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 03/18/2026 claims 1-20 are pending. Independent claims 1, 7, and 15 are amended for language clarification and include new limitations not previously presented.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed 03/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues in pages 7-10 of the Remarks dated 03/18/2026 that Schiff, Howard, and/or Swamy fail to teach the newly presented limitation “the regulation voltage corresponds to the output voltage of the charger”. Further, the applicant states that the examiner cites Howard in page 6 of the Office Action dated 12/18/2025 since Schiff does not teach or suggest “setting a regulation voltage until the battery module is maximally charged”. However, the applicant counters by citing ¶[33] and ¶[54] of Howard to suggest that Howard is directed exclusively towards adjustments of a current limit based on SOC and other parameters. The applicant argues that these adjustments are “not based on regulating an output voltage to a defined voltage level”.
Therefore, the applicant concludes that Howard fails to teach or suggest “the battery module is configured to receive electrical power from the power stage second side to charge the battery module at a regulation voltage corresponding to an output voltage of the charger, and the charger controller is configured to set the regulation voltage based on an amount of power received from the power adapter and the state of charge such that the output voltage of the charger is regulated to the regulation voltage, and as recited in amended claim 1.” However, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The applicant’s arguments in page 10 of the Remarks dated 03/18/2026 are directed towards a suggestion that Howard’s scope is exclusively towards current limit adjustment and that these adjustments are not based on regulating an output voltage to a defined voltage level. However, as cited in pages 4-7 of the 12/18/2025 Office Action, it is the combination of Schiff and Howard that is relied upon to teach and/or suggest these limitations and not exclusively Howard’s alone.
Therefore, the combination of Schiff and Howard as cited below teaches “the battery module is configured to receive electrical power from the power stage second side to charge the battery module at a regulation voltage corresponding to an output voltage of the charger, and the charger controller is configured to set the regulation voltage based on an amount of power received from the power adapter and the state of charge such that the output voltage of the charger is regulated to the regulation voltage”.
The remaining arguments are moot as the applicant’s arguments for the remaining claims were based on dependency of the independent claims.
The claim objection is withdrawn, however, a new claim objection is made below due to the amendments made by the applicant.
This Office Action is made Final due to the amendments.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 4 replace “an” with --the-- so that it reads “the output voltage” to avoid a lack of antecedent basis issue. For examination purposes this will be interpreted as “the output voltage”, 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 1-4, 6-10, and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schiff et al. (USPGPN 20200227933) and further in view of Howard et al. (USPGPN 20140084856).
With respect to independent claims 1 and 7, Schiff teaches a semiconductor device and system (Figs. 2 and 4; a semiconductor device and system 200/400).
Schiff teaches a charger comprising a charger controller and a power stage, the power stage comprises a power stage first side and a power stage second side (Figs. 2 and 4; a charger comprising a controller 220 and a charger 204/404 (i.e., power stage) having a first side of transistors Q3/Q4 and a second side of transistors Q5/Q6).
Schiff teaches the power stage first side is configured to receive electrical power from a power adapter (Figs. 2 and 4; the first side (i.e., transistors Q3/Q4) configured to receive electrical power from an input port 202).
Schiff teaches the power stage second side is configured to provide electrical power to a load, the power stage second side is configured to connect to a battery module comprising one or more rechargeable battery cells (Figs. 2 and 4; the second side (i.e., transistors Q5/Q6) configured to provide electrical power to a load 210/410, the second side configured to connect to a battery 206/406 (see ¶[34] last two sentences)).
Schiff teaches the battery module is configured to receive electrical power from the power stage second side to charge the battery module at a regulation voltage corresponding to an output voltage of the charger (Figs. 2 and 4; the battery 206/406 receives electrical power from the second side of charger 404 (i.e., transistors Q5/Q6) to charge the battery at a regulation voltage (see ¶[67] last sentence) which at node 432 corresponds to an output voltage of the charger towards the load 410).
Schiff teaches the battery module is configured to provide supplemental power to the load based on the charger controller (Fig. 2; ¶[32-34]; battery 206 provides supplemental power to load 210 based on the controller 220).
Schiff teaches a battery monitor connected to the charger controller and the battery module (Fig. 2; monitor 240 connected to the controller 220 and the battery 206).
Schiff teaches the battery monitor is configured to determine a battery module state of charge (second sentence of ¶[97]; “based on the battery state of charge”. It is understood by one of ordinary skill the monitor determines a state of charge of the battery).
Schiff teaches wherein the charger controller is configured to set the regulation voltage based on an amount of power received from the power adapter and the state of charge such that the output voltage of the charger is regulated to the regulation voltage (¶[97]; the controller is configured to set Vsys_th based on power received by the system and the state of charge of the battery and therefore the output voltage at node 432 in Fig. 4 (e.g., the output voltage of the charger) is regulated to the regulated voltage (see ¶[67])).
Schiff teaches wherein the charger controller is configured to set the regulation voltage to a maximum regulation voltage threshold (¶[31 and 38]; the controller regulates the voltage to a maximum voltage level Vrmx).
However, Schiff fails to explicitly teach the state of charge comprising one of maximally charged, at least minimally charged, and less than minimally charged; and wherein the charger controller is configured to set the regulation voltage until the battery module is maximally charged.
Howard teaches state of charge comprising one of maximally charged, at least minimally charged, and less than minimally charged (Fig. 4; the state of charge comprises a high SOC, a threshold SOC, and a low SOC).
Howard teaches wherein the charger controller is configured to set the regulation voltage until the battery module is maximally charged (Fig. 4; the system controller is configured to set power control (i.e., regulate voltage) until the battery is fully charged. One of ordinary skill understands power control involves regulation of the voltage).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply Howard’s state of charge threshold charging management method to Schiff’s charging apparatus and system, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious. The advantage being that a user could lengthen the battery life by regulating the voltage with respect to the state of charge level of the battery.
With respect to dependent claims 2 and 8, Schiff teaches the invention as discussed above in claims 1 and 7, respectively. Further, Schiff teaches wherein the charger controller sets the regulation voltage to a minimum regulation voltage threshold (¶[31 and 38]; the controller regulates the voltage to a minimum voltage level Vrmn).
Schiff teaches the minimum regulation voltage threshold being a predetermined percentage of the maximum regulation voltage threshold (¶[38]; Vrmx and Vrmn are a range, thus one of ordinary skill understands Vrmn is a predetermined percentage of the Vrmx).
However, Schiff fails to explicitly teach sets the regulation voltage when the battery module is maximally charged, the minimum regulation voltage threshold being a predetermined percentage of the maximum regulation voltage threshold, the predetermined percentage ranging from between about 90% and about 98%.
Howard teaches sets the regulation voltage when the battery module is maximally charged (Fig. 9; in step 906 when the battery has reached a high SOC limit the power delivered is regulated (i.e., voltage regulation)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply Howard’s state of charge threshold charging management method to Schiff’s charging apparatus and system, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). The advantage being that a user could lengthen the battery life by regulating the voltage with respect to the state of charge level of the battery.
Schiff discloses the claimed invention except for predetermined percentage ranging from between about 90% and about 98%. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art determine the SOC percentage range to fall between 90% and 98%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to claim 3, Schiff teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 2. Further, Schiff teaches wherein the charger controller sets the regulation voltage to the maximum regulation voltage threshold (¶[31 and 38]; the controller regulates the voltage to a maximum voltage level Vrmx).
However, Schiff fails to explicitly teach regulate voltage when the battery module is less than minimally charged.
Howard teaches regulate voltage when the battery module is less than minimally charged (Fig. 8; current limits for power control (i.e, voltage regulation) are performed when the battery SOC is less than the low SOC).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply Howard’s state of charge threshold charging management method to Schiff’s charging apparatus and system, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious. The advantage being that a user could lengthen the battery life by regulating the voltage with respect to the state of charge level of the battery.
With respect to dependent claims 4 and 13, Schiff teaches the invention as discussed above in claims 1 and 7, respectively. Further, Schiff teaches comprising a switch element to connect the battery module with the power stage second side (Fig. 5; FET Q7 connects the battery 506 with the switches Q5/Q6 of the charger (i.e., the power stage second side)).
Schiff teaches the charger controller configured to enable the switch element to provide supplemental power from the battery module to the load in a charger reverse mode, the charger controller configured to disable the switch element to charge the battery module at the regulation voltage in a charger forward mode (¶[69-71]; FET Q7 is operable to decouple or couple the battery 506 in order to charge it or provide power to the load 510. One of ordinary skill understands these operations correspond to placing the system in a charger reverse mode or a charger forward mode).
With respect to dependent claims 6 and 12, Schiff teaches the invention as discussed above in claims 1 and 7, respectively. Further, Schiff teaches wherein the power stage comprises a buck-boost power stage, and wherein the charger comprises a buck-boost charger (Fig. 4; buck-boost charger 404. One of ordinary skill understands this is also the buck-boost power stage).
With respect to claim 9, Schiff teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 7. Further, Schiff teaches wherein the charger controller sets the regulation voltage to the maximum regulation voltage threshold (¶[31 and 38]; the controller regulates the voltage to a maximum voltage level Vrmx).
However, Schiff fails to explicitly teach regulate voltage when the battery module is minimally charged.
Howard teaches regulate voltage when the battery module is minimally charged (Fig. 8; current limits for power control (i.e, voltage regulation) are performed when the battery SOC is at the low SOC).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply Howard’s state of charge threshold charging management method to Schiff’s charging apparatus and system, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious. The advantage being that a user could lengthen the battery life by regulating the voltage with respect to the state of charge level of the battery.
With respect to claim 10, Schiff teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 7. Further, Schiff teaches wherein the one or more batteries of the battery module comprising at least one of Li-Ion batteries arranged in one of a series configuration, a parallel configuration, or a series-parallel configuration (¶[34]; the battery 206 is a lithium-ion battery pack and it is understood by one of ordinary skill the cells within may be in series, parallel, or a series-parallel configuration (see ¶[29]).
With respect to claim 14, Schiff teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 7. Further, Schiff teaches wherein the charger controller setting the regulation voltage to a minimum regulation voltage threshold (¶[31 and 38]; the controller regulates the voltage to a maximum voltage level Vrmx).
Schiff teaches reduces float charging the battery module (¶[38-39]; Vsys is regulated within the bounded range rather than held high and thus inherently reduces float charging the battery).
However, Schiff fails to explicitly teach regulate voltage when the battery module is maximally charged.
Howard teaches regulate voltage when the battery module is maximally charged (Fig. 9; in step 906 when the battery has reached a high SOC limit the power delivered is regulated (i.e., voltage regulation)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply Howard’s state of charge threshold charging management method to Schiff’s charging apparatus and system, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious. The advantage being that a user could lengthen the battery life by regulating the voltage with respect to the state of charge level of the battery.
With respect to independent claim 15, Schiff teaches a method for operating a charger (Figs. 2-6; a method for operating a charger).
Schiff teaches setting, by a charger controller of the charger, a maximum regulation voltage threshold corresponding to an output voltage of the charger and a minimum regulation voltage threshold corresponding to the output voltage of the charger (¶[31 and 38]; the controller regulates the voltage to a maximum voltage level Vrmx and a minimum voltage level Vrmn. This regulated voltage corresponds to the output voltage of the charger at node 432 as illustrated in Fig. 4).
Schiff teaches the minimum regulation voltage threshold being a predetermined percentage of the maximum regulation voltage threshold (¶[38]; Vrmx and Vrmn are a range, thus one of ordinary skill understands Vrmn is a predetermined percentage of the Vrmx).
Schiff teaches setting, by the charger controller, a charger regulation voltage to the maximum regulation voltage threshold such that the output voltage of the charger is regulated to the maximum regulation voltage threshold (¶[31 and 38]; the controller regulates the voltage to a maximum voltage level Vrmx. This regulated voltage corresponds to the output voltage of the charger at node 432 as illustrated in Fig. 4).
Schiff teaches determining, by a battery monitor, a state of charge of a battery module (Fig. 2; monitor 240; second sentence of ¶[97]; “based on the battery state of charge”. It is understood by one of ordinary skill the monitor determines a state of charge of the battery).
Schiff teaches operating the charger at the maximum regulation voltage threshold (¶[31 and 38]; the controller regulates the voltage of the charger to a maximum voltage level Vrmx).
However, Schiff fails to explicitly teach the predetermined percentage ranging from between about 90% and about 98%; and operating the charger at a regulated voltage until the battery module is maximally charged.
Schiff discloses the claimed invention except for predetermined percentage ranging from between about 90% and about 98%. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art determine the SOC percentage range to fall between 90% and 98%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
However, Schiff fails to explicitly teach operating the charger at a regulated voltage until the battery module is maximally charged.
Howard teaches operating the charger at a regulated voltage until the battery module is maximally charged (Fig. 9; in step 906 when the battery has reached a high SOC limit the power delivered is regulated (i.e., voltage regulation)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply Howard’s state of charge threshold charging management method to Schiff’s charging apparatus and system, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious. The advantage being that a user could lengthen the battery life by regulating the voltage with respect to the state of charge level of the battery.
With respect to claim 16, Schiff teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 15. Further, Schiff teaches wherein operating the charger at the maximum regulation voltage threshold further comprises:
charging, by the charger controller, the battery module at the maximum regulation voltage threshold and operating the charger as a power converter while maximally charging the battery module (Fig. 5; when the voltage is at Vrmx the battery is being charged at the maximum regulation voltage threshold and one of ordinary skill understands the charger is operating as a power converter).
With respect to claim 17, Schiff teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 15. Further, Schiff teaches setting, by the charger controller, the charger regulation voltage to the minimum regulation voltage threshold when the battery module is maximally charged (Fig. 5; when the voltage is at Vrmn the battery is being charged at the minimum regulation voltage threshold).
With respect to claim 18, Schiff teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 17. Further, Schiff teaches determining, by the battery monitor, the state of charge (SOC) of the battery module (Fig. 2; monitor 240; second sentence of ¶[97]; “based on the battery state of charge”. It is understood by one of ordinary skill the monitor determines a state of charge of the battery).
Schiff teaches operating the charger at the minimum regulation voltage threshold when the battery module is at least minimally charged (¶[38-39]; the charger regulates the system voltage within Vrmn-Vrmx independent of battery state of charge and thus therefore it is understood that the charger at the minimum regulation voltage threshold when the battery module is at least minimally charged).
With respect to claim 19, Schiff teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 18. Further, Schiff teaches wherein operating the charger at the minimum regulation voltage threshold further comprises: charging, by the charger, the battery module at the minimum regulation voltage threshold and operating the charger as a power converter while minimally charging the battery module (Fig. 5; when the voltage is at Vrmn the battery is being charged at the minimum regulation voltage threshold and one of ordinary skill understands the charger is operating as a power converter).
With respect to claim 20, Schiff teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 19. Further, Schiff teaches setting, by the charger controller, the charger regulation voltage to the maximum regulation voltage threshold when the battery module is not at least minimally charged (¶[38-39]; the charger regulates the system voltage within Vrmn-Vrmx independent of battery state of charge and thus therefore it is understood that the charger regulation voltage to the maximum regulation voltage threshold when the battery module is not at least minimally charged).
Claims 5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schiff et al. (USPGPN 20200227933), in view of Howard et al. (USPGPN 20140084856), and further in view of Swamy et al. (USPGPN 20240405592).
With respect to dependent claims 5 and 11, Schiff teaches the invention as discussed above in claims 1 and 7, respectively. Further, Schiff teaches wherein the charger controller further comprises a loop control module configured to set the regulation voltage (Fig. 2; ¶[31]; it is understood by one of ordinary skill that the controller 220 comprises a loop control module which would be configured to regulate the voltage).
However, Schiff fails to explicitly teach a pulse width modulator control module configured to control at least one pulse width modulator signal connected to the power stage and configured to drive the power stage when enabled.
Swamy teaches a pulse width modulator control module configured to control at least one pulse width modulator signal connected to the power stage and configured to drive the power stage when enabled (Fig. 3; PWM control module within the master controller to send PWM signals to achieve charging of the battery using the DC-DC converter).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply Swamy’s PWM control method of the charger to Schiff’s charging apparatus and system, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious. The advantage being that PWM signals used to control a charger offer high efficiency and precise voltage/current control therefore improving battery life.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wigney (USPGPN 20210135473) teaches a battery comprising a voltage regulation device adapted to provide at least a regulated output voltage.
Horovitz et al. (USPN 7535195) teaches circuitry for powering a load and charging of a battery from a power source by a smart power supply is provided. The smart power supply controls the maximum current for battery charging based in part upon variables such as the maximum rate of charge of the battery and maximum source current. The smart power supply is thus capable of providing the power requested by the load, and use the remaining power for battery charging.
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 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