DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BASEHORE et al. (US 11,355,944 B2, hereinafter BASEHORE) in view of MARTY et al. (US 7,888,913 B1, hereinafter MARTY).
Regarding claims 1 and 14 (claim 1 is considered representative for limitation matching purposes), BASEHORE discloses an electronic device (See Col.6, lines 43-52, disclose an electronic device comprising a system 100) comprising:
a power system including a battery (See Fig.1A, Item#100, discloses a power system comprising a battery 102); and
one or more processors (See Fig.1A, Item#106, discloses a charging manager) programmed to:
detect that the electronic device has been connected to a power source (See Fig.8, Step#804 and Col.23, lines 10-11),
BASEHORE further discloses using prior usage data of the electronic device to determine expected time of disconnection from the power source and next expected time of connection to the power source (See Fig.1G, and Col.12, lines 51-67, disclose determining a first predictive charge cycle 101-1 including charge start time and start end time, the charge end time of the first cycle is considered the disconnection time. Also discloses determining a second predictive charge cycle 101-2 including an expected connection time and expected disconnection time. The expected connection time of the second cycle is considered the expected connection time), the battery is then charged to 100% of its capacity over the charging cycle (Fig.11).
However, BASEHORE does not disclose predict using prior usage data of the electronic device whether battery usage between an expected time of disconnection from the power source and a next expected time of connection to the power source exceeds a threshold; and if the predicted battery usage between an expected time of disconnection from the power source and a next expected time of connection to the power source does not exceed the threshold, charge the battery to a state of charge less than the full state of charge of the battery.
MARTY discloses a smart charger (See Fig.1, Item#100 and Col.2, lines 35-37)
comprising a controller (See Claim 8, discloses a controller performing the charging optimization control program), wherein the controller is configured to:
predict using prior usage data of the electronic device whether battery usage between an expected time of disconnection from the power source and a next expected time of connection to the power source exceeds a threshold; and if the predicted battery usage between an expected time of disconnection from the power source and a next expected time of connection to the power source does not exceed the threshold, charge the battery to a state of charge less than the full state of charge of the battery (See Fig.4, and Col.6, lines 35-48, disclose the optimal charge is determined from usage history, the optimal charge is a minimum charge plus an amount of energy historically used in a single use cycle. A single use cycle is the time the battery is used between being disconnected and being reconnected for charging. MARTY discloses that is for example 50% of charge is typically used in a single cycle [time between disconnection and reconnection for charging] and the battery requires a minimum state of charge of 20%, then the battery is charged to 70%. This is a charge that is less than the full state of charge. Taking this further, the examiner explains that if on the other hand the usage history shows that the user typically uses 80% of the battery capacity for and the minimum charge needed to be retained by the battery is 20%, then the battery will be fully charged to 100%).
BASEHORE and MARTY are analogous art since they both deal with battery charging.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed BASEHORE with the teachings of MARTY by predicting the charge among based on usage history and charging the battery to a state of charge less than the full state of charge of the battery when the predicted charge is less than full capacity for the benefit of prolonging the life of the battery by reducing the time it spends at high states of charge (See MARTY, Fig.5, and Col.5, lines 54-67).
Regarding claims 2 and 15 (claim 2 is considered representative for limitation matching purposes), BASEHORE and MARTY disclose the electronic device of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein the one or more processors are programmed to predict, using prior usage data of the electronic device, whether battery usage between an expected time of disconnection from the power source and a next expected time of connection to the power source exceeds a threshold (See claim 1 rejection above, BASEHORE in view of MARTY discloses determining the optimal charging from prior usage, when the prior usage determines that the optimal charge is less than 80%, the battery is charged to minimum charge based on charge history plus a minimum charge that needs to be retained by the battery). However BASSEHORE and MARTY as applied to claim 1 do not disclose using a machine learning model that analyzes the prior usage data.
BASEHORE further discloses using machine learning to train the predictive model used to predict different charging situations i.e. when the system is predicted to consume power from the battery. (BASEHORE clearly discloses using machine learning to predict discharging times and in the same way can be used to determine the amount of charge needed. NOTE: MARTY also discloses using machine learning to evaluate usage history to derive charge control information [See Col.6 lines 31-34]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by BASEHORE and MARTY with the further teachings of BASEHORE by using machine learning to analyze usage history and determine charging control data such as optimal charge amount for the benefit of providing a system which automatically reviews previous history data and estimates future control data based on the compilation of previous data.
Regarding claims 3 and 16 (Claim 3 is considered representative for limitation matching purposes), BASEHORE and MARTY disclose the electronic device of claim 2 as discussed above wherein the prior usage data includes a time series of prior charging and discharging intervals (See BASEHORE, Col.2, lines 5-17 disclose using previous series of charging information to generate a predictive pattern. Col.8, lines 35-49, disclose predicting the times that battery discharge is needed, also Col.5, lines 31-43, disclose the history data provided include connection and disconnection times to power source. Connection times are interpreted as series of prior charging and disconnecting times are interpreted as series of prior discharging).
Regarding claims 4 and 17 (claim 4 is considered representative for limitation matching purposes), BASEHORE and MARTY disclose the electronic device of claim 3 as discussed above, wherein the prior usage data further comprises at least one of: user calendar data (See BASEHORE, Col.5, lines 31-37 and Col.9, lines 22-35, disclose using calendar information in generating the predictive model).
NOTE: BASEHORE also discloses using alarms or data extracted from emails in the above cited portions of BASEHORE.
Regarding claims 5 and 18 (claim 5 is considered representative for limitation matching purposes), BASEHORE and MARTY disclose the electronic device of claim 1 wherein the state of charge less than the full state of charge of the battery is selected to reduce wear on the battery caused by time at high states of charge (See MARTY as applied to claim 1 rejection above, MARTY Fig.4, and Col.6, lines 35-48 discloses charging the battery to a charge level less than full charge by determining the predicted usage based on usage history. MARTY, Col.5, lines 54-67, further disclose the optimized charging program charging the battery to a state of charge less than maximum state of charge is meant to extend battery life).
Regarding claims 6 and 19 (claim 6 is considered representative for limitation matching purposes), BASEHORE and MARTY disclose the electronic device of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein the one or more processors are further programmed to dynamically select the state of charge less than the full state of charge based on the predicted battery usage between an expected time of disconnection from the power source and a next expected time of connection to the power source (See MARTY as applied to claim 1 rejection, Col.6, lines 35-48 discloses charging the battery to a charge level less than full charge by determining the predicted usage based on usage history. As disclosed in the aforementioned portion of MARTY, when the usage is predicted to be 50% the battery is charged to 70% (50% usage+20% minimum threshold). The examiner explains that the 50% is based on usage history, so when the controller determines for example that the predicted usage is 60%, then the battery will be charged to 80% (60% usage+20% minimum threshold). This is interpreted as a dynamically selecting a state of charge less than the full state of charge based on usage history).
Regarding claim 7, BASEHORE and MARTY disclose the electronic device of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein the one or more processors are further programmed to:
predict whether a long charge event is expected (See BASEHORE, Col.13, lines 34-51, disclose determining when the charging cycle takes greater than an estimated period); and
if a long charge event is not expected, immediately charge the battery to the full state of charge (See Fig.8, Steps#806 and 808, disclose determining that charging event is not related to pattern i.e. not a long charging event, and proceeds to normal charging when it is not related); or
if a long charge event is expected (See Fig.8, Steps#806 and 812, disclose determining that a long charging event is taking place and obtaining a temporary state of charge less than a full state of charge to charge the battery), delay charging of the battery to the full state of charge until a time prior to an expected disconnection time (See Fig.1I and Col.13, line 34 to Col.14, line 10, disclose charging the battery to the temporary state of charge less than full charge [Fig.1I, period 157 which charges the battery to threshold 136], pausing charging at that temporary SOC until a predetermined point of time before disconnection from charging is detected (delay charging to full SOC) [Fig.1I, period 153, pausing charging at threshold 136], afterwards charging is resumed from the temporary SOC to the full SOC [Fig.1I, period 155, resuming charging from threshold 136 to 100% SOC]).
Regarding claim 8, BASEHORE and MARTY disclose the electronic device of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein the one or more processors are programmed to delay charging of the battery to the full state of charge by reducing the rate at which the battery charges (See BASEHORE, Col.6, lines 36-42, disclose adjusting the charging rate such that the time spent at maximum charge level is reduced. Col.10, lines 42-50 and Col.14, lines 3-5, disclose reducing the charging rate).
Regarding claim 9, BASEHORE and MARTY disclose the electronic device of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein the one or more processors are programmed to delay charging of the battery to the full state of charge by temporarily pausing battery charging (See BASEHORE, Fig. and Col.14, lines 15-19, disclose pausing charging at a certain level less than the full charge amount).
Claim(s) 10-13 and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BASEHORE in view of MARTY and in further view of MESE et al. (US 2005/0134225 A1, hereinafter MESE).
Regarding claims 10-13 and 20-21 (claims 10-11 are considered representative for limitation matching purposes) , BASEHORE and MARTY disclose the electronic device of claim 6 further comprising a display (See Fig.5, discloses the electronic device comprising the system 100, comprises a display for interacting with the user). However, BASEHORE and MARTY do not disclose wherein the one or more processors are further programmed to communicate information about at least one of the time prior to an expected disconnection time or the state of charge less than the full state of charge of the battery to a user via the display to receive user input regarding at least one of the time prior to an expected disconnection time or the state of charge less than the full state of charge of the battery from the user via the input device.
MESE further discloses a smart charging system wherein a charging plan is developed according to usage history, the user is provided with an opportunity to override the developed charging plan (See Par.22, discloses providing the user with an override option if the user is not following their usual activity).
BASEHORE, MARTY and MESE are analogous art since they all deal with battery charging.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by BASEHORE and MARTY with the teachings of MESE by presenting an opportunity for the user to override the predictive plan when the user is not following their usual activity for the benefit of ensuring the device is adequately charged when the user needs it.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHMED H OMAR whose telephone number is (571)270-7165. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 am -7:00 PM EST.
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.
/AHMED H OMAR/ Examiner, Art Unit 2859