Status of Claims
In the communication filed on 02/25/2026, claims 1-4, 6-9, and 11 are pending. Claims 1-4, 6-9, and 11 are amended. No claims are new. Claims 5, 10, and 12-14 are presently cancelled.
Response to Arguments
The prior objections to the Drawings are withdrawn due to the amendments. An annotated copy of the replacement drawings filed 02/25/2026 is attached to indicate the replacement Fig. 1 is approved.
The prior objections to the Claims are withdrawn due to the amendments.
The prior rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn due to the amendments.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-4, 6-9, and 11 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 6, the “b)” condition for generating the “output indicating a low battery condition” is not properly disclosed.
Claims 1 and 6 require that the output be generated in response to “b) at least one voltage comparison in the plurality of voltage comparisons indicating the voltage level of the secondary battery is less than the reference voltage level during the operation sequence, while at least one subsequent voltage comparison in the plurality of voltage comparisons is greater than the reference voltage level during the operation sequence, indicating a transient voltage droop in the battery”.
The method drawing of Fig. 6 depicts the simpler condition of “all battery voltages > reference?” in steps 644, 656, and 668 to assess whether or not to generate the “battery low indicator” of steps 648, 660, and 672. The specification (¶ [51-53]) discusses generating the low battery indicator if “the voltage comparator 112 generates one or more voltage comparisons in which the voltage of the primary battery 128/228 drops below the reference voltage during one or more clock cycles, then the processor 104 detects one or more voltage droops”.
The condition “at least one voltage comparison in the plurality of voltage comparisons indicating the voltage level of the secondary battery is less than the reference voltage level during the operation sequence” appears to be properly disclosed.
However, there does not appear to be any disclosure of the claimed condition “while at least one subsequent voltage comparison in the plurality of voltage comparisons is greater than the reference voltage level during the operation sequence”. The disclosure instead discusses a simpler approach wherein any droop of the battery’s voltage level below the reference voltage level during the operation sequence will result in a low battery indicator being generated. No condition is disclosed that the battery voltage must droop below and then rise back above the reference voltage level, as is claimed.
Regarding claim 11, the “c)” condition is not properly disclosed for the same reasons as those of the “b)” condition of claims 1 and 6, detailed supra.
Specifically, the disclosure does not properly disclose the claim 11, lines 35-42, limitation “c) generating, with the processor, the output using the output device in the medical device indicating the low battery condition in response to at least one voltage comparison in the first plurality of voltage comparisons indicating the voltage level of the primary battery is less than the first reference voltage level during the operation sequence, while at least one subsequent voltage comparison in the first plurality of voltage comparisons is greater than the first reference voltage level during the operation sequence, indicating a transient voltage droop in the primary battery”.
Further regarding claim 11, the method step of generating “a second plurality of voltage comparisons between a second reference voltage level and a voltage level delivered from the secondary battery during the operation sequence” is not properly disclosed.
The method drawing of Fig. 6 only depicts a single “reference” (interpreted as the claimed “first reference voltage level”) in steps 644, 656, and 668. The specification (¶ [29, 51-53, 55]) only discusses the operation sequence being performed to assess the “voltage of the primary battery 128/228” with respect to the “reference voltage”. Therefore, there does not appear to be any disclosure of assessing the “secondary battery” with respect to a “second reference voltage level” during the operation sequence.
Further, the following claim 11 method step is thus also not properly disclosed: “c) generating, with the processor, the output using the output device in the medical device indicating the low battery condition … in response to at least one voltage comparison in the second plurality of voltage comparisons indicating the voltage level of the secondary battery is less than the second reference voltage level during the operation sequence, while at least one subsequent voltage comparison in the second plurality of voltage comparisons is greater than the second reference voltage level during the operation sequence, indicating a transient voltage droop in the secondary battery”.
Claims 2-4 and 7-9 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for their dependency on other rejected claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11 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.
Claim 11, lines 28-30 recite “generating, with the processor, an output using an output device in the medical device indicating a low battery condition after commencing the operation sequence and prior to commencing an analyte test sequence in response to:” and lines 35-36 recite “c) generating, with the processor, the output using the output device in the medical device indicating the low battery condition in response to”. This language is indefinite as to how the output is generated in response to the output being generated. Thus, for examination purposes, it is interpreted that condition (c) does not duplicate the generation of the output.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guthrie et al. (US 2015/0048836 A1) in view of Cargonja et al. (US 2006/0267554 A1; hereinafter “Carg”), Feltham et al. (US 2022/0181707 A1; hereinafter “Felt”), and Green et al. (US 6,310,556 B1).
Regarding Claim 1, Guthrie discloses a method (¶ [3]: “method of monitoring power in a portable physiological measurement device that has at least a battery coupled to a processor and memory”; Fig. 2) for operating a medical device (“data management unit (DMU) 10”, also referred to as “glucose meter 10”; Fig. 1A) comprising the following.
Guthrie further discloses activating (Fig. 2, step 202: “turn on device for test”) a processor (“microcontroller 38”; Fig. 1B; ¶ [20]: “38 can be in the form of a mixed signal microprocessor (MSP) such as, for example, the Texas Instrument MSP 430”) in the medical device (10).
Guthrie further discloses the processor (38) receiving electrical power from a battery (“battery” included in “10” per ¶ [19]) electrically connected (via “battery connector” located on bottom surface of “circuit board 34” per ¶ [19]) to the medical device (10).
Guthrie further discloses a housing (“housing 11”; Fig. 1A; ¶ [19]: “electronic components of meter 10 can be disposed on a circuit board 34 that is within housing 11”) of the medical device (10).
Guthrie further discloses identifying, with the processor (38), a first low battery voltage threshold (Fig. 2, step 206: “first threshold”; ¶ [5]: “may be about 82% of the rated voltage … of the battery”).
Guthrie further discloses measuring, with a voltage sensor (part of “microprocessor”, i.e. “38”, per ¶ [8]) operatively connected to the processor (38), a first voltage level of the battery (Fig. 2, step 204: “measure power level of battery”; ¶ [23]: “measures the battery voltage”).
Guthrie further discloses commencing an operation sequence (Fig. 2, step 214: “perform start up check”) of the medical device (10) after measuring the first voltage level of the battery (Fig. 2, step 204: “measure power level of battery”).
Guthrie further discloses the operation sequence is at least one of a quality check process (“start up check”) and a wait for fluid sample process (step 214 is before step 224; thus, step 214 is waiting for the fluid sample of step 224) in an analyte test meter (10).
PNG
media_image1.png
947
798
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Guthrie further discloses generating, with the processor (“38” controls “display 14”), an output (Fig. 2, step 208: “annunciate low battery warning”) using an output device (“display 14”; Fig. 1A) in the medical device (10) indicating a low battery condition (¶ [27]: “a dead battery screen could be displayed for a required time period”).
Guthrie does not disclose “measuring, with the processor, a temperature within a housing of the medical device; identifying, with the processor, a first low battery voltage threshold based on the temperature”.
Guthrie further does not disclose “generating, with a voltage comparator operatively connected to the processor, a plurality of voltage comparisons between a reference voltage level and a voltage level delivered from the battery during the operation sequence”.
Guthrie further does not disclose “plurality of voltage comparisons between a reference voltage level and a voltage level delivered from the battery during the operation sequence”
Though Guthrie discloses generating, with the processor, an output using an output device in the medical device indicating a low battery condition, Guthrie further does not disclose this output is generated “after commencing the operation sequence and prior to commencing an analyte test sequence in response to: a) the first voltage level of the battery being greater than the first low battery voltage threshold; and b) at least one voltage comparison in the plurality of voltage comparisons indicating the voltage level of the battery is less than the reference voltage level during the operation sequence, while at least one subsequent voltage comparison in the plurality of voltage comparisons is greater than the reference voltage level during the operation sequence, indicating a transient voltage droop”.
Carg teaches measuring, with the processor (“processor 16”; Fig. 1), a temperature (“ambient temperature”; ¶ [32]) within a housing (because “21” is an integrated circuit within “RFID tag 10”, the measured “ambient temperature” is the temperature within the housing of “10”) of the device (“RFID tag 10”).
Carg further teaches identifying, with the processor (16), a first low battery voltage threshold (see annotated Fig. 3, included infra; ¶ [24]: “curve 67 represents a threshold or limit curve”, “if the measured voltage is less than the threshold or limit value, then the battery 13 may have reached a low voltage condition”) based on the temperature (Fig. 3, x-axis: “temperature (°C)”).
PNG
media_image2.png
809
878
media_image2.png
Greyscale
NOTE 1-1: Though Carg’s teachings are with respect to a device, the device is not specifically a medical device. However, one of ordinary skill in the art understands that the device taught by Carg and the medical device taught by Guthrie are both electronic devices with housings, a processor, and an internal temperature. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that Carg’s teachings would also be applicable to a medical device.
Carg further teaches measuring the temperature in the housing as a basis for identifying the first low battery voltage threshold to more accurately model the low battery capacity across temperatures (¶ [2, 48]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method for operating the medical device disclosed by Guthrie to incorporate measuring the temperature in the housing as a basis for identifying the first low battery voltage threshold, as taught by Carg, to more accurately model the low battery capacity across temperatures.
Felt teaches generating a plurality of voltage comparisons (data points of Fig. 4, as compared with “Th1-2” of Fig. 7) between a reference voltage level (battery voltage level associated with “predetermined threshold Th1-2”; Fig. 7; ¶ [57-60]) and a voltage level delivered (voltage values of Fig. 4) from the battery (series combination of “batteries 1204A, 1204B”, collectively forming the “target battery”; Fig. 12; ¶ [109-111]) during the operation sequence (Fig. 6, steps 605-617, wherein a temporary load is applied for a “test period” while battery voltage is periodically measured and recorded, followed by data analysis; the data analysis of step 617 is detailed in Figs. 7-9; operation sequence is simply referred to as a “load check” in Fig. 4).
Felt further teaches generating, with the processor (¶ [5]: “microprocessor” within the “PDAM module”), an output (Fig. 9, step 951: “send Low Battery notification”; ¶ [71]) using an output device (“speaker 1202”; Fig. 12) in the electronic device (“sounder 1200”; see note 1-2, included infra) indicating a low battery condition (“Low Battery” notification indicates a “depleted” battery) after commencing the operation sequence (step 951 occurs after step 605, which commences the operation sequence by applying the temporary test load) and prior to commencing an important operation (such as detecting fire, per ¶ [1]; see note 1-3, included infra) in response to the following conditions (see annotated Fig. 4, included infra).
NOTE 1-2: It is acknowledged that electronic device taught by Felt is not a medical device. Both devices are made up of electronic components in a housing and are used to measure/detect something (fire vs. analyte). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art understands the electronic device taught by Felt is analogous to the medical device disclosed by Guthrie.
NOTE 1-3: It is acknowledged that the important operation of fire detection taught by Felt is not an analyte test sequence. However, each is an important operation of testing a quality based on an external material (smoke in air vs. analytes in a fluid). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art understands the important operation taught by Felt is analogous to the analyte test sequence disclosed by Guthrie.
Felt further teaches condition a) the first voltage level (voltage data point at “0 ms NLV” sample in Fig. 4; measured in Fig. 6, step 604: “1st measurement across battery with no load”) of the battery being sufficient (though no first low battery voltage threshold is taught, the higher battery voltage value of the first data point in Fig. 4 is clearly higher than all other data points in the sequence).
Felt further teaches condition b) at least one voltage comparison (Fig. 4 voltage values from 200-1200 ms indicate battery voltage has fallen below the threshold) in the plurality of voltage comparisons indicating the voltage level of the battery is less (“No” response to Fig. 7, step 705 results in step 709: “set BAT_STATUS to BAT_PD”; ¶ [60]: “possible full or partial deletion”; later results in Fig. 9, step 951: “send Low Battery notification”) than the reference voltage level (battery voltage level associated with “predetermined threshold Th1-2”; Fig. 7; ¶ [57-60]) during the operation sequence (Fig. 4’s “load check”; Fig. 6, steps 605-617), while at least one subsequent voltage comparison (Fig. 4 voltage values from 1400-1800 ms indicate battery voltage has risen back above the threshold) in the plurality of voltage comparisons is greater than the reference voltage level (battery voltage level associated with “predetermined threshold Th1-2”; Fig. 7; ¶ [57-60]) during the operation sequence (Fig. 4’s “load check”; Fig. 6, steps 605-617), indicating a transient voltage droop (Fig. 4 curve indicates the transient voltage droop characteristic of “depleted batteries” in response to the “load check”).
PNG
media_image3.png
963
1062
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Felt further teaches basing the low battery warning on the detection of a transient voltage droop during the operation sequence to distinguish a depleted battery from a passivated battery, thereby improving the accuracy of detecting a depleted battery prior to needing the battery for important operations (¶ [1-4, 26-34]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method’s operation sequence disclosed by the combo of Guthrie & Carg to base the low battery warning on the detection of a transient voltage droop during the operation sequence, as taught by Felt, to improve the accuracy of detecting a depleted battery prior to needing the battery for the analyte test sequence.
It is noted that by modifying the operation sequence of Guthrie to incorporate the load test (from Felt), the low battery condition output would be generated if condition “a)” is satisfied. Thus, the combo of Guthrie, Carg, & Felt teaches the output (from Felt step 951: “send Low Battery notification”; incorporated into Guthrie’s operation sequence of step 214: “perform start up check”) is generated after commencing the operation sequence (Guthrie: step 214 “start up check”; Felt equivalent: “load check”) and prior to commencing an analyte test sequence (Guthrie: step 224 “conduct analyte test”) in response to the first voltage level of the battery (Guthrie: “battery level”, measured in step 204; Felt equivalent: Fig. 4’s voltage value at “0 ms NLV”) being greater (Guthrie’s operation sequence, starting in step 214, is only performed with a “Yes” response to step 206, confirming “battery level > first threshold”) than the first low battery voltage threshold (Guthrie: “first threshold”).
Though the combo of Guthrie, Carg, & Felt teaches generating a plurality of voltage comparisons between a reference voltage level and a voltage level delivered from the battery during the operation sequence, this combo does not teach the plurality of voltage comparisons are generated “with a voltage comparator operatively connected to the processor”. However, it is well-known in the art to use a voltage comparator as a design choice to generate voltage comparisons.
Green teaches generating, with a voltage comparator (“comparator 330”; Fig. 3) operatively connected to the control circuit (combo of “comparator qualifier 340” and “ state machine 350”; Fig. 3; see note 1-4, included infra), a plurality of voltage comparisons (circuit topology of Fig. 3 causes output of “330” to be continuously updated and monitored via the control circuitry; thus, a plurality of comparisons between the output voltages of “310” and “320” are made) between a reference voltage level (col. 6, lines 62-64: “output of programmable supply voltage divider 310”, representative of “VTH2”; Figs. 1, 4) and a voltage level delivered from the battery (col. 7, lines 11-12: “voltage reference 320 represents the battery output voltage to be monitored”; Fig. 3) during the operation sequence (col. 4, lines 58-59: “method 200 for low battery power detection”; Fig. 2).
NOTE 1-4: Though Green’s teachings are with respect to a control circuit, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand these teachings are also applicable to a processor, such as that taught by Guthrie. The processor taught by Guthrie is capable of controlling digital logic signals such as those used in Green’s control circuit.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the method disclosed by the combo of Guthrie, Carg, & Felt to incorporate a voltage comparator to generate the plurality of voltage comparisons, as taught by Green, since the applicant has not disclosed that the voltage comparator solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with other circuits for comparing voltages, such as an analog-to-digital converter (ADC). The circuit designer may choose a voltage comparator because voltage comparators are inexpensive, have a small footprint on a circuit board, and operate without software or firmware, thus reducing development time and cost.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guthrie et al. (US 2015/0048836 A1) in view of Cargonja et al. (US 2006/0267554 A1; hereinafter “Carg”), Feltham et al. (US 2022/0181707 A1; hereinafter “Felt”), Green et al. (US 6,310,556 B1), and Osa (US 2014/0297707 A1).
Regarding Claims 2-4, the combo of Guthrie, Carg, Felt, & Green teaches the method of claim 1.
The combo of Guthrie, Carg, Felt, & Green teaches the identifying of the first low battery voltage threshold further comprising identifying, with the processor (Guthrie: “38”; modified to incorporate capabilities per Carg’s “16”), the first low battery voltage threshold (Guthrie: “first threshold”; modified to be based on temperature per Carg) using a predetermined function (from Carg: “curve 67”).
The combo of Guthrie, Carg, Felt, & Green further teaches a memory (Guthrie: “non-volatile memory 40” or “non-volatile memory” within “38” per ¶ [19]) of the medical device (Guthrie: “10”).
Guthrie is silent as to the details of how the predetermined function is implemented by the processor and stored in memory. Specifically, Guthrie does not disclose “identifying, with the processor, the first low battery voltage threshold using a predetermined piecewise linear function stored in a memory” (claim 2).
Guthrie further does not disclose “the memory stores parameters of the piecewise linear function and the processor calculates the first low battery voltage threshold using the parameters” (claim 3).
Guthrie further does not disclose “the memory stores parameters of the piecewise linear function and the processor calculates the first low battery voltage threshold using the parameters” (claim 4).
However, these claimed approaches to approximating a nonlinear function (such as that of the first low battery voltage threshold, dependent on temperature) via stored parameters and/or a lookup table are well known in the art.
Osa teaches identifying, with the processor (“CPU 801”; Fig. 8; ¶ [60, 84]), the dependent value (variable “sapp” in the approximate function value “sapp(x)”; Fig. 3) using a predetermined piecewise linear function (“sapp(x)”; Fig. 3; “piecewise linear approximate function” per ¶ [15]; calculated in step S204 of Fig. 2) stored in a memory (“ROM 802”; Fig. 8; ¶ [60]: “non-volatile memory that stores programs”).
Osa further teaches the memory (802) stores parameters (“parameters of s(x)” of step S203, Fig. 2; “coefficient holding unit 405” of Figs. 4-5) of the piecewise linear function (“sapp(x)”) and the processor (801) calculates the dependent value (“sapp”) using the parameters (“parameters of s(x)”).
Osa further teaches the memory (802) stores a lookup table (“LUT value” of step S203, Fig. 2; “LUT 403” of Figs. 4-5) corresponding to the piecewise linear function (“sapp(x)”) and the processor (801) identifies the dependent value (“sapp”) using the lookup table (403).
NOTE 2-1: Though Osa’s teachings are not explicitly with respect to identifying the “first low battery voltage threshold”, Osa teaches a known technique that can be used to improve similar devices (processor, memory, and method for operating the medical device) in the same way. The following conclusion of obviousness is based on KSR rational (C). Reference MPEP § 2143.C. Osa teaches a technique for identifying a dependent value using a predetermined piecewise linear function. However, one of ordinary skill in the art understands the first low battery voltage threshold is a dependent value, such as that taught by Osa. Further, both Guthrie and Osa teach similar devices (processor, memory, dependent function). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the teachings of Osa may also be applied to identifying the first low battery voltage threshold.
Osa further teaches the technique of identifying the dependent value (“sapp”) using a predetermined piecewise linear function (“sapp(x)”) stored in the memory via stored parameters and/or lookup table as a practical method of approximating a non-linear function that shortens the calculation times (¶ [23]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method, processor, and memory disclosed by the combo of Guthrie, Carg, Felt, & Green to identify the first low battery voltage threshold using a predetermined piecewise linear function stored in the memory via stored parameters and/or lookup table, as taught by Osa, as a practical method of approximating the non-linear, temperature dependent first low battery voltage threshold that shortens the calculation times. This application of Osa’s technique improves the processor’s identification of the first low battery voltage threshold in the same way as the known technique taught by Carg to yield predictable results (practical, efficient calculations).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guthrie et al. (US 2015/0048836 A1) in view of Cargonja et al. (US 2006/0267554 A1; hereinafter “Carg”), Feltham et al. (US 2022/0181707 A1; hereinafter “Felt”), and Green et al. (US 6,310,556 B1).
Regarding Claim 6, Guthrie discloses a medical device (“data management unit (DMU) 10”, also referred to as “glucose meter 10”; Fig. 1A) comprising a housing (“housing 11”; Fig. 1A; ¶ [19]: “electronic components of meter 10 can be disposed on a circuit board 34 that is within housing 11”) configured to hold the following features.
Guthrie further discloses a processor (“microcontroller 38”; Fig. 1B; ¶ [20]: “38 can be in the form of a mixed signal microprocessor (MSP) such as, for example, the Texas Instrument MSP 430”).
Guthrie further discloses a memory (“non-volatile memory 40”; Fig. 1B) operatively connected to the processor (38).
Guthrie further discloses a voltage sensor (part of “microprocessor”, i.e. “38”, per ¶ [8]) operatively connected to the processor (38).
Guthrie further discloses an output device (“display 14”; Fig. 1A) operatively connected to the processor (38).
Guthrie further discloses a receptacle (“battery connector”; per ¶ [19], located on bottom surface of “circuit board 34”, but not shown in Fig. 1B) configured to be electrically connected to a battery (“battery” included in “10” per ¶ [19]).
Guthrie further discloses the receptacle (“battery connector”, used to connect “circuit board 34” to the battery) being operatively connected to the processor (“38”, powered by the battery) and the memory (“40”, powered by the battery).
Guthrie further discloses the processor (38) being configured to execute stored program instructions (¶ [29]: “various methods … may be embodied in any computer-readable medium that, when executed by a suitable microprocessor or computer”) in the memory (40) to perform the following actions.
Guthrie further discloses to activate to receive electrical power (Fig. 2, step 202: “turn on device for test”; results in processor “38” receiving electrical power from the battery) from the battery.
Guthrie further discloses to identify a first low battery voltage threshold (Fig. 2, step 206: “first threshold”; ¶ [5]: “may be about 82% of the rated voltage … of the battery”).
Guthrie further discloses to measure, with the voltage sensor (part of “microprocessor”, i.e. “38”, per ¶ [8]), a first voltage level of the battery (Fig. 2, step 204: “measure power level of battery”; ¶ [23]: “measures the battery voltage”).
Guthrie further discloses to commence an operation sequence (Fig. 2, step 214: “perform start up check”) of the medical device (10) after the measurement of the first voltage level of the battery (Fig. 2, step 204: “measure power level of battery”).
Guthrie further discloses the operation sequence is at least one of a quality check process (“start up check”) and a wait for fluid sample process (step 214 is before step 224; thus, step 214 is waiting for the fluid sample of step 224) in an analyte test meter (10).
Guthrie further discloses to generate, with the output device (14), an output (Fig. 2, step 208: “annunciate low battery warning”) indicating a low battery condition (¶ [27]: “a dead battery screen could be displayed for a required time period”).
Guthrie does not disclose “a voltage comparator operatively connected to the processor; a temperature sensor operatively connected to the processor”.
Guthrie further does not disclose the receptacle being operatively connected to “the voltage comparator”.
Guthrie further does not disclose to “measure, with the temperature sensor, a temperature within the housing; identify a first low battery voltage threshold based on the temperature”.
Guthrie further does not disclose to “generate, with the voltage comparator, a plurality of voltage comparisons between a reference voltage level and a voltage level delivered from the battery during the operation sequence”.
Though Guthrie discloses to generate, with the output device, an output indicating a low battery condition, Guthrie further does not disclose this output is generated “after commencing the operation sequence and prior to commencing an analyte test sequence in response to: a) the first voltage level of the battery being greater than the first low battery voltage threshold; and b) at least one voltage comparison in the plurality of voltage comparisons indicating the voltage level of the battery is less than the reference voltage level during the operation sequence, while at least one subsequent voltage comparison in the plurality of voltage comparisons is greater than the reference voltage level during the operation sequence, indicating a transient voltage droop”.
Carg teaches a temperature sensor (“temperature sensor 21”; Fig. 1; ¶ [15]: “integrated circuit with an internal diode junction”) operatively connected to the processor (“processor 16”; Fig. 1).
Carg further teaches to measure, with the temperature sensor (21), a temperature (“ambient temperature”; ¶ [32]) within the housing (because “21” is an integrated circuit within “RFID tag 10”, the measured “ambient temperature” is the temperature within the housing of “10”).
Carg further teaches to identify a first low battery voltage threshold (see annotated Fig. 3, included supra; ¶ [24]: “curve 67 represents a threshold or limit curve”, “if the measured voltage is less than the threshold or limit value, then the battery 13 may have reached a low voltage condition”) based on the temperature (Fig. 3, x-axis: “temperature (°C)”).
Carg further teaches a temperature sensor to measure the temperature in the housing as a basis for identifying the first low battery voltage threshold to more accurately model the low battery capacity across temperatures (¶ [2, 48]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the medical device disclosed by Guthrie to incorporate a temperature sensor to measure the temperature in the housing as a basis for identifying the first low battery voltage threshold, as taught by Carg, threshold to more accurately model the low battery capacity across temperatures.
Felt teaches to generate a plurality of voltage comparisons (data points of Fig. 4, as compared with “Th1-2” of Fig. 7) between a reference voltage level (battery voltage level associated with “predetermined threshold Th1-2”; Fig. 7; ¶ [57-60]) and a voltage level delivered (voltage values of Fig. 4) from the battery (series combination of “batteries 1204A, 1204B”, collectively forming the “target battery”; Fig. 12; ¶ [109-111]) during the operation sequence (Fig. 6, steps 605-617, wherein a temporary load is applied for a “test period” while battery voltage is periodically measured and recorded, followed by data analysis; the data analysis of step 617 is detailed in Figs. 7-9; operation sequence is simply referred to as a “load check” in Fig. 4).
Felt teaches to generate, with the output device (“speaker 1202”; Fig. 12), an output (Fig. 9, step 951: “send Low Battery notification”; ¶ [71]) indicating a low battery condition (“Low Battery” notification indicates a “depleted” battery) after commencing the operation sequence (step 951 occurs after step 605, which commences the operation sequence by applying the temporary test load) and prior to commencing an important operation (such as detecting fire, per ¶ [1]; see note 6-1, included infra) in response to the following conditions (see annotated Fig. 4, included supra in the claim 1 section).
NOTE 6-1: It is acknowledged that the important operation of fire detection taught by Felt is not an analyte test sequence. However, each is an important operation of testing a quality based on an external material (smoke in air vs. analytes in a fluid). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art understands the important operation taught by Felt is analogous to the analyte test sequence disclosed by Guthrie.
Felt further teaches condition a) the first voltage level (voltage data point at “0 ms NLV” sample in Fig. 4; measured in Fig. 6, step 604: “1st measurement across battery with no load”) of the battery being sufficient (though no first low battery voltage threshold is taught, the higher battery voltage value of the first data point in Fig. 4 is clearly higher than all other data points in the sequence).
Felt further teaches condition b) at least one voltage comparison (Fig. 4 voltage values from 200-1200 ms indicate battery voltage has fallen below the threshold) in the plurality of voltage comparisons indicating the voltage level of the battery is less (“No” response to Fig. 7, step 705 results in step 709: “set BAT_STATUS to BAT_PD”; ¶ [60]: “possible full or partial deletion”; later results in Fig. 9, step 951: “send Low Battery notification”) than the reference voltage level (battery voltage level associated with “predetermined threshold Th1-2”; Fig. 7; ¶ [57-60]) during the operation sequence (Fig. 4’s “load check”; Fig. 6, steps 605-617), while at least one subsequent voltage comparison (Fig. 4 voltage values from 1400-1800 ms indicate battery voltage has risen back above the threshold) in the plurality of voltage comparisons is greater than the reference voltage level (battery voltage level associated with “predetermined threshold Th1-2”; Fig. 7; ¶ [57-60]) during the operation sequence (Fig. 4’s “load check”; Fig. 6, steps 605-617), indicating a transient voltage droop (Fig. 4 curve indicates the transient voltage droop characteristic of “depleted batteries” in response to the “load check”).
Felt further teaches basing the low battery warning on the detection of a transient voltage droop during the operation sequence to distinguish a depleted battery from a passivated battery, thereby improving the accuracy of detecting a depleted battery prior to needing the battery for important operations (¶ [1-4, 26-34]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the operation sequence disclosed by the combo of Guthrie & Carg to base the low battery warning on the detection of a transient voltage droop during the operation sequence, as taught by Felt, to improve the accuracy of detecting a depleted battery prior to needing the battery for the analyte test sequence.
It is noted that by modifying the operation sequence of Guthrie to incorporate the load test of Felt, the low battery condition output would be generated if condition “a)” is satisfied. Thus, the combo of Guthrie, Carg, & Felt teaches the output (from Felt step 951: “send Low Battery notification”; incorporated into Guthrie’s operation sequence of step 214: “perform start up check”) is generated after commencing the operation sequence (Guthrie: step 214 “start up check”; Felt equivalent: “load check”) and prior to commencing an analyte test sequence (Guthrie: step 224 “conduct analyte test”) in response to the first voltage level of the battery (Guthrie: “battery level”, measured in step 204; Felt equivalent: Fig. 4’s voltage value at “0 ms NLV”) being greater (Guthrie’s operation sequence, starting in step 214, is only performed with a “Yes” response to step 206, confirming “battery level > first threshold”) than the first low battery voltage threshold (Guthrie: “first threshold”).
Though the combo of Guthrie, Carg, & Felt teaches generating a plurality of voltage comparisons between a reference voltage level and a voltage level delivered from the battery during the operation sequence, this combo does not teach the plurality of voltage comparisons are generated “with the voltage comparator” which is “operatively connected to the processor”. However, it is well-known in the art to use a voltage comparator as a design choice to generate voltage comparisons.
Green teaches a voltage comparator (“comparator 330”; Fig. 3) operatively connected to the control circuit (combo of “comparator qualifier 340” and “state machine 350”; Fig. 3; see note 6-2, included infra).
NOTE 6-2: Though Green’s teachings are with respect to a control circuit, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand these teachings are also applicable to a processor, such as that taught by Guthrie. The processor taught by Guthrie is capable of controlling digital logic signals such as those used in Green’s control circuit.
Green further implies the receptacle (receptacle for holding the replaceable battery would be necessary, though not explicitly stated, in the “hearing aids” discussed in col. 1, lines 8-16; also see col. 5, lines 8-9: “replacement battery is inserted into the electronic device”) being operatively connected to the voltage comparator (330).
Green further teaches to generate, with the voltage comparator (330), a plurality of voltage comparisons (circuit topology of Fig. 3 causes output of “330” to be continuously updated and monitored via the control circuitry; thus, a plurality of comparisons between the output voltages of “310” and “320” are made) between a reference voltage level (col. 6, lines 62-64: “output of programmable supply voltage divider 310”, representative of “VTH2”; Figs. 1, 4) and a voltage level delivered from the battery (col. 7, lines 11-12: “voltage reference 320 represents the battery output voltage to be monitored”; Fig. 3) during the operation sequence (col. 4, lines 58-59: “method 200 for low battery power detection”; Fig. 2).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the medical device disclosed by the combo of Guthrie, Carg, & Felt to incorporate a voltage comparator to generate the plurality of voltage comparisons, as taught by Green, since the applicant has not disclosed that the voltage comparator solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with other circuits for comparing voltages, such as an analog-to-digital converter (ADC). The circuit designer may choose a voltage comparator because voltage comparators are inexpensive, have a small footprint on a circuit board, and operate without software or firmware, thus reducing development time and cost.
The combo of Guthrie, Carg, Felt, & Green teaches the receptacle (Guthrie: “battery connector”, operatively connected to the battery) being operatively connected to the voltage comparator (incorporated from Green: “330”, also operatively connected to the battery).
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guthrie et al. (US 2015/0048836 A1) in view of Cargonja et al. (US 2006/0267554 A1; hereinafter “Carg”), Feltham et al. (US 2022/0181707 A1; hereinafter “Felt”), Green et al. (US 6,310,556 B1), and Osa (US 2014/0297707 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, the combo of Guthrie, Carg, Felt, & Green teaches the medical device of claim 6.
The combo of Guthrie, Carg, Felt, & Green teaches the processor (Guthrie: “38”; modified to incorporate capabilities per Carg’s “16”) being further configured to identify the first low battery voltage threshold (Guthrie: “first threshold”; modified to be based on temperature per Carg) using a predetermined function (from Carg: “curve 67”).
Guthrie is silent as to the details of how the predetermined function is implemented by the processor and stored in memory. Specifically, Guthrie does not disclose “the processor being further configured to: identify the first low battery voltage threshold using a predetermined piecewise linear function stored in the memory” (claim 7).
Guthrie further does not disclose “the memory stores parameters of the piecewise linear function and the processor calculates the first low battery voltage threshold using the parameters” (claim 8).
Guthrie further does not disclose “the memory stores a lookup table corresponding to the piecewise linear function and the processor identifies the first low battery voltage threshold using the lookup table” (claim 9).
However, these claimed approaches to approximating a nonlinear function (such as that of the first low battery voltage threshold, dependent on temperature) via stored parameters and/or a lookup table are well known in the art.
Osa teaches the processor (“CPU 801”; Fig. 8; ¶ [60, 84]) being further configured to identify the dependent value (variable “sapp” in the approximate function value “sapp(x)”; Fig. 3) using a predetermined piecewise linear function (“sapp(x)”; Fig. 3; “piecewise linear approximate function” per ¶ [15]; calculated in step S204 of Fig. 2) stored in the memory (“ROM 802”; Fig. 8; ¶ [60]: “non-volatile memory that stores programs”).
Osa further teaches the memory (802) stores parameters (“parameters of s(x)” of step S203, Fig. 2; “coefficient holding unit 405” of Figs. 4-5) of the piecewise linear function (“sapp(x)”) and the processor (801) calculates the dependent value (“sapp”) using the parameters (“parameters of s(x)”).
Osa further teaches the memory (802) stores a lookup table (“LUT value” of step S203, Fig. 2; “LUT 403” of Figs. 4-5) corresponding to the piecewise linear function (“sapp(x)”) and the processor (801) identifies the dependent value (“sapp”) using the lookup table (403).
NOTE 7-1: Though Osa’s teachings are not explicitly with respect to identifying the “first low battery voltage threshold”, Osa a known technique that can be used to improve similar devices (processor, memory) in the same way. The following conclusion of obviousness is based on KSR rational (C). Reference MPEP § 2143.C. Osa teaches a technique for identifying a dependent value using a predetermined piecewise linear function. However, one of ordinary skill in the art understands the first low battery voltage threshold is a dependent value, such as that taught by Osa. Further, both Guthrie and Osa teach similar devices (processor, memory, dependent function). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the teachings of Osa may also be applied to identifying the first low battery voltage threshold.
Osa further teaches the technique of identifying the dependent value (“sapp”) using a predetermined piecewise linear function (“sapp(x)”) stored in the memory via stored parameters and/or lookup table as a practical method of approximating a non-linear function that shortens the calculation times (¶ [23]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the processor and memory disclosed by the combo of Guthrie, Carg, Felt, & Green to identify the first low battery voltage threshold using a predetermined piecewise linear function stored in the memory via stored parameters and/or lookup table, as taught by Osa, as a practical method of approximating the non-linear, temperature dependent first low battery voltage threshold that shortens the calculation times. This application of Osa’s technique improves the processor’s identification of the first low battery voltage threshold in the same way as the known technique taught by Carg to yield predictable results (practical, efficient calculations).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guthrie et al. (US 2015/0048836 A1) in view of Guthrie et al. (US 2014/0059360 A1; hereinafter “Guth-2”), Cargonja et al. (US 2006/0267554 A1; hereinafter “Carg”), Feltham et al. (US 2022/0181707 A1; hereinafter “Felt”), and Green et al. (US 6,310,556 B1).
Regarding Claim 11, Guthrie discloses a method (¶ [3]: “method of monitoring power in a portable physiological measurement device that has at least a battery coupled to a processor and memory”; Fig. 2) for operating a medical device (“data management unit (DMU) 10”, also referred to as “glucose meter 10”; Fig. 1A) comprising the following.
Guthrie further discloses activating (Fig. 2, step 202: “turn on device for test”) a processor (“microcontroller 38”; Fig. 1B; ¶ [20]: “38 can be in the form of a mixed signal microprocessor (MSP) such as, for example, the Texas Instrument MSP 430”) in the medical device (10).
Guthrie further discloses the processor (38) receiving electrical power from a primary battery (“battery” included in “10” per ¶ [19]; ¶ [5]: “the battery includes two Alkaline AA-sized batteries”) electrically connected (via “battery connector” located on bottom surface of “circuit board 34” per ¶ [19]) to the medical device (10).
Guthrie further discloses identifying, with the processor (38), a first low battery voltage threshold (Fig. 2, step 206: “first threshold”; ¶ [5]: “may be about 82% of the rated voltage … of the battery”).
Guthrie further discloses measuring, with a voltage sensor (part of “microprocessor”, i.e. “38”, per ¶ [8]) operatively connected to the processor (38), a first voltage level of the primary battery (Fig. 2, step 204: “measure power level of battery”; ¶ [23]: “measures the battery voltage”).
Guthrie further discloses commencing an operation sequence (Fig. 2, step 214: “perform start up check”) of the medical device (10) after measuring the first voltage level of the battery (Fig. 2, step 204: “measure power level of battery”).
Guthrie further discloses the operation sequence is at least one of a quality check process (“start up check”) and a wait for fluid sample process (step 214 is before step 224; thus, step 214 is waiting for the fluid sample of step 224) in an analyte test meter (10).
Guthrie further discloses generating, with the processor (“38” controls “display 14”), an output (Fig. 2, step 208: “annunciate low battery warning”) using an output device (“display 14”; Fig. 1A) in the medical device (10) indicating a low battery condition (¶ [27]: “a dead battery screen could be displayed for a required time period”).
Guthrie does not disclose “activating, with the processor, at least one peripheral device in the medical device, the at least one peripheral device receiving electrical power from a secondary battery electrically connected to the medical device; measuring, with the processor, a temperature within a housing of the medical device; identifying, with the processor, a first low battery voltage threshold based on the temperature; identifying, with the processor, a second low battery voltage threshold based on the temperature; measuring, with the voltage sensor operatively connected to the processor, a second voltage level of the secondary battery”.
Guthrie further does not disclose “measuring, with the voltage sensor operatively connected to the processor, a second voltage level of the secondary battery”.
As addressed supra, Guthrie discloses commencing an operation sequence of the medical device after measuring the first voltage level of the primary battery. However, Guthrie further does not disclose “commencing an operation sequence of the medical device after measuring the first voltage level of the primary battery and the second voltage level of the secondary battery”.
Guthrie further does not disclose “generating, with a first voltage comparator operatively connected to the processor, a first plurality of voltage comparisons between a first reference voltage level and a voltage level delivered from the primary battery during the operation sequence; generating, with a second voltage comparator operatively connected to the processor, a second plurality of voltage comparisons between a second reference voltage level and a voltage level delivered from the secondary battery during the operation sequence”.
Though Guthrie discloses generating, with the processor, an output using an output device in the medical device indicating a low battery condition, Guthrie further does not disclose this output is generated “after commencing the operation sequence and prior to commencing an analyte test sequence in response to: a) the first voltage level of the primary battery being greater than the first low battery voltage threshold; b) the second voltage level of the secondary battery being greater than the second low battery voltage threshold; and c) generating, with the processor, the output using the output device in the medical device indicating the low battery condition in response to at least one voltage comparison in the first plurality of voltage comparisons indicating the voltage level of the primary battery is less than the first reference voltage level during the operation sequence, while at least one subsequent voltage comparison in the first plurality of voltage comparisons is greater than the first reference voltage level during the operation sequence, indicating a transient voltage droop in the primary battery, or in response to at least one voltage comparison in the second plurality of voltage comparisons indicating the voltage level of the secondary battery is less than the second reference voltage level during the operation sequence, while at least one subsequent voltage comparison in the second plurality of voltage comparisons is greater than the second reference voltage level during the operation sequence, indicating a transient voltage droop in the secondary battery”.
Guth-2 teaches the processor (“microcontroller 38”; Fig. 1B-1C) receiving electrical power (“38” powered by “50” per ¶ [26]) from a primary battery (“primary battery 50”; Fig. 1C) electrically connected (via “battery connector” located on bottom surface of “circuit board 34”, but not shown in Fig. 1B; ¶ [23]) to the medical device (10).
Guth-2 further teaches activating (Fig. 3, step 302; ¶ [28]: occurs in response to user selecting the OK button on the monitor), with the processor (38; controls process steps of Figs. 2-3), at least one peripheral device (“backlight 60”; Fig. 1C) in the medical device (10), the at least one peripheral device (60) receiving electrical power (¶ [26]: “52 is utilized to power a backlight 60 of the display 14 via a back light circuit 54”) from a secondary battery (“secondary battery 52”; Fig. 1C) electrically connected to the medical device (10).
Guth-2 further teaches identifying, with the processor (38), a second low battery voltage threshold (“third capacity threshold” of step 306; Fig. 3).
Guth-2 further teaches measuring, with the voltage sensor (part of “microprocessor”, i.e. “38”, per ¶ [4]) operatively connected to the processor (38), a second voltage level (¶ [3]: “measured capacity of the secondary battery”; measured in step 304 of Fig. 3 per ¶ [28]) of the secondary battery (52).
Guth-2 further teaches the secondary battery to be used in circumstances where the primary battery lacks sufficient capacity to power the processor in its intended tasks (¶ [26]) such as analyte testing (Abstract), thus improving reliability. This method further enables the medical device to be used for twice as long as compared to if it relied on a single battery (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the medical device and method disclosed by Guthrie to incorporate a secondary battery and measure the associated second voltage level along with the measurement of the first voltage level, as taught by Guth-2, to improve reliability and enable the medical device to be used for longer without recharging and/or replacing the batteries.
Thus, the combo of Guthrie & Guth-2 teaches commencing an operation sequence (Guthrie Fig. 2, step 214: “perform start up check”) of the medical device (Guthrie: “10”) after measuring the first voltage level of the primary battery (Guthrie Fig. 2, step 204: “measure power level of battery”) and the second voltage level of the secondary battery (Guthrie’s step 204 modified per Guth-2 to also measure the second voltage level of secondary battery “52”).
Carg teaches identifying, with the processor (16), a low battery voltage threshold (see annotated Fig. 3, included supra; ¶ [24]: “curve 67 represents a threshold or limit curve”, “if the measured voltage is less than the threshold or limit value, then the battery 13 may have reached a low voltage condition”) based on the temperature (Fig. 3, x-axis: “temperature (°C)”).
Carg further teaches the technique of measuring the temperature in the housing as a basis for identifying a low battery voltage threshold to more accurately model the low battery capacity across temperatures (¶ [2, 48]).
NOTE 11-1: Though Carg’s teachings are not explicitly with respect to a “first low battery voltage threshold” and a “second low battery voltage threshold”, Carg teaches a known technique that can be used to improve similar low battery voltage thresholds, such as the first/second low battery voltage thresholds disclosed by Guthrie, in the same way. The following conclusion of obviousness is based on KSR rational (C). Reference MPEP § 2143.C.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method for operating the medical device disclosed by the combo of Guthrie & Guth-2 to incorporate measuring the temperature in the housing as a basis for identifying both the first low battery voltage threshold and the second low battery voltage threshold, as taught by Carg, to more accurately model the low battery capacities of the primary battery and secondary battery across temperatures. This application of Carg’s technique improves both the first/second low battery voltage thresholds in the same way as the known technique taught by Carg to yield predictable results (temperature dependent values for low battery voltage thresholds).
Thus, the combo of Guthrie, Guth-2, & Carg teaches identifying, with the processor (Guthrie: “38”; modified per teachings of Carg), a first low battery voltage threshold (Guthrie: “first threshold”; modified to be based on temperature per the technique taught by Carg) based on the temperature.
The combo of Guthrie, Guth-2, & Carg further teaches identifying, with the processor (Guthrie: “38”; modified per teachings of Carg), a second low battery voltage threshold (incorporated from Guth-2: “third capacity threshold”; modified to be based on temperature per the technique taught by Carg) based on the temperature.
Felt teaches generating a first plurality of voltage comparisons (data points of Fig. 4, as compared with “Th1-2” of Fig. 7) between a first reference voltage level (battery voltage level associated with “predetermined threshold Th1-2”; Fig. 7; ¶ [57-60]) and a voltage level delivered (voltage values of Fig. 4) from the primary battery (series combination of “batteries 1204A, 1204B”, collectively forming the “target battery”; Fig. 12; ¶ [109-111]) during the operation sequence (Fig. 6, steps 605-617, wherein a temporary load is applied for a “test period” while battery voltage is periodically measured and recorded, followed by data analysis; the data analysis of step 617 is detailed in Figs. 7-9; operation sequence is simply referred to as a “load check” in Fig. 4).
Felt further teaches generating, with the processor (¶ [5]: “microprocessor” within the “PDAM module”), an output (Fig. 9, step 951: “send Low Battery notification”; ¶ [71]) using an output device (“speaker 1202”; Fig. 12) in the electronic device (“sounder 1200”; see note 11-2, included infra) indicating a low battery condition (“Low Battery” notification indicates a “depleted” battery) after commencing the operation sequence (step 951 occurs after step 605, which commences the operation sequence by applying the temporary test load) and prior to commencing an important operation (such as detecting fire, per ¶ [1]; see note 11-3, included infra) in response to the following conditions (see annotated Fig. 4, included infra).
NOTE 11-2: It is acknowledged that electronic device taught by Felt is not a medical device. Both devices are made up of electronic components in a housing and are used to measure/detect something (fire vs. analyte). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art understands the electronic device taught by Felt is analogous to the medical device disclosed by Guthrie.
NOTE 11-3: It is acknowledged that the important operation of fire detection taught by Felt is not an analyte test sequence. However, each is an important operation of testing a quality based on an external material (smoke in air vs. analytes in a fluid). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art understands the important operation taught by Felt is analogous to the analyte test sequence disclosed by Guthrie.
Felt further teaches condition a) the first voltage level (voltage data point at “0 ms NLV” sample in Fig. 4; measured in Fig. 6, step 604: “1st measurement across battery with no load”) of the primary battery being sufficient (though no first low battery voltage threshold is taught, the higher battery voltage value of the first data point in Fig. 4 is clearly higher than all other data points in the sequence).
Felt further teaches condition c) generating, with the processor (“microprocessor”), the output (“Low Battery notification”) using the output device (1202) in the electronic device (1200) indicating the low battery condition in response to at least one voltage comparison (Fig. 4 voltage values from 200-1200 ms indicate battery voltage has fallen below the threshold) in the first plurality of voltage comparisons indicating the voltage level of the primary battery is less (“No” response to Fig. 7, step 705 results in step 709: “set BAT_STATUS to BAT_PD”; ¶ [60]: “possible full or partial deletion”; later results in Fig. 9, step 951: “send Low Battery notification”) than the first reference voltage level (battery voltage level associated with “predetermined threshold Th1-2”; Fig. 7; ¶ [57-60]) during the operation sequence (Fig. 4’s “load check”; Fig. 6, steps 605-617), while at least one subsequent voltage comparison (Fig. 4 voltage values from 1400-1800 ms indicate battery voltage has risen back above the threshold) in the first plurality of voltage comparisons is greater than the first reference voltage level (battery voltage level associated with “predetermined threshold Th1-2”; Fig. 7; ¶ [57-60]) during the operation sequence (Fig. 4’s “load check”; Fig. 6, steps 605-617), indicating a transient voltage droop in the primary battery, (Fig. 4 curve indicates the transient voltage droop characteristic of “depleted batteries” in response to the “load check”).
Felt further teaches basing the low battery warning on the detection of a transient voltage droop during the operation sequence to distinguish a depleted battery from a passivated battery, thereby improving the accuracy of detecting a depleted battery prior to needing the battery for important operations (¶ [1-4, 26-34]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method’s operation sequence disclosed by the combo of Guthrie, Guth-2, & Carg to base the low battery warning on the detection of a transient voltage droop in the primary battery during the operation sequence, as taught by Felt, to improve the accuracy of detecting a depleted battery prior to needing the battery for the analyte test sequence.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method’s operation sequence disclosed by the combo of Guthrie, Guth-2, & Carg to base the low battery warning on the detection of a transient voltage droop in the secondary battery during the operation sequence, based on the teachings of Felt, to improve the accuracy of detecting a depleted battery prior to needing the battery for the analyte test sequence. This application of Felt’s technique improves both the detection of secondary batteries in the same way as the known technique taught by Felt (with respect to a primary battery) to yield predictable results (detection of a depleted battery).
Thus, the combo of Guthrie, Guth-2, Carg, & Felt teaches generating a second plurality of voltage comparisons between a second reference voltage level and a voltage level delivered from the secondary battery during the operation sequence (duplicated the technique from Felt to apply to the secondary battery in addition to the primary battery).
It is noted that by modifying the operation sequence of Guthrie to incorporate the load test (from Felt) for each of the primary battery and the secondary battery (from Guth-2), the low battery condition output would be generated if conditions “a)” and “b)” are satisfied. Thus, the combo of Guthrie, Guth-2, Carg, & Felt teaches the output (from Felt step 951: “send Low Battery notification”; incorporated into Guthrie’s operation sequence of step 214: “perform start up check”) is generated after commencing the operation sequence (Guthrie: step 214 “start up check”; Felt equivalent: “load check”) and prior to commencing an analyte test sequence (Guthrie: step 224 “conduct analyte test”) in response to a) the first voltage level of the primary battery (Guthrie: “battery level”, measured in step 204; Felt equivalent: Fig. 4’s voltage value at “0 ms NLV”) being greater (Guthrie’s operation sequence, starting in step 214, is only performed with a “Yes” response to step 206, confirming “battery level > first threshold”) than the first low battery voltage threshold (Guthrie: “first threshold”) and b) the second voltage level of the secondary battery being greater (Guthrie’s operation sequence, starting in step 214, is only performed with a “Yes” response to step 206, confirming the incorporated Guth-2’s secondary battery voltage is greater than its “third capacity threshold”) than the second low battery voltage threshold (Guth-2: “third capacity threshold”).
Though the combo of Guthrie, Guth-2, Carg, & Felt teaches generating a plurality of voltage comparisons between a first/second reference voltage level and a first/second voltage level delivered from the primary/secondary battery during the operation sequence, this combo does not teach the first/second plurality of voltage comparisons are generated “with a first/second voltage comparator operatively connected to the processor”. However, it is well-known in the art to use a voltage comparator as a design choice to generate voltage comparisons.
Green teaches generating, with a first voltage comparator (“comparator 330”; Fig. 3) operatively connected to the control circuit (combo of “comparator qualifier 340” and “ state machine 350”; Fig. 3; see note 11-4, included infra), a first plurality of voltage comparisons (circuit topology of Fig. 3 causes output of “330” to be continuously updated and monitored via the control circuitry; thus, a plurality of comparisons between the output voltages of “310” and “320” are made) between a first reference voltage level (col. 6, lines 62-64: “output of programmable supply voltage divider 310”, representative of “VTH2”; Figs. 1, 4) and a voltage level delivered from the battery (col. 7, lines 11-12: “voltage reference 320 represents the battery output voltage to be monitored”; Fig. 3) during the operation sequence (col. 4, lines 58-59: “method 200 for low battery power detection”; Fig. 2).
NOTE 11-4: Though Green’s teachings are with respect to a control circuit, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand these teachings are also applicable to a processor, such as that taught by Guthrie. The processor taught by Guthrie is capable of controlling digital logic signals such as those used in Green’s control circuit.
NOTE 11-5: Though Green’s teachings are not explicitly with respect to a “second voltage comparator”, Green teaches a known technique that can be used to measure and compare voltages to thresholds, such as the first/second low battery voltage thresholds disclosed by Guthrie, in the same way. The following conclusion of obviousness is further supported by KSR rational (C). Reference MPEP § 2143.C. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art understands each of the first plurality of voltage comparators and the second plurality of voltage comparators are analogous and could each be generated by voltage comparators.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the method disclosed by the combo of Guthrie, Guth-2, Carg, & Felt to incorporate voltage comparators to generate each plurality of first/second pluralities of voltage comparisons, as taught by Green, since the applicant has not disclosed that the voltage comparator solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with other circuits for comparing voltages, such as an analog-to-digital converter (ADC). The circuit designer may choose a voltage comparator because voltage comparators are inexpensive, have a small footprint on a circuit board, and operate without software or firmware, thus reducing development time and cost.
NOTE 11-6: Due to the term “or” in claim 11, line 42, the following claim 11 limitation is rendered optional: “in response to at least one voltage comparison in the second plurality of voltage comparisons indicating the voltage level of the secondary battery is less than the second reference voltage level during the operation sequence, while at least one subsequent voltage comparison in the second plurality of voltage comparisons is greater than the second reference voltage level during the operation sequence, indicating a transient voltage droop in the secondary battery”.
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 Daniel P McFarland whose telephone number is (571)272-5952. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM Eastern.
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.
/DANIEL P MCFARLAND/ Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/DREW A DUNN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights