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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments/amendments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection. Objections are withdrawn due to the amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, 13, 15, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vansickle et al (USPGPN 20150100108; hereinafter Vans)
Independent Claim 13, Vans discloses a method (Figs. 7A-9) of selecting a power source in a hybrid battery (battery 14r/14p, system of Figs. [5-6B]), comprising:
determining a usage of a device electrically coupled to the hybrid battery (300 of Fig. 9, operations of Figs. 7A-8B)
comprising a first power source and a second power source (14r, 14p);
determining power requirements of the device (whether the device is receiving power or not is determining power is required or not);
determining an available power capacity of the first power source is greater than a reserve threshold (Fig. 7A, 212[No]-> s214[No]-> 216->210, which has the rechargeable battery power source 14r being used when greater than reserve threshold Vbr-, in light of ¶’s [44-46]);
selectively coupling the first power source and the second power source to the device based on the power requirements and the available power capacity of the first power source is greater than the reserve threshold (Fig. 7A, 212[No]-> s214[No]-> 216->210, power being provided means it is based on power requirements of the load[s]);
determining an updated available power capacity of the first power source is below the reserve threshold (the loop means this updating occurs, it would be [Y] for 212); and
uncoupling the first power source from the device based on the updated available power capacity of the first power source is below the reserve threshold while the first power source is characterized by a usable remaining available power capacity (220[Y]->222 means the first power source has been uncoupled and second power source is provided).
Dependent Claim 15, Vans discloses selectively coupling the first power source and the second power source is based on the power requirements of the device exceeding a power discharge availability of the first power source (being at or below the threshold means the power required to continue providing power would [eventually] become a level exceeding the power discharge availability of the first power source, thus the determination is based upon it).
Dependent Claim 21, Vans discloses the hybrid battery comprises a first output device (114p) and a second output device (114r), and the method further comprises determining the device is electrically coupled to the hybrid battery via the first output device (Fig. 7A, knowledge of switching state of 114r/114p would result in knowledge of the load being connected to which switch/output-device),
where determining the available power capacity of the first power source is based on determining the device is electrically coupled to the hybrid battery via the first output device (switching between the states based on the availability shown by Figs. [7A, 7B]).
Independent Claim 1, Vans discloses a battery cartridge apparatus (110, battery 14r/14p, system of Figs. [5-6B], performing methods of Figs. 7A-9), comprising:
a first output device (114p);
a second output device (114r);
a first battery holder configured to hold a single-use battery (14p);
a second battery holder configured to hold a rechargeable battery (14r);
a microcontroller unit (38); and
a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions which, when executed by the microcontroller unit (39, in addition to inherent structure which permits methods of Figs. [7A-9]), causes the battery cartridge apparatus to:
determine whether a load is attached to the battery cartridge apparatus via the first output device or the second output device (Fig. 7A, knowledge of switching state of 114r/114p would result in knowledge of the load being connected to which switch/output-device);
determine whether the rechargeable battery has an available power capacity below a reserve threshold (Fig. 7A, 212[No]-> s214[No]-> 216->210, which has the rechargeable battery power source 14r being used when greater than reserve threshold Vbr-, in light of ¶’s [44-46]) in response to a determination that the load is attached via the first output device (loop of FIg. 7A);
and power the load using a power source selected from one of the single-use battery and the rechargeable battery based on whether the rechargeable battery has the available power capacity below the reserve threshold and the load is attached via the first output device (switching between the states based on the availability shown by Figs. [7A, 7B])
Dependent Claim 3, Vans discloses the reserve threshold comprises a value equal to or less than 15% of a rechargeable battery capacity (as the maximum voltage of the lithium battery is 4.2V and the minimum voltage is 2.0V, 2.2V reserve threshold would be ~9.
Dependent Claim 4, Vans discloses the instructions, when executed by the microcontroller unit, further cause the battery cartridge apparatus to periodically determine a second available power capacity of the power source (loop seen in Fig. 7A).
Dependent Claim 5, Vans discloses the instructions, when executed by the microcontroller unit, further cause the battery cartridge apparatus to: determine the second available power capacity of the rechargeable battery is below the reserve threshold: and power the load via the single-use battery based on the second available power capacity being below the reserve threshold and the rechargeable battery characterized by a remaining available battery capacity (loop then 212[Y]-> 220[Y]->222 means the first power source has been uncoupled and second power source is provided and based on the second available power capacity).
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.
Claims 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vansickle et al (USPGPN 20150100108; hereinafter Vans) in view of Meyer et al (USPGPN 20090154148)
Dependent Claim 2, Vans teaches instructions when executed by the microcontroller further causes the battery cartridge to (as explained above for Claim 1)
Vans is silent to the second output device comprises a universal serial bus output interface, and the instructions to:
determine a second load attached to the battery cartridge apparatus is attached via the universal serial bus output interface; and
power the second load based on an availability of power from the rechargeable battery and the second load is attached via the universal serial bus output interface.
Meyer teaches the second output device comprises a universal serial bus output interface (124; in addition to light source 106 i.e. first load/output-device; see at least Figs. [8, 9, 15, 25, esp. 8 & 9], ¶’s [62, 65, 195]), and the instructions to:
determine a second load attached to the battery cartridge apparatus is attached via the universal serial bus output interface (¶’s [64, 65] describes control deciding which load to power based on the power source availability); and
power the second load based on an availability of power from the rechargeable battery and the second load is attached via the universal serial bus output interface (naturally, if the power is not available, then power would no longer be provided, explicit control strategies present in Vans as described above)
One of ordinary skill in the art understands that by allowing for loads to receive power by a standardized USB power outlet, it serves to improve the ease for the user to power various loads/accessories such as described in ¶’s [71, 73], since USB ports are so commonly and widely used, it is easy for the user to find an applicable device.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vans with Meyer to provide improved ease.
Claims 6-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vansickle et al (USPGPN 20150100108; hereinafter Vans) in view of Chen et al (USPGPN 20090096399)
Dependent Claim 6, Vans teaches the instructions, when executed by the microcontroller unit cause the battery cartridge apparatus to: (as described above for Claim 1)
Vans is silent to monitor a first status of the load to determine whether the load has changed; and reevaluate the power source based on the first status
Chen teaches monitor a first status of the load to determine whether the load has changed; and reevaluate the power source based on the first status (Figs. 1 & 2,
¶[57] discusses changing load requirements, esp. voltage level, where run-through loop of Fig. 2 would involve the re-evaluation based on the changed load amount). ¶’s [29, 54, 56, 57] describes these steps cause improved effectiveness and stability for running loads off of low current sources such as batteries.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vans with Chen to provide improved effectiveness and stability.
Dependent Claim 7, Vans teaches the instructions, when executed by the microcontroller unit cause the battery cartridge apparatus to: (as described above for Claim 1)
Vans is silent to light emitting diodes, cause the apparatus to display a status of the first battery holder via the light emitting diodes.
Chen teaches light emitting diodes (111-114, see Fig. 1); and
where the instructions further cause the battery cartridge apparatus to display a status of the first battery holder via the light emitting diodes (¶[47]). One of ordinary skill in the art understands that by providing data via LEDs [light emitting diodes], it serves to improve the ease by which one of ordinary skill in the art views the data. If the implantable medical device of Vans was placed either partially exposed [e.g. a cochlear implanted hearing aid] or close to the skin, LEDs of Chen would still be visible, as one of ordinary skill in the art would understand.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vans with Chen to provide improved ease.
Dependent Claim 8, the combination of Vans and Chen teaches the status indicates an amount of remaining available power capacity of the single-use battery (Chen: “full or discharged” means either 100% or 0% remaining, as inherent to the description of ¶’s [47, 59])
Dependent Claim 9, the combination of Vans and Chen teaches the status indicates an amount of power draw on the single-use battery (Chen ¶[47], where discharging means the amount of power draw is greater than 0).
Dependent Claim 10, Vans teaches the instructions, when executed by the microcontroller unit cause the battery cartridge apparatus to: (as described above for Claim 1)
Vans is silent to light emitting diodes, cause the apparatus to display a status of the second battery holder via the light emitting diodes.
Chen teaches light emitting diodes (111-114, see Fig. 1); and
where the instructions further cause the battery cartridge apparatus to display a status of the second battery holder via the light emitting diodes (¶[47]). One of ordinary skill in the art understands that by providing data via LEDs [light emitting diodes], it serves to improve the ease by which one of ordinary skill in the art views the data. If the implantable medical device of Vans was placed either partially exposed [e.g. a cochlear implanted hearing aid] or close to the skin, LEDs of Chen would still be visible, as one of ordinary skill in the art would understand.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vans with Chen to provide improved ease.
Dependent Claim 11, the combination of Vans and Chen teaches the status indicates an amount of power remaining of the rechargeable battery (Chen: “full or discharged” means either 100% remaining or 0% remaining, as inherent to the description of ¶’s [47, 59]).
Dependent Claim 12, the combination of Vans and Chen teaches the status indicates an amount of power draw currently on the rechargeable battery (Chen: ¶[47], where discharging means the amount of power draw is greater than 0).
Claims 16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer et al (USPGPN 20090154148) in view of Vansickle et al (USPGPN 20150100108;
hereinafter Vans)
Independent Claim 16, Meyer teaches a lighting apparatus (Figs. [1-51, esp. 1A, 2A, 2B, 8-15, particularly 8-12]) comprising:
a light emitting device (106 in Figs. 8-12);
a housing coupled to the light emitting device and configured to accept a hybrid battery cartridge (see Fig. 11, cartridge held in 1102 ¶[93]); and
the hybrid battery cartridge (1000) removably coupled (¶’s [96, 110]) to the housing,
where the hybrid battery cartridge, comprises:
a charging contact configured to output power to a connected device (see contacts of Figs. [8, 9, 10A, 12]);
a first battery holder configured to hold a single-use battery (116, Figs. [10A, 10B]);
a second battery holder configured to hold a rechargeable battery (110, Figs. [10A, 10B]);
a controller unit (118, 810); and
a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions which, when executed by the controller unit (from the description of the controller 810 in ¶’s [64, 65], it would be clear and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that there would be some memory to house the controls for improved ease for users not having to manually enact the functions and reliable repeatability of the functions), causes the hybrid battery cartridge to:
determine a load attached to the hybrid battery cartridge (¶’s [64, 65] describes control deciding which load to power based on the power source availability);
determine the load is electrically coupled to the hybrid battery cartridge via the charging contact (¶’s [64, 65] describes control deciding which load to power based on the power source availability);
Meyer is silent to a microcontroller unit; and
in response to the determination that the load is electrically coupled to the hybrid battery cartridge via the charging contact, determine whether the rechargeable battery has an available power below a reserve threshold based on the load; and
power the load using a power source selected from one of the single-use battery and the rechargeable battery based on whether the rechargeable battery has the available power below the reserve threshold based on the determination that the load is electrically coupled to the hybrid battery cartridge via the charging contact.
Vans teaches a microcontroller unit (38 in Figs. 5-6B); and
in response to the determination that the load is electrically coupled to the hybrid battery cartridge via the charging contact, determine whether the rechargeable battery has an available power below a reserve threshold (Fig. 7A, 212[No]-> s214[No]-> 216->210, which has the rechargeable battery power source 14r being used when greater than reserve threshold Vbr-, in light of ¶’s [44-46]) based on the load (Fig. 7A, 212[No]-> s214[No]-> 216->210, power being provided means it is based on power requirements of the load[s]); and
power the load using a power source selected from one of the single-use battery and the rechargeable battery based on whether the rechargeable battery has the available power below the reserve threshold based on the determination that the load is electrically coupled to the hybrid battery cartridge via the charging contact (Fig. 7A has these choices based on the load being provided power from the batteries). Vans teaches these methods serve to improve the useful lifetime of the device the batteries are connected to (¶’s [18, 32])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Meyer with Vans to provide improved lifetime.
Vans further teaches a battery cartridge apparatus (110, battery 14r/14p, system of Figs. [5-6B], performing methods of Figs. 7A-9), comprising:
a first output device (114p);
a second output device (114r);
a first battery holder configured to hold a single-use battery (14p);
a second battery holder configured to hold a rechargeable battery (14r);
a microcontroller unit (38); and
a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions which, when executed by the microcontroller unit (39, in addition to inherent structure which permits methods of Figs. [7A-9])
Dependent Claim 18, the combination of Meyer and Vans teaches the hybrid battery cartridge further comprises a first electrical output comprising the charging contact and a second electrical output (Vans outputs 114r/p, Meyer outputs 124/106), and where the instructions, when executed by the microcontroller unit, further cause the hybrid battery cartridge to determine which electrical output of the first electrical output and the second electrical output the load is drawing from (switch selections of Fig. 7A would require knowledge of which output the load is drawing from in Vans, as one of ordinary skill in the art would understand).
Dependent Claim 19, the combination of Meyer and Vans teaches the instructions, when executed by the microcontroller unit, further cause the hybrid battery cartridge to determine a power draw of the load (Meyer ¶’s [64, 65], Vans Figs. [7A, 7B] means power is determined to have been drawn from the batteries to the load[s], thus the power draw has been determined [noted applicant did not claim power draw value]).
Dependent Claim 20, the combination of Meyer and Vans teaches the power source is selected based on the power draw of the load (Meyer ¶’s [64-66], Vans Fig. 7A, where provision of power from a power source is based upon the existence of a load on the circuit, i.e. based upon the power draw of a load).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer in view of Vans, further in view of Kim et al (USPGPN 20120249078)
Dependent Claim 17, the combination of Meyer and Vans teaches a reserve threshold (Vans: ¶’s [44-46] in light of Fig. 7A)
Meyer is silent to determine the reserve threshold based on a health status of the rechargeable battery.
Kim teaches determine the reserve threshold based on a health status of the rechargeable battery (Figs. 5 & 8; abstract and ¶’s [97, 98] describes that this method serves to extend the lifetime of the battery).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Meyer in view of Vans with Kim to provide improved battery life longevity.
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 JOHN T TRISCHLER whose telephone number is (571)270-0651. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30A-3:30P (often working later), M-F, ET, Flexible. 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 5712722312. 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.
/JOHN T TRISCHLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights