Status of Claims
In the communication filed on 03/30/2026, claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-3, 10-12, and 19-20 are amended. No claims are new. No claims are presently cancelled.
Response to Arguments
The prior objections to the Claims are withdrawn due to the amendments.
The prior interpretations of claim terms under 35 U.S.C. 112 (f) are maintained, as detailed infra.
The prior rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn due to the amendments and explanations provided in the applicant’s response (03/30/2026; pp. 7).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection.
The amended independent claims 1, 10, and 19 have changed scoped due to the new subject matter requiring actions to be performed “during the off mode”. Thus, this final rejection is proper, as necessitated by amendment.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The term “logic” is interpreted in accordance with the structural definition provided by the instant application’s specification ¶ [69], which defines “logic 208” as “a control circuit”.
The term “means for monitoring” and “means for determining” are each interpreted to be synonymous with “logic” (see structural definition of prior section) and/or “an analog-to-digital converter … such as a comparator” per ¶ [69].
The term “means for disconnecting” is interpreted to be synonymous with “logic” (see structural definition of prior section) and/or “a switch” per ¶ [69].
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, 5-10, and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by El Markhi et al. (US 2019/0348846 A1; hereinafter “ELM”).
Regarding Claim 1, ELM discloses a method of battery protection (¶ [28]: “method for controlling a device to enter a ship mode”; Figs. 3-5), comprising the following.
ELM further discloses monitoring a voltage (“VPMID”; Figs. 3-5) of a battery node (“PMID pin 212”; Fig. 2) during an off mode (any time when “SHIP_MODE_REQ” = 1, i.e. a “logical high value”; Figs. 3-5; ¶ [23]: “instruction to put the circuit 200 into a ship mode or other low-power mode (e.g., such as a battery saving mode)”) of a device (“system 100”; Fig. 1; ¶ [14]: “100 is representative of a consumer or other electronic device, such as …”) having a battery (“battery 102”; Fig. 1) coupled to the battery node (“212”, coupled to “214” via “222”; ¶ [23]: “battery coupled to the battery pin 214”).
PNG
media_image1.png
925
986
media_image1.png
Greyscale
ELM further discloses determining (Fig. 5, step 506: “VPMID < VSUPP”, resulting in setting “SUPP_COMP=1”), during the off mode (when “SHIP_MODE_REQ” = 1), that the voltage (VPMID) of the battery node (212) is below a first threshold voltage (“supplemental voltage threshold VSUPP”; Figs. 3-5; ¶ [13]: “VSUPP may be less than VBATT”; when “VPMID” is less than “VSUPP”, then “SUPP_COMP” is set to 1; Figs. 3-5).
ELM further discloses that in response to the determination (VSUPP = 1), disconnecting a path (“transistor 220” is opened as a result of entering “ship mode”, as a result of setting “SHIP_MODE_ENABLE” = 1; Figs. 2-5; ¶ [25]: “Based on SHIP MODE_ENABLE, the FET control circuit 204 turns off … the transistor 220”) between the battery node (212) and a power supply node (“voltage input pin 210”; Fig. 2) of the device (100) during the off mode (when “SHIP_MODE_REQ” = 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
933
1230
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5, ELM discloses the method of claim 1.
ELM further discloses the disconnecting (“transistor 2220” is opened as a result of entering “ship mode”, as a result of setting “SHIP_MODE_ENABLE” = 1; Figs. 2-5; ¶ [25]: “Based on SHIP MODE_ENABLE, the FET control circuit 204 turns off … the transistor 220”) comprises opening a switch (“transistor 220”; Fig. 2) coupled between the power supply node (210) and the battery node (212).
Regarding Claim 6, ELM discloses the method of claim 5.
ELM further discloses the method further comprising charging the battery (102) through the switch (“220”; part of the “battery charging circuit 104” per ¶ [18]; ¶ [16]: “104 receives power via the charging port 106 and uses the power to charge the battery 102”) when the switch is closed (in order for “104” / “200” to conduct charge from “210” to “214”, the “transistor 220” must be closed; Figs. 1-2; ¶ [23]: “power is also provided to the battery pin 214 by coupling the Vin pin 210 to the battery pin 214 for charging a battery coupled to the battery pin 214”).
Regarding Claim 7, ELM discloses the method of claim 1.
ELM further discloses the monitoring (Fig. 5, step 506: “VPMID < VSUPP?”; can begin simultaneously with entering the off mode of step 502 per ¶ [31]: “operation 502, operation 504, and/or operation 506 may be performed substantially concurrently”) begins when the device (100) enters the off mode (Fig. 5, step 502: “receive SHIP_MODE_REQ=1”).
Regarding Claim 8, ELM discloses the method of claim 1.
ELM further discloses the determining (Fig. 5, step 506: “VPMID < VSUPP”, resulting in setting “SUPP_COMP=1”) comprises comparing the voltage (“VPMID”) of the battery node (212) to the first threshold voltage (“VSUPP”) with a comparator (“comparator 230”; Fig. 2; ¶ [24]: “230 outputs a signal (SUPP COMP) having a logical high value and outputs SUPP COMP having a logical low value when VPMID is not less than VSUPP”).
Regarding Claim 9, ELM discloses the method of claim 1.
ELM further discloses the first threshold voltage (“VSUPP”) is programmable (all functions of the disclosed circuit and associated method are executed with “software programming” per ¶ [34]).
Regarding Claim 10, ELM discloses an apparatus (“system 100”; Fig. 1; ¶ [14]: “100 is representative of a consumer or other electronic device, such as …”; see annotated Figs. 2 and 4, included supra in the claim 1 section) comprising the following features.
ELM further discloses a battery (“battery 102”; Fig. 1) coupled to a battery node (“PMID pin 212”, coupled to “214” via “222”; ¶ [23]: “battery coupled to the battery pin 214”).
ELM further discloses logic (combo of “control circuit 202”, “FET control circuit 204”, and “ADC 206”; Fig. 2) coupled to the battery node (212) and configured to do the following.
ELM further discloses to monitor a voltage (“VPMID”; Figs. 3-5) of the battery node (212) during an off mode (any time when “SHIP_MODE_REQ” = 1, i.e. a “logical high value”; Figs. 3-5; ¶ [23]: “instruction to put the circuit 200 into a ship mode or other low-power mode (e.g., such as a battery saving mode)”) of the apparatus (100).
ELM further discloses to determine (Fig. 5, step 506: “VPMID < VSUPP”, resulting in setting “SUPP_COMP=1”), during the off mode (when “SHIP_MODE_REQ” = 1), that the voltage (VPMID) of the battery node (212) is below a first threshold voltage (“supplemental voltage threshold VSUPP”; Figs. 3-5; ¶ [13]: “VSUPP may be less than VBATT”; when “VPMID” is less than “VSUPP”, then “SUPP_COMP” is set to 1; Figs. 3-5).
ELM further discloses to disconnect a path (“transistor 220” is opened as a result of entering “ship mode”, as a result of setting “SHIP_MODE_ENABLE” = 1; Figs. 2-5; ¶ [25]: “Based on SHIP MODE_ENABLE, the FET control circuit 204 turns off … the transistor 220”) between the battery node (212) and a power supply node (“voltage input pin 210”; Fig. 2) of the apparatus (100), during the off mode (when “SHIP_MODE_REQ” = 1), in response to the determination (VSUPP = 1).
Regarding Claim 14, ELM discloses the apparatus of claim 10.
ELM further discloses a switch (“transistor 220”; Fig. 2) coupled between the power supply node (210) and the battery node (212), wherein to disconnect the path, the logic (202, 204, 206) is configured to open the switch (“transistor 2220” is opened as a result of entering “ship mode”, as a result of setting “SHIP_MODE_ENABLE” = 1; Figs. 2-5; ¶ [25]: “Based on SHIP MODE_ENABLE, the FET control circuit 204 turns off … the transistor 220”).
Regarding Claim 15, ELM discloses the apparatus of claim 14.
ELM further discloses the logic (202, 204, 206) is further configured to charge the battery (102) through the switch (“220”; part of the “battery charging circuit 104” per ¶ [18]; ¶ [16]: “104 receives power via the charging port 106 and uses the power to charge the battery 102”) when the switch is closed (in order for “104” / “200” to conduct charge from “210” to “214”, the “transistor 220” must be closed; Figs. 1-2; ¶ [23]: “power is also provided to the battery pin 214 by coupling the Vin pin 210 to the battery pin 214 for charging a battery coupled to the battery pin 214”).
Regarding Claim 16, ELM discloses the apparatus of claim 10.
ELM further discloses the logic (202, 204, 206) is configured to begin monitoring (Fig. 5, step 506: “VPMID < VSUPP?”; can begin simultaneously with entering the off mode of step 502 per ¶ [31]: “operation 502, operation 504, and/or operation 506 may be performed substantially concurrently”) the voltage (“VPMID”) of the battery node (212) when the apparatus (100) enters the off mode (Fig. 5, step 502: “receive SHIP_MODE_REQ=1”).
Regarding Claim 17, ELM discloses the apparatus of claim 10.
ELM further discloses a comparator (“comparator 230”; Fig. 2; ¶ [24]: “230 outputs a signal (SUPP COMP) having a logical high value and outputs SUPP COMP having a logical low value when VPMID is not less than VSUPP”) including an output (output of “230”) coupled to an input (input of “228” within “202”) of the logic (202, 204, 206), including a first input coupled to the battery node (212), and including a second input coupled to a reference voltage node configured to have the first threshold voltage (“VSUPP”).
Regarding Claim 18, ELM discloses the apparatus of claim 10.
ELM further discloses the first threshold voltage (“VSUPP”) is programmable (all functions of the disclosed circuit and associated method are executed with “software programming” per ¶ [34]).
Regarding Claim 19, ELM discloses an apparatus (“system 100”; Fig. 1; ¶ [14]: “100 is representative of a consumer or other electronic device, such as …”; see annotated Figs. 2 and 4, included supra in the claim 1 section) comprising the following features.
ELM further discloses a battery (“battery 102”; Fig. 1) coupled to a battery node (“PMID pin 212”, coupled to “214” via “222”; ¶ [23]: “battery coupled to the battery pin 214”).
ELM further discloses means for monitoring (combo of “control circuit 202”, “FET control circuit 204”, and “ADC 206”; Fig. 2) a voltage (“VPMID”; Figs. 3-5) of the battery node (212) during an off mode (any time when “SHIP_MODE_REQ” = 1, i.e. a “logical high value”; Figs. 3-5; ¶ [23]: “instruction to put the circuit 200 into a ship mode or other low-power mode (e.g., such as a battery saving mode)”) of the apparatus (100).
ELM further discloses means for determining (202, 204, 206), during the off mode (when “SHIP_MODE_REQ” = 1), that the voltage (VPMID) of the battery node (212) is below a first threshold voltage (“supplemental voltage threshold VSUPP”; Figs. 3-5; ¶ [13]: “VSUPP may be less than VBATT”; when “VPMID” is less than “VSUPP”, then “SUPP_COMP” is set to 1; Figs. 3-5).
ELM further discloses means for disconnecting (202, 204, 206) a path (“transistor 220” is opened as a result of entering “ship mode”, as a result of setting “SHIP_MODE_ENABLE” = 1; Figs. 2-5; ¶ [25]: “Based on SHIP MODE_ENABLE, the FET control circuit 204 turns off … the transistor 220”) between the battery node (212) and a power supply node (“voltage input pin 210”; Fig. 2) of the apparatus (100), during the off mode (when “SHIP_MODE_REQ” = 1), in response to the determination (VSUPP = 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 2-4, 11-13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over El Markhi et al. (US 2019/0348846 A1; hereinafter “ELM”) in view of Li et al. (US 2019/0115774 A1).
Regarding Claims 2-4, ELM discloses the method of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, ELM does not disclose “the battery is a battery pack comprising one or more battery cells and protection circuitry coupled in series with at least one of the battery cells”.
Regarding claim 3, ELM does not disclose “the disconnecting occurs before the protection circuitry can: detect that the voltage of the battery node is below a second threshold voltage, lower than the first threshold voltage; and open circuit the at least one of the battery cells from the power supply node or a reference potential node of the device”.
Regarding claim 4, ELM does not disclose “tripping the protection circuitry is avoided”.
Li teaches the battery (Fig. 1, including “battery 12”) is a battery pack (Fig. 1) comprising one or more battery cells (¶ [16]: “battery 12 may include one or more cells”) and protection circuitry (“second protection circuit 16”, with a “controller 18”; Figs. 1-2; ¶ [17]: “configured to measure the output voltage of the battery Vout and to compare … against a predetermined threshold”) coupled in series (see Figs. 1-2; per ¶ [17-18], “16” includes a switch in series with “12” to connect/disconnect the battery cells from the “load”) with at least one of the battery cells (12).
PNG
media_image3.png
720
1345
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Li further teaches the disconnecting (by opening “switch 22” within “14” to disconnect “battery 12 from the load” per ¶ [18]; controlled by the logic: “controller 18” within “first protection circuit 14”; Figs. 1-2) occurs before the protection circuitry (16) can: detect that the voltage (Vout) of the battery node (output of “battery 12”) is below a second threshold voltage (“V_UVP_B”; Fig. 3; ¶ [22]: “once the output voltage Vout drops to second protection threshold, VUVP B, … second protection circuit 16, disposed between first protection circuit 14 and battery 12 disconnects”).
Li further teaches the second threshold voltage (“V_UVP_B”) is lower than the first threshold voltage (“V_UVP_A”; Fig. 3; ¶ [21]: “since second protection threshold VUVP B is lower than first protection threshold VUVP A, second protection circuit 16 will not disconnect, and will thus remain operational until … Vout reaches second protection threshold VUVP B”).
PNG
media_image4.png
897
1587
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Li further teaches the disconnecting (by opening “switch 22” to disconnect “battery 12 from the load” per ¶ [18]; controlled by the logic: “controller 18” within “first protection circuit 14”; Figs. 1-2) occurs before (because the logic “16” has a higher threshold voltage “V_UVP_A”, it activates earlier in the discharge process than the protection circuitry “18”, which has a lower second threshold voltage “V_UVP_B”) the protection circuitry (16) can open circuit the at least one of the battery cells (12) from the power supply node (left side of “protection circuit 14”; Fig. 1) of the device.
Li further teaches tripping the protection circuitry (opening the switch within “16” in response to battery voltage declining below “V_UVP_B”) is avoided (avoids tripping “16” by activating “14” first when battery voltage declines below “V_UVP_A”, which is higher than “V_UVP_B”; ¶ [21]: “since second protection threshold VUVP B is lower than first protection threshold VUVP A, second protection circuit 16 will not disconnect”).
Li further teaches to disconnect the path before the protection circuitry can detect that the voltage of the battery node is below a second threshold voltage, lower than the first threshold voltage to reduce current demand from the battery (¶ [6, 21]) when in a low voltage state (between “V_UVP_B” and “V_UVP_A”). Li further teaches the second threshold voltage for the protection circuitry is intended to further reduce current demand (¶ [22]) from an even lower-voltage battery (between “V_inhibit” and “V_UVP_B”), to further reduce risk of reaching the inhibit voltage level. Because the inhibit voltage is the threshold as which the battery’s life declines from discharging (¶ [14]), this teaching of the second threshold voltage and associated control improves life of the battery.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the battery and method disclosed by ELM to incorporate protection circuitry which open circuits in response to the battery node’s voltage declining below a second threshold voltage, lower than the first threshold voltage, as taught by Li, to improve the life of the battery by reducing risk of the battery voltage declining to a damaging level for discharging.
Regarding Claims 11-13, ELM discloses the apparatus of claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, ELM does not disclose “the battery is a battery pack comprising one or more battery cells and protection circuitry coupled in series with at least one of the battery cells”.
Regarding claim 12, ELM does not disclose “wherein to disconnect the path, the logic is configured to disconnect the path before the protection circuitry can: detect that the voltage of the battery node is below a second threshold voltage, lower than the first threshold voltage; and open circuit the at least one of the battery cells from the power supply node or a reference potential node of the apparatus”.
Regarding claim 13, ELM does not disclose “the logic is further configured to avoid tripping the protection circuitry due to an undervoltage condition of the battery”.
Li teaches (see annotated Figs. 1 and 3, included supra in the claims 12-14 section) the battery (Fig. 1, including “battery 12”) is a battery pack (Fig. 1) comprising one or more battery cells (¶ [16]: “battery 12 may include one or more cells”) and protection circuitry (“second protection circuit 16”, with a “controller 18”; Figs. 1-2; ¶ [17]: “configured to measure the output voltage of the battery Vout and to compare … against a predetermined threshold”) coupled in series (see Figs. 1-2; per ¶ [17-18], “16” includes a switch in series with “12” to connect/disconnect the battery cells from the “load”) with at least one of the battery cells (12).
Li further teaches that to disconnect the path (by opening “switch 22” within “14” to disconnect “battery 12 from the load” per ¶ [18]; controlled by the logic: “controller 18” within “first protection circuit 14”; Figs. 1-2), the logic (“controller 18” within “first protection circuit 14”; Figs. 1-2) is configured to disconnect the path (by opening “switch 22” to disconnect “battery 12 from the load” per ¶ [18]) before the protection circuitry (“second protection circuit 16”, also with a “controller 18”; Figs. 1-2; ¶ [17]: “configured to measure the output voltage of the battery Vout and to compare … against a predetermined threshold”) can detect that the voltage (Vout) of the battery node (output of “battery 12”) is below a second threshold voltage (“V_UVP_B”; Fig. 3; ¶ [22]: “once the output voltage Vout drops to second protection threshold, VUVP B, … second protection circuit 16, disposed between first protection circuit 14 and battery 12 disconnects”).
Li further teaches the second threshold voltage (“V_UVP_B”) is lower than the first threshold voltage (“V_UVP_A”; Fig. 3; ¶ [21]: “since second protection threshold VUVP B is lower than first protection threshold VUVP A, second protection circuit 16 will not disconnect, and will thus remain operational until … Vout reaches second protection threshold VUVP B”).
Li further teaches the logic (“18”, within “14”) is configured to disconnect the path (by opening “switch 22” to disconnect “battery 12 from the load” per ¶ [18]) before (because the logic “16” has a higher threshold voltage “V_UVP_A”, it activates earlier in the discharge process than the protection circuitry “18”, which has a lower second threshold voltage “V_UVP_B”) the protection circuitry (16) can open circuit the at least one of the battery cells (12) from the power supply node (left side of “protection circuit 14”; Fig. 1) of the apparatus.
Li further teaches the logic (“18”, within “14”) is further configured to avoid tripping the protection circuitry (opening the switch within “16” in response to battery voltage declining below “V_UVP_B”) due to an undervoltage condition (avoids tripping “16” by activating “14” first when battery voltage declines below “V_UVP_A”, which is higher than “V_UVP_B”; ¶ [21]: “since second protection threshold VUVP B is lower than first protection threshold VUVP A, second protection circuit 16 will not disconnect”) of the battery (12).
Li further teaches to disconnect the path before the protection circuitry can detect that the voltage of the battery node is below a second threshold voltage, lower than the first threshold voltage to reduce current demand from the battery (¶ [6, 21]) when in a low voltage state (between “V_UVP_B” and “V_UVP_A”). Li further teaches the second threshold voltage for the protection circuitry is intended to further reduce current demand (¶ [22]) from an even lower-voltage battery (between “V_inhibit” and “V_UVP_B”), to further reduce risk of reaching the inhibit voltage level. Because the inhibit voltage is the threshold as which the battery’s life declines from discharging (¶ [14]), this teaching of the second threshold voltage and associated control improves life of the battery.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the battery and logic disclosed by ELM to incorporate protection circuitry in the battery which the logic controls to open circuit in response to the battery node’s voltage declining below a second threshold voltage, lower than the first threshold voltage, as taught by Li, to improve the life of the battery by reducing risk of the battery voltage declining to a damaging level for discharging.
Regarding Claim 20, ELM discloses the apparatus of claim 19.
ELM does not disclose “the battery is a battery pack comprising one or more battery cells and protection circuitry coupled in series with at least one of the battery cells; and the means for disconnecting is configured to disconnect the path before the protection circuitry can: detect that the voltage of the battery node is below a second threshold voltage, lower than the first threshold voltage, and open circuit the at least one of the battery cells from the power supply node or a reference potential node of the apparatus”.
Li teaches (see annotated Figs. 1 and 3, included supra in the claims 12-14 section) the battery (Fig. 1, including “battery 12”, integrated together per ¶ [14]) is a battery pack (Fig. 1) comprising one or more battery cells (¶ [16]: “battery 12 may include one or more cells”) and protection circuitry (“second protection circuit 16”, with a “controller 18”; Figs. 1-2; ¶ [17]: “configured to measure the output voltage of the battery Vout and to compare … against a predetermined threshold”) coupled in series (see Figs. 1-2; per ¶ [17-18], “16” includes a switch in series with “12” to connect/disconnect the battery cells from the “load”) with at least one of the battery cells (12).
Li further teaches the means for disconnecting (“controller 18” within “first protection circuit 14”; Figs. 1-2) is configured to disconnect the path (by opening “switch 22” to disconnect “battery 12 from the load” per ¶ [18]) before the protection circuitry (“second protection circuit 16”, also with a “controller 18”; Figs. 1-2; ¶ [17]: “configured to measure the output voltage of the battery Vout and to compare … against a predetermined threshold”) can detect that the voltage (Vout) of the battery node (output of “battery 12”) is below a second threshold voltage (“V_UVP_B”; Fig. 3; ¶ [22]: “once the output voltage Vout drops to second protection threshold, VUVP B, … second protection circuit 16, disposed between first protection circuit 14 and battery 12 disconnects”).
Li further teaches the second threshold voltage (“V_UVP_B”) is lower than the first threshold voltage (“V_UVP_A”; Fig. 3; ¶ [21]: “since second protection threshold VUVP B is lower than first protection threshold VUVP A, second protection circuit 16 will not disconnect, and will thus remain operational until … Vout reaches second protection threshold VUVP B”).
Li further teaches the means for disconnecting (“18”, within “14”) is configured to disconnect the path (by opening “switch 22” to disconnect “battery 12 from the load” per ¶ [18]) before (because the logic “16” has a higher threshold voltage “V_UVP_A”, it activates earlier in the discharge process than the protection circuitry “18”, which has a lower second threshold voltage “V_UVP_B”) the protection circuitry (16) can open circuit the at least one of the battery cells (12) from the power supply node (left side of “protection circuit 14”; Fig. 1) of the apparatus.
Li further teaches to disconnect the path before the protection circuitry can detect that the voltage of the battery node is below a second threshold voltage, lower than the first threshold voltage to reduce current demand from the battery (¶ [6, 21]) when in a low voltage state (between “V_UVP_B” and “V_UVP_A”). Li further teaches the second threshold voltage for the protection circuitry is intended to further reduce current demand (¶ [22]) from an even lower-voltage battery (between “V_inhibit” and “V_UVP_B”), to further reduce risk of reaching the inhibit voltage level. Because the inhibit voltage is the threshold as which the battery’s life declines from discharging (¶ [14]), this teaching of the second threshold voltage and associated control improves life of the battery.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the battery and logic disclosed by ELM to incorporate protection circuitry in the battery which the logic controls to open circuit in response to the battery node’s voltage declining below a second threshold voltage, lower than the first threshold voltage, as taught by Li, to improve the life of the battery by reducing risk of the battery voltage declining to a damaging level for discharging.
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