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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1- 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (ie an Abstract Idea) without significantly more. The claims do not include an invention concept sufficient to transform the idea into a Patent-Eligible Application.
Step 2A: Prong One – Judicial Exception
Invention merely determines SOC, and claims as a whole are directed toward the abstract idea of determining SOC of a battery module relative to a total capacity of the battery module according to level of charge and adjusted rated capacity, which falls under the category of a mathematical concept. The claims recite a judicial exception, namely a mathematical concept including mathematical relationships and calculations.
Claim 1 recites operations including:
determining an adjusted rated capacity
determining a State of Charge of (SOC) according to the level of charge and adjusted rated capacity.
These limitations involve collecting battery data and performing mathematical evaluations and recalculations. These operations involve mathematical calculations and relationships. Thus, these claims fall in the category of Mathematical Concepts of Abstract Ideas.
Step 2A: Prong Two – Practical Application
The additional elements of the battery module, portable electronic device, and first and second batteries only provide the technological environment and do not improve the technology by controlling operations of the battery module based on the determined SOC. The additional elements are conventional in the art as evidenced by the cited art in the art rejection, which does not integrate the Abstract Idea into a Practical Application.
Step 2B: Inventive Concept
The claims are directed to electrical components such as a processor, batteries, battery gauge circuits, and a portable electronic device. These components are well-understood routine and conventional in the field of portable electronics and battery management systems. The claims merely implement the Abstract Idea of Mathematical Calculations using generic computer and battery components performing their routine functions.
Accordingly, the claims 1-20 do not include significantly more than the Abstract Idea.
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, 4, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 20200313446)(‘446) in view of Park (US 20200227925)(‘925) and in further view of Ho (US 20230327466).
Regarding claim 1, Park (‘446) teaches a portable electronic device (figures 1, 3, and 4A item 100 an electronic device),
comprising: a battery module, comprising a first battery (figure 4A item 121 a first battery) and a second battery (figure 4B item 122 a second battery); and
a processor, coupled to the battery module and configured to perform operations (Figure 1 item 1020 a processor)
determining a State of Charge (SoC) (defined in paragraph [0057] and [0059] wherein a state of charge, interpreted as capacity and battery capacity measurement).
Park (‘446) does not explicitly teach a first battery having a first rated capacity a second battery having second rated capacity.
Park (‘925) teaches wherein a first battery having a first rated capacity a second battery having second rated capacity (paragraph [0038] teaches wherein a first and second battery pack has a rated or design capacity).
Park (‘446) and Park (‘925) does not explicitly teach comprising: determining an adjusted rated capacity according to at least one of property data of the first battery, property data of the second battery and a system requirement, wherein the adjusted rated capacity is smaller than a summation of the first rated capacity and the second rated capacity and determining a State of Charge (SoC) which indicates a level of charge of the battery module relative to a total capacity of the battery module according to the level of charge of the battery module and the adjusted rated capacity.
Ho teaches determining an adjusted rated capacity according to at least one of property data of the first battery, property data of the second battery and a system requirement wherein the adjusted rated capacity is smaller than a summation of the first rated capacity and the second rated capacity (paragraph [0031] teaches wherein an adjusted rated capacity is determined, wherein the state of health is determined which includes the maximum current capacity of the battery compared to its original capacity),
and determining a State of Charge (SoC) which indicates a level of charge of the battery module relative to a total capacity of the battery module according to the level of charge of the battery module and the adjusted rated capacity (paragraph [0031] teaches wherein the state of charge of the battery is determined as a measurement that represents remaining capacity as a percentage of rated or usable capacity. The state of charge is determined as the ratio of the available capacity and charge level or the maximum possible charge that can be stored in the battery).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the charging system of the Park (‘446) and Park (‘925) references with the charging system of the Ho reference so that the battery is regularly calibrated to keep the estimates of various properties accurate.
The suggestion/motivation for combination can be found in the Ho reference in paragraph [0030] wherein a battery is regularly calibrated.
PNG
media_image1.png
611
628
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Park (‘446) Figure 4A shows a device with a first battery and a second battery
PNG
media_image2.png
494
436
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Park (‘925) figure 1 shows an electronic device with a first and second battery with rated capacities
PNG
media_image2.png
494
436
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Park (‘446) teaches the portable electronic device of claim 1, further comprising: a first battery gauge circuit, coupled to the first battery and configured to measure a level of charge of the first battery; and a second battery gauge circuit, coupled to the second battery and configured to measure a level of charge of the second battery, wherein the level of charge of the battery module is a summation of the level of charge of the first battery and the level of charge of the second battery (figure 2 shows a power gauge 1130 which includes a first battery gauge item 136a and a second battery gauge item 136b (shown in figure 4a). paragraph [0057] teaches wherein the power gauge measures the charge level of the battery).
Regarding claim 11, Park (‘446) teaches the portable electronic device of claim 4, wherein the first battery gauge circuit is comprised in a first chip and the second battery gauge circuit is comprised in a second chip, and the processor is comprised in either the first chip or the second chip (paragraph [0044] teaches wherein components of the mobile device and battery system may be implemented as a chip or multiple chips. Paragraph [0058] discloses wherein the functions of the battery gauge, interpreted as power gauge 1130 with fuel gauges 136a-b, may be performed by a processor 1020).
Regarding claim 12, Park (‘446) teaches a method for determining a State of Charge (SoC) of a battery module comprised in a portable electronic device (figures 1, 3, and 4A item 100 an electronic device. Defined in paragraph [0057] and [0059] wherein a state of charge, interpreted as capacity and battery capacity measurement),
wherein the battery module comprises a first battery (figure 4A item 121 a first battery) and a second battery (figure 4B item 122 a second battery), and
determining a State of Charge (SoC) (defined in paragraph [0057] and [0059] wherein a state of charge, interpreted as capacity and battery capacity measurement).
Park (‘446) does not explicitly teach a first battery having a first rated capacity a second battery having second rated capacity.
Park (‘925) teaches wherein a first battery having a first rated capacity a second battery having second rated capacity (paragraph [0038] teaches wherein a first and second battery pack has a rated or design capacity).
Park (‘446) and Park (‘925) does not explicitly teach comprising: determining an adjusted rated capacity according to at least one of property data of the first battery, property data of the second battery and a system requirement, wherein the adjusted rated capacity is smaller than a summation of the first rated capacity and the second rated capacity and determining a State of Charge (SoC) which indicates a level of charge of the battery module relative to a total capacity of the battery module according to the level of charge of the battery module and the adjusted rated capacity.
Ho teaches determining an adjusted rated capacity according to at least one of property data of the first battery, property data of the second battery and a system requirement wherein the adjusted rated capacity is smaller than a summation of the first rated capacity and the second rated capacity (paragraph [0031] teaches wherein an adjusted rated capacity is determined, wherein the state of health is determined which includes the maximum current capacity of the battery compared to its original capacity),
and determining a State of Charge (SoC) which indicates a level of charge of the battery module relative to a total capacity of the battery module according to the level of charge of the battery module and the adjusted rated capacity (paragraph [0031] teaches wherein the state of charge of the battery is determined as a measurement that represents remaining capacity as a percentage of rated or usable capacity. The state of charge is determined as the ratio of the available capacity and charge level or the maximum possible charge that can be stored in the battery).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the charging system of the Park (‘446) and Park (‘925) references with the charging system of the Ho reference so that the battery is regularly calibrated to keep the estimates of various properties accurate.
The suggestion/motivation for combination can be found in the Ho reference in paragraph [0030] wherein a battery is regularly calibrated.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, 5-10 and 13 – 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Regarding claim 2, the prior art fails to teach or suggest determining residual battery capacities corresponding to a power-off condition under a predetermined discharging current for each of multiple batteries in a battery module. Specifically, claim 2 requires determining a first residual battery capacity of a first battery and a second residual battery when a power-off condition is met under a predetermined discharging current and determining an adjusted rated capacity with respect to the predetermined discharging current according to the first rated capacity, the second rated capacity, the first residual capacity and the second residual capacity. The prior art does not disclose or suggest determining an adjusted rated capacity for a multi-battery module based on residual capacities corresponding to a power-off condition under a predetermined discharge current.
Regarding claims 3 and 5 – 10, the claims are dependent upon 2 and recite additional limitations not taught or suggested by the prior art. For example, claim 3 specifies determining the adjusted rated capacity by subtracting a summation of the residual battery capacities of the batteries. Claims 5 – 8, further recite determining the adjusted rated capacity under different discharging currents and updating the adjusted rated capacity based on changes in service life or temperature of the battery module. Claims 9 and 10 further recite determining residual battery capacity based on a no-load voltage that triggers a power-off condition.
Regarding claim 13, the prior art does not teach or suggest the method which included limitations directed to determining adjusted rated capacity based on residual battery capacities determined at a power-off condition under a predetermined discharging current.
Regarding claims 14 – 20, recite corresponding method limitations similar to claims 3 and 5 – 10, thus the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest these limitations.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20200036048 A1 Dual Battery System For Cell Phone Adams, Jr.; Michael Donnell
US 20210135475 A1 Battery Management System Bharathraj; Sagar Et Al.
US 20210167611 A1 Asymmetric Dual Battery System Baby; Anil Et Al.
US 20220407344 A1 Power Charging System Cha; Jaedeok Et Al.
US 9002413 B2 Battery Cell Phone Combination Furtney; Terrence Michael
US 20200266499 A1 Controlling Plurality Of Ha; Youngmi Et Al.
US 20220337073 A1 Managing Plural Batteries Ha; Youngmi Et Al.
US 5610496 A Dual Battery Control System Hofbauer; Thomas Et Al.
US 5606242 A Smart Battery Algorithm Hull; Matthew P. Et Al.
US 20240288503 A1 Correction Device Imanaka; Yuki Et Al.
US 20020101218 A1 Battery Pack Having Memory Koenck, Steven E. Et Al.
US 20170005489 A1 Method For Controlling Multiple Batteries Kwon; Choel-Hwi
US 20180219986 A1 Wirelessly Receiving Power Lee; Kyung-Jin Et Al.
US 20220388417 A1 Method For Battery Management Lee; Sangki Et Al.
US 20200244075 A1 Battery Control Apparatus Park; Mi-So Et Al.
US 20210175729 A1 Battery Management Systems And Methods Rea; David Et Al.
US 20160066278 A1 Battery Consumption Monitoring Zhao; Qiujun Et Al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXIS B PACHECO whose telephone number is (571)272-5979. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 - 5:30.
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.
ALEXIS BOATENG PACHECO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2859
/ALEXIS B PACHECO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859