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 Objections
Claims 4 and 9-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 states “the second threshold is one, effective to permit the battery to experience the zero-voltage condition one time.” On the surface, it seems like the battery is allowed to continue charging after the 1st occurrence, but not after a 2nd (taking claim 3 into account). However, it also appears that it could mean that after the 1st occurrence, the battery is shut off (taking the plain meaning of Claim 1 into account). For purposes of examination, either interpretation will apply here.
Claims 9-13, applicant claims “9. The method of any one of claim 5, further comprising:
subsequent to providing the return-merchandizing-authorization notification, shutting down the electronic device to prevent further use of the battery.”
(a) the term “the return-merchandizing-authorization notification” lacks antecedent basis in Claim 9 as it was introduced in claim 6, not claim 5. For purposes of examination, Claim 9 will be assumed to depend from Claim 6.
(b) for Claims 9-13, applicant should remove “any one” from the preamble.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the delay of Claims 10 and 14-20 (flowcharts lack the claimed delay, esp. in the way claimed in Claim 10) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains exemplary language which is contrary to the requirements of the abstract. Remove “in an aspect,”. 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).
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.
Claim 3 is 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.
In Claim 1, applicant claims “charging the battery when the integer counter is below the second threshold effective to permit the battery to experience at least one occurrence of the zero-voltage condition”. Which clearly limits the comparison to below the second threshold.
In Claim 3, dependent upon Claim 1, applicant claims “determining that the total number of occurrences of the zero-voltage condition for the battery is less than or equal to the second threshold”. The applicant has not set a result for this further comparison; however, it seems the applicant likely meant the same result as Claim 1. Namely, permitting charging of the battery. If so, then the applicant will have impermissibly broadened the scope of Claim 1 in Claim 3. To fix this potential issue, and if the applicant meant to make the change pointed out in the prior art rejection, then the examiner recommends the applicant swap the causes of Claim 1 and Claim 3.
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, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sultenfuss et al (USPGPN 20140068310; hereinafter Sult).
Independent Claim 1, Sult discloses a method for controlling charging events (Figs. 3-4B) of a battery (265 in Figs. 1 and 2), in an electronic device (200 in Figs. 1 and 2, ¶[15]), the method comprising:
measuring a battery voltage (¶[22]) of the battery in response to a detection of an electrical connection to an external power source for initiating a charging sequence (see Figs. 4A and 4B esp. s422, ¶[37]);
detecting a zero-voltage condition based on the battery voltage being below a first threshold voltage (424 of Fig. 4A);
incrementing an integer counter by one count in response to the detection of the zero-voltage condition (setting of a flag is equivalent to setting the count to 1);
comparing the integer counter to a second threshold (anything greater than 0, e.g. 0.9, 0.7, etc. would meet this requirement); and
charging the battery when the integer counter is below the second threshold effective to permit the battery to experience at least one occurrence of the zero-voltage condition (see Figs. 4A & 4B, ¶[37], zero is less than any positive value).
Dependent Claim 2, Sult discloses incrementing the integer counter includes accessing a memory of the electronic device to increase the integer counter by one count (persistent memory to add a flag=counting the flag); and
the integer counter represents a total number of occurrences of the zero-voltage condition for the battery over a life of the battery (if one or more, battery determined dead).
Dependent Claim 3, Sult discloses determining that the total number of occurrences of the zero-voltage condition for the battery is less than or equal to the second threshold (less than or equal to 1; it is noted the applicant did not specify what happens when this determination is made, the applicant may want to clarify how this determination is different from Claim 1’s determination after comparison with a threshold).
Dependent Claim 10, Sult discloses in response to the detection of the electrical connection to the external power source and prior to measuring the battery voltage, causing a delay to occur before initiating the charging sequence (as can be seen in Figs. 4A & 4B, since there is a step between 424 [y] and 424/444, there is a delay,
in addition, if the applicant meant before the BMU measures the voltage, 422 & 420 involve the waking up of the BMU [416 to 422] before the measurement, where the wakeup process would involve a delay).
Dependent Claim 12, Sult discloses incrementing the integer counter by one count includes setting a bit in the memory of the electronic device to one (¶[37] has setting the flag in memory, where memory is made up of many bits, with a byte equaling 8 bits).
Claims 1-3 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Melwanki et al (USPGPN 20210036535; hereinafter Mel)
Independent Claim 1, Mel discloses a method (Figs. 3 & 5) for controlling charging events of a battery (225) in an electronic device (120, 200, Figs. 1,2,&4), the method comprising:
measuring a battery voltage of the battery in response to a detection of an electrical connection to an external power source for initiating a charging sequence (¶’s [48, 49, 57], 330 of Fig. 3 Y leads to 340 measurement);
detecting a zero-voltage condition based on the battery voltage being below a first threshold voltage (520 of Fig. 5, 340 & 370 of Fig. 3, ¶’s [43, 45, 51, 53]);
incrementing an integer counter by one count in response to the detection of the zero-voltage condition (385 of Fig. 3, 540 of Fig. 5);
comparing the integer counter to a second threshold (320 of Fig. 3, 550 of Fig. 5); and
charging the battery when the integer counter is below the second threshold effective to permit the battery to experience at least one occurrence of the zero-voltage condition ([320n, 330 y, 340 n] in Fig. 3; [550 n, 570, 520 n, 580] in Fig. 5, where one of ordinary skill in the art understands that normal operation/function/boot-up would involve charging battery to full, see ¶’s [42, 43] & ¶’s [48, 49], as the charging operation of Figs. 3 & 5 are only short pulses to test battery, and not describing charging a battery to full).
Dependent Claim 2, Mel discloses incrementing the integer counter includes accessing a memory of the electronic device to increase the integer counter by one count (counter value compared to threshold in Figs. 3 & 5 would mean a form of memory); and
the integer counter represents a total number of occurrences of the zero-voltage condition for the battery over a life of the battery (Figs. 3 & 5).
Dependent Claim 3, Mel discloses determining that the total number of occurrences of the zero-voltage condition for the battery is less than or equal to the second threshold (Figs.3&5).
Dependent Claim 5, Mel discloses preventing the charging of the battery when the integer counter is greater than the second threshold (360 in Fig. 3, 550 in Fig. 5).
Dependent Claim 6, Mel discloses providing a return-merchandizing-authorization notification to a user of the electronic device (¶’s [48, 54, 59], 350 of Fig. 3, where notifying a user of a broken battery is equivalent to telling them to return it, as a person having ordinary skill in the art understands).
Dependent Claim 7, Mel discloses providing the return-merchandizing-authorization notification includes presenting a displayable notification via a display device of the electronic device (¶’s [48, 54, 59], 350 of Fig. 3).
Dependent Claim 8, Mel discloses providing the return-merchandizing-authorization notification includes providing an audible message to the user (¶’s [48, 54, 59], 350 of Fig. 3).
Dependent Claim 9, Mel discloses subsequent to providing the return-merchandizing-authorization notification, shutting down the electronic device to prevent further use of the battery (¶[48], 360 Fig. 3).
Dependent Claim 10, Mel discloses in response to the detection of the electrical connection to the external power source and prior to measuring the battery voltage, causing a delay to occur before initiating the charging sequence (as can be seen, the reboot and/or initiation of the device to decide to charge does not immediately begin charging, but has a delay before charging would occur in 380/390 of Fig. 3 or 530/580 of Fig. 5).
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 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Sultenfuss et al (USPGPN 20140068310; hereinafter Sult) in view of Habu et al (USPGPN 20230033847).
Dependent Claim 4, Sult discloses the second threshold is one, effective to permit the battery to experience the zero-voltage condition one time (see claim objection interpretation, after one time has been determined, the battery is no longer permitted to charge).
Or, in the alternative, if the applicant meant for it to mean that it can continue to charge after only 1 instance, Sult is silent to that feature (thus the threshold of Claim 1 is 2).
Habu teaches the use of a threshold value of 2 (or more; ¶[40]) to decide whether the battery should be replaced and the owner notified. Habu teaches the value being 2 or more saves costs by ensuring there is tolerance in deciding whether to replace a battery (¶’s [04, 05, 07, 16, 50, 51, esp. 05, 16, 51] describes suppressing replacement costs by ensuring it has not erroneously determined the need based on a small threshold).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sult with Habu to provide improved costs.
Dependent Claim 5, Sult teaches preventing the charging of the battery when the integer counter is greater than the second threshold (it is noted that the applicant did not claim the threshold value was an integer, thus a threshold for Sult being between 0<NV<1 would meet the claim requirements, as a person having ordinary skill in the art understands).
Or in the alternative, if the applicant believes Sult needs to teach an integer threshold which is greater than or equal to 1, then this feature is not explicitly taught.
Habu teaches an integer threshold greater than one where the battery needs to be replaced [i.e. no longer charged], see ¶[40]. Habu teaches the value being 2 or more saves costs by ensuring there is tolerance in deciding whether to replace a battery (¶’s [04, 05, 07, 16, 50, 51, esp. 05, 16, 51] describes suppressing replacement costs by ensuring it has not erroneously determined the need based on a small threshold).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sult with Habu to provide improved costs.
Claims 6, 7, 14, 15, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sultenfuss et al (USPGPN 20140068310; hereinafter Sult) in view of Habu et al (USPGPN 20230033847)
Dependent Claim 6, the combination of Sult and Habu teaches providing a return-merchandizing-authorization notification to a user of the electronic device (Habu ¶[40], where notifying a user of a broken battery is equivalent to telling them to return it, as a person having ordinary skill in the art understands).
Dependent Claim 7, the combination of Sult and Habu teaches providing the return-merchandizing-authorization notification includes presenting a displayable notification via a display device of the electronic device (Habu ¶[40]).
Independent Claim 14, Sult teaches an electronic device (200 in Figs. 1 and 2, ¶[15]; performing method of Figs. 3-4B) comprising:
a battery (265);
a default charger integrated circuit configured to cause a charging delay that delays battery charging when the electronic device is electrically connected to an external power source (310, 380, 382, 266, ¶’s [21, 23, 24, 44]);
a comparator circuit powered by battery voltage of the battery, the comparator circuit having a trigger point that triggers when a battery voltage of the battery decreases to less than the trigger point (duplication of parts, BMC 266, see ¶[37], it would be obvious to have it on one circuit vs a plurality of circuits for design choice such as ease of replacement of many over one, as one of ordinary skill in the art understands; if no charger is connected, then the power would come from the battery, as one of ordinary skill in the art understands); and
a system having a processor (¶’s [21, 23, 24, 44], 266, duplication of parts) and memory (211, 215, ¶’s [25-27, 30, 32]), the system configured to implement a battery-manager module configured to:
measure a battery voltage of the battery (¶[22]) in response to a detection of an electrical connection to an external power source for initiating a charging sequence (see Figs. 4A and 4B esp. s422, ¶[37]);
detect a zero-voltage condition based on the battery voltage being below the trigger point of the comparator circuit (424 of Fig. 4A);
increment an integer counter by one count in response to the detection of the zero-voltage condition (setting of a flag is equivalent to setting the count to 1);
compare the integer counter to a threshold value (anything greater than 0, e.g. 0.9, 0.7, etc. would meet this requirement); and
charge the battery when the integer counter is below the threshold value effective to permit the battery to experience at least one occurrence of the zero-voltage condition (see Figs. 4A & 4B, ¶[37], zero is less than any positive value; the battery will have experienced one occurrence before it is shut off, but once the counter/flag equals 1, it is no longer running).
Or, in the alternative, if the applicant meant for it to mean that it can continue to charge after only 1 instance, Sult is silent to that feature (thus the threshold of Claim 1 is 2).
Habu teaches the use of a threshold value of 2 (or more; ¶[40]) to decide whether the battery should be replaced and the owner notified. Habu teaches the value being 2 or more saves costs by ensuring there is tolerance in deciding whether to replace a battery (¶’s [04, 05, 07, 16, 50, 51, esp. 05, 16, 51] describes suppressing replacement costs by ensuring it has not erroneously determined the need based on a small threshold).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sult with Habu to provide improved costs.
Dependent Claim 15, Sult teaches cell-sense lines directed from the battery to the system and configured to bypass a field-effect transistor and a power path to the battery (line 398, lines across 390 are all cell-sense lines, in addition to the sensing circuitry of 324).
Dependent Claim 18, Sult teaches the integer counter is incremented by one count based on a bit being set in the memory of the electronic device to one (¶[37] has setting the flag in memory, where memory is made up of many bits, with a byte equaling 8 bits).
Dependent Claim 19, Sult teaches one or more bidirectional power switches (380, 382) and one or more protection integrated circuits (¶’s [31, 32]).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sultenfuss et al (USPGPN 20140068310; hereinafter Sult) in view of Habu et al (USPGPN 20230033847), further in view of Melwanki et al (USPGPN 20210036535; hereinafter Mel)
Dependent Claim 8, Sult is silent to providing the return-merchandizing-authorization notification includes providing an audible message to the user.
Mel teaches providing the return-merchandizing-authorization notification includes providing an audible message to the user (¶’s [40, 46, 55, 59]). As noted in ¶[40], by providing this audible notification, it presents a convenience to a user by alerting them, both visually and audible [unlike only visually by Habu], of an unsafe state.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sult in view of Habu with Mel to provide improved convenience.
Dependent Claim 9, Sult is silent to subsequent to providing the return-merchandizing-authorization notification, shutting down the electronic device to prevent further use of the battery (see Claim objection interpretation).
Mel teaches subsequent to providing the return-merchandizing-authorization notification, shutting down the electronic device to prevent further use of the battery (¶[40] describes shutting down after providing the alert). As noted in ¶[40], by providing this audible notification, it presents a convenience to a user by alerting them, both visually and audible [unlike only visually by Habu], of an unsafe state. And by shutting down, it can prompt the user to be more motivated to replace the battery; thus, improving reliability in case external power is lost.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sult in view of Habu with Mel to provide improved convenience and reliability.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sultenfuss et al (USPGPN 20140068310; hereinafter Sult) in view of Takeda (USPGPN 20140253041)
Dependent Claim 11, Sult is silent to measuring the battery voltage includes using sensing circuitry that bypasses a power path to the battery to sense the battery voltage without driving current to the battery (likely is inside the circuit of Fig. 2, but not explicitly clear).
Takeda teaches measuring the battery voltage includes using sensing circuitry that bypasses a power path to the battery to sense the battery voltage without driving current to the battery (circuit 10, with voltage detection circuitry 21 & 22, has sensing lines which bypass the power path). One of ordinary skill in the art understands that by bypassing the path, it prevents power from being wasted. Furthermore, A voltage detector in parallel should balance out to have the same voltage as the battery, as shown in Takeda, which is the most common form of voltage detection (and thus is more reliable, as one of ordinary skill in the art understands).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sult with Takeda to provide improved efficiency and reliability.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sultenfuss et al (USPGPN 20140068310; hereinafter Sult) in view of Lim et al (USPN 10416753)
Dependent Claim 13, Sult teaches using a comparator circuit to trigger the zero-voltage condition when the battery voltage of the battery drops below a trigger point of the comparator circuit (as cited above)
Sult is silent to the trigger point set to one volt.
Lim teaches the trigger point set to one volt (Col 2 L44-69). One of ordinary skill in the art understands that a trigger-point/threshold is a design choice, where smaller batteries are known to take up less space and weight, and cost less. This section states that this threshold contributes to safety.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sult with Lim to provide improved costs, safety, space, and weight.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sultenfuss et al (USPGPN 20140068310; hereinafter Sult) in view of Habu et al (USPGPN 20230033847), further in view of Kudo et al (USPGPN 20090021222)
Dependent Claims 16 and 17, Sult is silent to the cell-sense lines include a first cell-sense line that: has a first high resistor in-line; and directly connects to positive cell voltage of the battery (with respect to Claim 16); the cell-sense lines include a second cell-sense line that: has a second high resistor in-line; and directly connects to negative cell voltage of the battery (with respect to Claim 17).
Kudo teaches the cell-sense lines include a first cell-sense line that: has a first high resistor in-line; and directly connects to positive cell voltage of the battery; the cell-sense lines include a second cell-sense line that: has a second high resistor in-line; and directly connects to negative cell voltage of the battery (Fig. 1 shows resistors directly connected to both the positive cell voltage and negative cell voltage of the battery, and connected to unit cell voltage detecting section). ¶[24] describes that the accuracy is improved via the use of these sense resistors, while ¶[30] describes that the safety is improved through the use of these resistors.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sult in view of Habu with Kudo to provide improved accuracy and safety.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sultenfuss et al (USPGPN 20140068310; hereinafter Sult) in view of Habu et al (USPGPN 20230033847), further in view of Maetani (USPGPN 20160322840; hereinafter Mae)
Dependent Claim 20, Sult is silent to two protection integrated circuits (PICs) connected in series, each PIC having a pair of field effect transistors, each pair of field effect transistors arranged with two body diodes that are back to back.
Mae teaches two protection integrated circuits (PICs) connected in series, each PIC having a pair of field effect transistors, each pair of field effect transistors arranged with two body diodes that are back to back (Figs. 1, 2, & 4, esp. 1 & 2). ¶[36] states that the accuracy can be improved by having the two circuits while mitigating increases in resistance and costs.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sult in view of Habu with Mae to provide improved accuracy, costs, and resistance use.
Claims 11, 14-17, and 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Melwanki et al (USPGPN 20210036535; hereinafter Mel) in view of Takeda (USPGPN 20140253041)
Independent Claim 14, Mel teaches an electronic device (120 of Fig. 1, 200 of Fig. 2, Fig. 4 shows these features, performing methods of Figs. 3 & 5) comprising:
a battery (225);
a default charger configured to cause a charging delay that delays battery charging when the electronic device is electrically connected to an external power source (as shown in Figs. 3 & 5, charging is not started immediately upon charger connection, but after a few steps, 220);
a comparator circuit powered by battery voltage of the battery, the comparator circuit having a trigger point that triggers when a battery voltage of the battery decreases to less than the trigger point (if no charger is connected, then the power would come from the battery, as one of ordinary skill in the art understands; comparator performing the steps in 340/370 of Fig. 3 and 520 in Fig. 5); and
a system having a processor (see Figs. 2 & 4) and memory (comparison thresholds obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art stored in memory, in addition to the method steps and the previous values of the count to add the current count to/compare with the threshold count value), the system configured to implement a battery-manager module configured to:
measure a battery voltage of the battery in response to a detection of an electrical connection to an external power source for initiating a charging sequence (¶’s [48, 49, 57], 330 of Fig. 3 Y leads to 340 measurement);
detect a zero-voltage condition based on the battery voltage being below the trigger point of the comparator circuit (520 of Fig. 5, 340 & 370 of Fig. 3, ¶’s [43, 45, 51, 53]);
increment an integer counter by one count in response to the detection of the zero-voltage condition (385 of Fig. 3, 540 of Fig. 5);
compare the integer counter to a threshold value (320 of Fig. 3, 550 of Fig. 5); and
charge the battery when the integer counter is below the threshold value effective to permit the battery to experience at least one occurrence of the zero-voltage condition ([320n, 330 y, 340 n] in Fig. 3; [550 n, 570, 520 n, 580] in Fig. 5, where one of ordinary skill in the art understands that normal operation/function/boot-up would involve charging battery to full, see ¶’s [42, 43] & ¶’s [48, 49], as the charging operation of Figs. 3 & 5 are only short pulses to test battery, and not describing charging a battery to full).
Mel is silent to a default charger integrated circuit.
Takeda teaches a default charger integrated circuit (10, ¶[23]). One of ordinary skill in the art understands that integrated circuits serve to reduce space requirements of a circuit and thus improve convenience for manufacturers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Mel with Takeda to provide improved convenience.
Dependent Claim 15, the combination of Mel and Takeda teaches cell-sense lines directed from the battery to the system and configured to bypass a field-effect transistor and a power path to the battery (Takeda has 10a & 10b which bypass the line with FETs M1/M2, where having the sensor in parallel like this is more common due to parallel capabilities nature of voltages in circuits).
Dependent Claim 16, the combination of Mel and Takeda teaches the cell-sense lines include a first cell-sense line that: has a first high resistor in-line; and directly connects to positive cell voltage of the battery (R1, 21 & 22 sense voltages, see ¶’s [27-29] of Takeda).
Dependent Claim 17, the combination of Mel and Takeda teaches the cell-sense lines include a second cell-sense line that: has a second high resistor in-line; and directly connects to negative cell voltage of the battery (R4 and R6, where 21 & 22 sense voltages, see ¶’s [27-29]).
Dependent Claim 19, the combination of Mel and Takeda teaches one or more bidirectional power switches and one or more protection integrated circuits (Takeda, 27 controlling M1 & M2).
Dependent Claim 11, Mel is silent to measuring the battery voltage includes using sensing circuitry that bypasses a power path to the battery to sense the battery voltage without driving current to the battery.
Takeda teaches measuring the battery voltage includes using sensing circuitry that bypasses a power path to the battery to sense the battery voltage without driving current to the battery (circuit 10, with voltage detection circuitry 21 & 22, has sensing lines which bypass the power path). One of ordinary skill in the art understands that by bypassing the path, it prevents power from being wasted. Furthermore, A voltage detector in parallel should balance out to have the same voltage as the battery, as shown in Takeda, which is the most common form of voltage detection (and thus is more reliable, as one of ordinary skill in the art understands).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Mel with Takeda to provide improved efficiency and reliability.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Melwanki et al (USPGPN 20210036535; hereinafter Mel) in view of Kondo (USPGPN 20210391740)
Independent Claim 12, Mel is silent to incrementing the integer counter by one count includes setting a bit in the memory of the electronic device to one.
Kondo teaches incrementing the integer counter by one count includes setting a bit in the memory of the electronic device to one (235 is called a memory device, ¶’s [27, 35, 38], where flash memory stores data in bits [which are one eight of a byte] and thus the counters of Fig. 2, which is 130 of Figs. 1 & 3-5, involves the setting of a bit in the memory). One of ordinary skill in the art understands that electronic memory, rather than analog memory, is more compact and cheaper than non-electronic memory.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Mel with Kondo to provide improved costs and compactness.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Melwanki et al (USPGPN 20210036535; hereinafter Mel) in view of Lim et al (USPN 10416753)
Dependent Claim 13, Mel teaches using a comparator circuit to trigger the zero-voltage condition when the battery voltage of the battery drops below a trigger point of the comparator circuit (as cited above, comparator circuit would perform the functions described in Figs. 3 & 5)
Mel is silent to the trigger point set to one volt.
Lim teaches the trigger point set to one volt (Col 2 L44-69). One of ordinary skill in the art understands that a trigger-point/threshold is a design choice, where smaller batteries are known to take up less space and weight, and cost less. This section states that this threshold contributes to safety.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Mel with Lim to provide improved costs, safety, space, and weight.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Melwanki et al (USPGPN 20210036535; hereinafter Mel) in view of Takeda (USPGPN 20140253041), further in view of Maetani (USPGPN 20160322840; hereinafter Mae)
Dependent Claim 20, Mel is silent to two protection integrated circuits (PICs) connected in series, each PIC having a pair of field effect transistors, each pair of field effect transistors arranged with two body diodes that are back to back.
Mae teaches two protection integrated circuits (PICs) connected in series, each PIC having a pair of field effect transistors, each pair of field effect transistors arranged with two body diodes that are back to back (Figs. 1, 2, & 4, esp. 1 & 2). ¶[36] states that the accuracy can be improved by having the two circuits while mitigating increases in resistance and costs.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Mel in view of Takeda with Mae to provide improved accuracy, costs, and resistance use.
Conclusion
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