (200) housing the charger (270), battery (30), other components (240) and the charger input interface arranged to receive input power (220));
PNG
media_image1.png
530
853
media_image1.png
Greyscale
an output interface arranged to output a boosted electrical power signal to a battery ([0013]: “charger may also (or alternatively) provide an output voltage to a battery […] battery may be charged by the voltage received from the charger”; [0024]: charger is a bi-direction USB buck-boost charger; [0025]: charger may operate in boost configuration to provide a voltage step up (or voltage increase));
a processor arranged to ([0036]: “charger may include logic, at least a portion of which is hardware, to perform operations”; [0038]: “logic may control power flow between the charge port and the battery port based on the determined operational mode”; [0114]: “computer-readable medium comprising one or more instructions that when executed on a processor to configure the processor to perform one or more operations to: determine a first operational mode of a charger based at least on a first characteristic at a battery port or a charge port, and control power flow path between the charge port and the battery port based on the determined first operational mode”);
monitor an input voltage of the input power signal ([0018]: “USB charger may have a limit, such as 5 volts and a source current up to 1.5 amp. On the other hand, a USB PD charger may have an extended voltage of 20 volts and current up to 5 amps. Other voltage and current values may also be provided”; [0066]: Leung discloses a configuration for a generic or specific USB charger (USB charger providing the input power signal) to charge a battery (battery within the electronic device) wherein “if the USB voltage Vusb is less than the battery voltage Vbatt, then boosting of the voltage may be needed.” [0018] discloses that the input voltage has a range, [0066] discloses a conditional Boolean statement that depends on the battery voltage and the input voltage, thereby teaching the monitoring of an input voltage of the input power signal);
monitor an output voltage and an output current of the boosted electrical power signal ([0048]: “controller 210 may control switches Q1, Q2, Q3 and Q4 based on the battery voltage Vbatt, the USB voltage Vusb, a type of device coupled to the charger port 220 and/or a desired direction of power flow”; [0055]: switches Q1, Q2, Q3, and Q4 operate according to FET methodology; [0056]: “control FET methodology is when pulse width modulation (PWM) may be controlled based on input/output voltage/current conditions.” [0048] the disclosure of “based on the battery voltage” and “desired direction of power flow” implicitly teach the monitoring of an output voltage and an output current, [0055] & [0056] explicitly teach the monitoring of an output voltage and an output current); and
adjust a pulse width modulated (PWM) signal based on the input voltage, the output voltage, and the output current ([0018] teaches that input power signal Vusb is variable; [0048] teaches the controller may control components, such as FET switches, based on input voltage, output voltage, and output current (direction of power flow); [0056] teaches that pulse width modulation is the control mechanism and is based on input voltage/current and output voltage/current),
wherein, when adjusting the PWM signal, the processor is arranged to:
detect the input voltage of the input power signal ([0066]: “If the USB voltage Vusb is less than the battery voltage Vbatt”, implicit to the conditional statement is a determination of the input voltage);
measure the output voltage of the boosted electrical power signal ([0066]: “If the USB voltage Vusb is less than the battery voltage Vbatt”, implicit to the conditional statement is a determination of the output (i.e., boosted) voltage); and
an electronic switch arranged to receive the PWM signal from the processor and adjust the boosted electrical power signal in response to the received PWM signal (FIG. 3 above shows an electronic switch arranged to receive the PWM signal, [0066] teaches the configuration in which a boosted electrical power signal is adjusted in response to the received PWM signal).
In summary, LEUNG teaches an adaptive charge controller comprising an input interface, an output interface, and a processor. LEUNG’s processor is configured to monitor an input voltage supplied through the input interface and an output voltage supplied to a battery through the output interface such that the charge controller is used to boost a voltage to charge a battery by operating a switch arranged to receive a PWM signal such that the output voltage from the controller to the battery is boosted. While LEUNG teaches that input and output voltages and currents are used to determine the specific switching methodology ([0056]), LEUNG is not relied on to teach the specifics of the data processing used to determine the methodology, such as to determine a first value of PWM frequency, control the PWM signal based on the first value of PWM frequency, and set a second value of PWM frequency upon determining that the output current meets a predetermined value.
However, SIESSEGGER in an analogous art teaches that the controller of a power converter receives inputs such as input voltage, output voltage, and output current such that two or more of the inputs may be used to determine the switching frequency used in operation by the power converter (Fig. 1 show lookup table connected to controller/processor [0017]). SIESSEGGER also teaches the controller of a power converter interrogates a look-up table to associate an optimal PWM/switching frequency for different combinations of input voltage and load conditions such as output voltage and output current([0018]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of SIESSEGGER to the teachings of LEUNG such that LEUNG’s charge controller would have determined a first value of a PWM/switching frequency using the look-up table of SIESSEGGER’s which associates an optimal switching frequency for different combinations of input and output voltages for the purpose of controlling the PWM signal based on the identified switching frequency in order to boost the voltage signal such that a battery could be charged (LEUNG, [0066]).
Thus, the LEUNG-SIESSEGGER combination is relied on to teach determining a first value of PWM frequency from values stored in a memory connected to the processor based on the output voltage of the boosted electrical power signal and the input voltage of the input power signal. LEUNG-SIESSEGGER are not relied on to determine a second value of PWM frequency when the output current matches a value stored in memory.
However, SIESSEGGER teaches “switching frequencies are identified that optimize between different factors for various values or ranges of values of output current (equivalently, output load), input voltage, and output voltage. The factors against which switching frequencies can be optimized include, for instance, efficient operation, avoidance of saturation, and the like” ([0019]). GIULIANO in an analogous art teaches that the switching frequency of a power converter is switched from a first frequency to a second frequency greater than the first frequency when the output current reaches a threshold (claim 33). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of GIULIANO to the teachings of LEUNG-SIESSEGGER such that the charger controller would have been configured to reference the look-up table to determine that the output current has reaches a saturation current threshold associated with the input voltage and output voltage and current/first switching frequency that a second switching frequency greater than the first switching frequency would be utilized to improve efficiency (SIESSEGGER, [0017]).
Regarding claim 2
LEUNG-SIESSEGGER-GIULIANO teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. LEUNG also teaches wherein the electronic switch includes a transistor ([0035]: circuits may include a plurality of transistors).
Regarding claim 3
LEUNG-SIESSEGGER-GIULIANO teaches the elements of claim 2 as outlined above. LEUNG also teaches wherein the transistor includes a MOSFET ([0035]: transistors may be metal-oxide-silicon field effect transistors (MOSFETs)).
Regarding claim 5
LEUNG-SIESSEGGER-GIULIANO teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. LEUNG also teaches wherein the battery includes a plurality of battery cells ([0023]: battery 30 may have a plurality of battery cells).
Regarding claim 6
LEUNG-SIESSEGGER-GIULIANO teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. SIESSEGGER also teaches the processor is arranged to adjust the PWM signal based on comparing the monitored input voltage, output voltage, and output current with input voltage, output voltage, and output current settings in the lookup table (Fig. 1, [0017]-[0018]).
Regarding claim 8
LEUNG-SIESSEGGER-GIULIANO teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. LEUNG also teaches wherein the input interface receives the input electrical power signal from an electrical charger ([0065] “In Mode 2, the power is to flow from a USB device (at the charge port 220) to the battery 30 (or the battery port)”; [0066]: “In Mode 2, a generic or a brand specific USB charger may be sourcing power to charge the battery 30”).
Regarding claim 9
LEUNG-SIESSEGGER-GIULIANO teaches the elements of claim 8 as outlined above. LEUNG also teaches wherein the electrical charger is a standards-based charger (see rejection to claim 8 where Leung discloses power is to flow from a USB, i.e., standards-based, charger).
Regarding claim 10
LEUNG-SIESSEGGER-GIULIANO teaches the elements of claim 10 as outlined above. LEUNG also teaches wherein the electrical charger includes at least one selected from the group of a USB 2.0, USB 3.0, USB 3.1, USB BC 1.2, USB Type C 1.2, and USB PD 3.0 charger ([0020]: “Arrangements and embodiments may utilize features of the USB 2.0 Specification (released in April 2000), the USB 3.0 Specification (released in November 2008), the USB 3.1 Specification (announced on Jul. 31, 2013) and/or the USB Power Delivery Specification 1.0 (issued Jul. 5, 2012)”).
Regarding claim 11
Claim 11 is a method claim corresponding to the apparatus claim of claim 1, wherein the limitations of claim 11 are substantially the same as claim 1 and are rejected as per claim 1.
Regarding claim 12
LEUNG-SIESSEGGER-GIULIANO teaches the elements of claim 11 as outlined above. The remaining limitations of claim 12 are substantially the same as claim 2 and are rejected as per claim 2.
Regarding claim 13
LEUNG-SIESSEGGER-GIULIANO teaches the elements of claim 12 as outlined above. The remaining limitations of claim 13 are substantially the same as claim 3 and are rejected as per claim 3.
Regarding claim 15
LEUNG-SIESSEGGER-GIULIANO teaches the elements of claim 11 as outlined above. The remaining limitations of claim 15 are substantially the same as claim 5 and are rejected as per claim 5.
Regarding claim 16
LEUNG-SIESSEGGER-GIULIANO teaches the elements of claim 11 as outlined above. The remaining limitations of claim 16 are substantially the same as claim 6 and are rejected as per claim 6.
Regarding claim 18
LEUNG-SIESSEGGER-GIULIANO teaches the elements of claim 11 as outlined above. The remaining limitations of claim 18 are substantially the same as claim 8 and are rejected as per claim 8.
Regarding claim 19
LEUNG-SIESSEGGER-GIULIANO teaches the elements of claim 18 as outlined above. The remaining limitations of claim 19 are substantially the same as claim 9 and are rejected as per claim 9.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEUNG-SIESSEGGER-GIULIANO in view of SATO (US20120001608A1).
Regarding claim 4
LEUNG-SIESSEGGER-GIULIANO teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. LEUNG-SIESSEGGER-GIULIANO is not relied on for wherein the PWM signal also includes a PWM duty cycle. However, SATO in an analogous art teaches that a boost converter is configured to boost an input voltage based on a duty cycle of a PWM controller ([0110]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teaching of SATO to the teachings of LEUNG-SIESSEGGER-GIULIANO such that when LEUNG-SIESSEGGER-GIULIANO’s adaptive charger controller is configured to operate in boost converter mode the PWM signal would also include a PWM duty cycle, as taught by Sato ([0110]).
Regarding claim 14
LEUNG-SIESSEGGER-GIULIANO teaches the elements of claim 11 as outlined above. The remaining limitations of claim 14 are substantially the same as claim 4 and are rejected as per claim 4.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over LEUNG-SIESSEGGER-GIULIANO in view of SLEPCHENKOV (US20210170885A1).
Regarding claim 7
LEUNG-SIESSEGGER-GIULIANO teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. LEUNG-SIESSEGGER-GIULIANO are not relied on for wherein the processor is further arranged to control operations of a motor. However, SLEPCHENKOV in an analogous art teaches that an adaptive charger “that intelligently integrates battery management, charging, and motor controls” ([0040]). SLEPCHENKOV is analogous art to the claimed invention because it is from the same field of battery management and charging utilizing a switch-mode power supply. LEUNG-SIESSEGGER-GIULIANO teaches a switch-mode battery charger. SLEPCHENKOV teaches a switch-mode battery charger wherein the battery charger is also configured to control a motor. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to improve the charger of LEUNG-SIESSEGGER-GIULIANO by configuring the processor to control a motor as taught by SLEPCHENKOV according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 17
LEUNG-SIESSEGGER-GIULIANO teaches the elements of claim 11 as outlined above. The remaining limitations of claim 17 are substantially the same as claim 7 and are rejected as per claim 7.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over LEUNG-SIESSEGGER-GIULIANO in view of QUI (US20120268063A1).
Regarding claim 20
The first limitation of claim 20 recites “a housing arranged to house a motor, a battery, a user interface, and an adaptive charger controller.” The claim then lists all the limitations that comprise the adaptive charge controller, and those limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 1, which LEUNG-SIESSEGGER-GIULIANO teaches, as outlined above. LEUNG-SIESSEGGER-GIULIANO is not relied on for a housing.
However, QUI teaches a device with a housing arranged to house a motor, battery, a user interface, and an adaptive controller (FIG. 1 & [0016]: charger-control unit 12 is housed within electronic device 14, electronic device 14 could be a portable electronic device such as a cell phone (cell phone comprises a user interface and a motor) or other hand-held electronic device; FIG. 1 below shows battery 22 housed within electronic device).
PNG
media_image2.png
573
875
media_image2.png
Greyscale
QUI is analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of adaptive charge controllers for electronic devices. LEUNG-SIESSEGGER-GIULIANO teaches all the elements of the adaptive charge controller, and QUI teaches putting that controller within a device. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the arts to combine QUI and LEUNG-SIESSEGGER-GIULIANO according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael V Farina whose telephone number is (571)272-4982. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8:00-6:00 EST.
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, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. 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.
/M.V.F./Examiner, Art Unit 2115
/KAMINI S SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2115
Prosecution Insights