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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because line 1 includes some extraneous language that is not normally included in the abstract. In lines 1-2, it is recommended that “This utility patent application describes a novel hardware design for a portable DC power supply system. The system includes” be replaced with --A hardware design for a portable DC power supply system includes”--. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0001] should be deleted, since this paragraph is not directed to the background of the invention.
The heading “DETAILED DESCRIPTION”, on page 5 of the specification, can be replaced with --DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION-- and the headings “DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION” and “DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION”, on page 6 of the specification, can be removed.
Appropriate correction is required.
The use of the term MacBook Pro™, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application (see paragraphs [0004] in the background of the invention, paragraph [0006] under description, and paragraph [0001] under the description of the invention). The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
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 1-3 are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited.
Claims 1-3 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
The term “primary battery cell” in claim 1 (see lines 3 and 4) is used by the claim to mean a first battery cell, while the accepted meaning of a primary battery is “a single use non-rechargeable battery.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. It is suggested that the term “primary” be replaced with --first--.
The term “secondary battery cell” in claim 1 (see line 3) is used by the claim to mean a second battery cell, while the accepted meaning of a secondary battery is “a rechargeable battery.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. It is suggested that the term “secondary” be replaced with --second--.
Note that the terms “primary cell” and “secondary battery cell” are also used in the abstract.
The term “practically to null” in claim 1 (see line 7) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “practically to null” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what is required by the term “practically to null”. How much does the chance of a thermal runaway event have to be reduced to be considered “practically to null”? One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine the scope of this limitation, which renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the potentiometer" in line 9, and the limitation “the DC/DC Boost circuit” in lines 9-10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is suggested to replace “the” with --a--.
When a claim limitation is introduced for the first time, the term “a” or “an” should precede the limitation (for example, “a potentiometer” and “a DC/DC Boost circuit”. When the claim refers back to a previously recited limitation, the terms “the” or “said” should precede the limitation (for example, “the potentiometer” or “said potentiometer”).
Claim 1, recites the limitation “the battery” in line 12. It is unclear which battery is be referred to, or if both batteries are being referred to.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “an additional backup battery cell” (see lines 14-15). It is unclear if the additional backup battery cell is the same as the “secondary battery cell for backup”, recited in 3, or if this is an additional battery cell (for example, a third battery cell). Also, the limitations in limitation “g.”, lines 14-15, appear to be redundant to the limitation of “a secondary battery cell for backup”, as recited in limitation “a.”, lines 3-5. The specification and figure 4 show support for the circuit including a total of two battery cells. This inconsistency between the claim and the specification and drawings renders the scope of the claim indefinite.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite in that it fails to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language. This claim is an omnibus type claim (see the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) 2173.05(r)). Also, the language “The ornamental design” would be used in a design patent application, whereas the present application is a utility patent application.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the protected Li-ion cell battery" in 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “to almost zero” in claim 3 (see line 2) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “to almost zero” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what is required by the term “to almost zero”. How close to zero does the chance of a thermal runaway event have to be reduced to be considered “almost zero”? One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine the scope of this limitation, which renders the claim indefinite.
Note that due to lack of clarity in the claims, as noted in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections above, the examiner is unable to determine the scope of the claims for the purpose of applying prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103. Thus, the lack of a prior art rejection should not necessarily be interpreted as an indication of allowable subject matter. The examiner will need to re-evaluate the prior art after any amendments to the claims.
Please see the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) chapter 714 and 37 C.F.R. 1.121 for information regarding how to make amendments. The MPEP is available on the USPTO website.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Youn et al (US 7,859,133 B2) teaches a rechargeable portable power supply system including an AC/DC converter 510, LED display portion 410 for displaying a charge state using red and green colors, charge controller 520, a NiMH or NiCd battery 200 including two cells, DC/DC converter 530, current limit 540, second LED display portion 420 for displaying an operating status, and DC output 300 (see figure 3 and column 4, line 1 – column 5, line 46).
Carrier et al (US 7,508,171 B2) teaches a rechargeable battery pack including protection circuits for each battery cell 105 (see figure 2). The protection circuits can address fault conditions such as over-charge, over-discharge, over-current, over-temperature (see the abstract). Figure 3A also shows the battery pack 100 including a voltage monitoring circuit 115A, a current sensor 145 and a temperature sensor 120. The battery cells 105 may be lithium-ion. See column 6, line 14 – column 7, line 59.
Shoji (US 6,404,168 B1) teaches an auxiliary battery for portable devices, including AC and DC inputs for charging, power storage 2 including charge protection 22a, battery cells 21, discharge protection 22b, and power output 2 having terminals 32a and 32b. The battery cells are lithium-ion and provide a capacity of 3300 mAh. The protection circuit provides protection for over-charging, over-discharging and temperature. The output may provide multiple voltage levels, for example, 3V, 5V, 7.5V, 12V, 15V and 19V. An LED indicator 23b displays the remaining capacity of the battery in different levels. See Figures 1-3 and column 3, line 7 - column 5, line 7.
Horiba et al (US 5,537,390) teaches a device for detecting residual capacity of a secondary (rechargeable) battery. The device includes a main battery 7, an auxiliary battery 8, a switch 11 for connecting/disconnecting the main battery and auxiliary battery, an operating section 9 for determining residual capacity and an indicator 10 for indicating the residual capacity. See figure 2 and column 5, lines 7-18.
Fathollahi et al (US 9,647,474 B2) teaches a protective case including a battery to serve as a DC power supply, where the case attaches to the bottom of an existing device, see figures 1 and 2.
Please also see the additional references cited on the attached PTO-892, which are directed to portable power supply systems and/or indicators for displaying battery charge status.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jared Fureman whose telephone number is (571)272-2391. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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.
/JARED FUREMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859