DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “N1 charging phases in sequence” , “N2 charging phases in sequence”, “wherein a charge current of an (i+1)-th charging phase is less than a charge current of the i-th charging phase” and “wherein a charge current of a (j+1)-th charging phase is less than a charge current of the j-th charging phase” of claims 7-10 and 17-20 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by XIE (CN111384757, hereinafter XIE).
Regarding claims 1 and 11 (claim 11 is considered representative for limitation matching purposes), an electronic apparatus (See Fig.1 and Par.20, disclose an electronic device), comprising:
a battery (See Par.10, discloses the electronic device comprising a battery); and
a processor (See Par.15, discloses a processor and memory for executing charging instructions) configured to execute the steps of:
in an n-th charging process, charging a first battery to a charge cut-off voltage Un in a first charging manner, wherein n is a positive integer greater than 0 (See Fig.3, Step#301 and Pars.51-52, disclose charging the battery when the battery ageing is less than a certain threshold, using a preset cut-off voltage in the constant current phase);
after the n-th charging process is completed, leaving the first battery standing, and obtaining an open-circuit voltage OCVn of the first battery at a standing time of ti (See Pars.56 and 59, disclose comprsing the resting duration to a threshold to determine when the resting duration exceeds the threhsold);
in an m-th charging process, charging the first battery to the charge cut-off voltage Un in the first charging manner, wherein m is a positive integer, and m > n (See Pars.62 and 64-66, disclose charging the battery a second time and obtaining a second OCV);
after the m-th charging process is completed, leaving the first battery standing, and obtaining an open-circuit voltage OCVm of the first battery at the standing time of ti (See Pars.56 and 64-66, disclose measuring the second OCV after the resting duration exceeds a threshold); and
under a condition of OCVn>OCVm, in an (m+1)-th charging process and subsequent charging processes, charging the first battery to the charge cut-off voltage Un in the first charging manner (See Par.65, discloses using the difference between the first open circuit voltage and the second open circuit voltage to determine battery ageing and that the battery cut-off voltage is compensated when ageing exceeds a threshold) and then continuing to charge the first battery to a first voltage Um+1 in a second charging manner (See Par.68, discloses charging the battery in a second manner i.e. a second constant-current charging phase using the updated cut-off voltage), where Um+1=Un+k×OCVn-OCVm, and 0 < k ≤ 1 (See Par.69, discloses the adjusted cut-off voltage is obtained by adding battery ageing parameter [identified in Par.64 as the difference between OCV1 and OCV2] to the previous cut-off voltage, cut-off voltage 2= cut-off voltage 1 +(OCV2-OCV1)).
Regarding claims 2 and 12 (claim 12 is considered representative for limitation matching purposes), TXIE discloses the electronic apparatus according to claim 11 as discussed above, wherein the voltage OCVn further comprises a pre-stored open-circuit voltage (See Par.84, discloses the updated ageing parameter replaces the old one stored locally in the electronic device), wherein the open-circuit voltage is an open-circuit voltage of a second battery collected at the standing time of ti in the standing process that follows completion of the n-th charging process, wherein the first battery and the second battery are different batteries in a same battery system (This is interpreted to mean that the stored value of the cut-off voltage is from testing a different battery than the battery in the electronic device. The examiner explains that this is inherent as the manufacturer develops a threshold value from testing the type of battery and not by testing every single battery that is shipped and finding its cut-off voltage threshold in order to reduce costs because otherwise every single battery has to be tested to establish the cut-off voltage, and every single processor will have to be programmed with that cut-off voltage. Instead, an average cut-off voltage is established based on the testing of the type of battery and programmed to the plurality of electronic devices).
Regarding claims 3 and 13 (claim 13 is considered representative for limitation matching purposes), XIE discloses the electronic apparatus according to claim 11 as discussed above, wherein the processor is further configured to execute the steps of:
under a condition of OCVn ≤ OCVm, in the (m+1)-th charging process and the subsequent charging processes, charging the first battery to the charge cut-off voltage Un in the first charging manner (See Fig.3, Item#301 and Par.51, discloses charging using the first cut-off voltage when the battery ageing is less than a threshold).
Regarding claims 4-5 and 14-15 (claim 14 is considered representative for limitation matching purposes), XIE discloses the electronic apparatus according to claim 11 as discussed above, wherein the processor is further configured to execute the steps of:
in an (m+b)-th charging process, charging the first battery to the charge cut-off voltage Un in the first charging manner and then continuing to charge the first battery to the first voltage Um+1 in the second charging manner, where b is a positive integer greater than 1 (See Fig.3 and Pars.51 and 64-66, disclose charging the battery to a stored cut-off voltage when the ageing is less than a threshold and charging the battery to a new updated threshold [calculated as disclose din Par.69] when the ageing exceeds a threshold);
after the (m+b)-th charging process is completed, leaving the first battery standing (See Par.59), and obtaining an open-circuit voltage OCVm+b of the first battery at the standing time of ti (See Pars.64-66, disclose obtaining a second OCV and calculating a difference between OCV2 and OCV1 to obtain the new ageing parameter to replace the original[previous] ageing parameter); and
under a condition of OCVn>OCVm+b, in an (m+b+1)-th charging process and subsequent charging processes, charging the first battery to the first voltage Un in the first charging manner and then continuing to charge the first battery to a second voltage Um+b+1 in the second charging manner, where Um+b+1=Um+1+k×OCVn-OCVm+b, and 0 < k ≤ (See Par.69, discloses the adjusted cut-off voltage is obtained by adding battery ageing parameter [identified in Par.64 as the difference between OCV1 and OCV2] to the previous cut-off voltage, cut-off voltage 2= cut-off voltage 1 + (OCV2-OCV1)).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over XIE.
Regarding claims 6 and 16 (claim 16 is considered representative for limitation matching purposes), XIE discloses the electronic apparatus according to claim 11 as discussed above, However, XIE does not explicitly disclose wherein Ucl≤Un≤Ucl+500 mV, wherein Ucl is a limited charge voltage of a battery system to which the first battery belongs.
However, the examiner interprets the limitation to mean that voltage includes a tolerance value, the examiner explains that a cut-off voltage is normally established by testing a battery to determine the constant current cut-off voltage for the battery and that adding a tolerance value is well known in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by XIE by adding a tolerance value to the determined cut-off voltage (Par.66 disclose a stored ageing parameter) for the benefit of accounting for differences between the batteries (batteries have manufacturing differences which causes them to have different cut-off voltages).
Claim(s) 7-10 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over XIE in view of CHEN (US 2022/0271353 A1, hereinafter CHEN).
Regarding claims 7-8 and 17-18 (Claim 17-18 are considered representative for limitation matching purposes), XIE discloses the electronic apparatus according to claim 11 as discussed above wherein the device is charged in a constant-current/constant-voltage scheme wherein the battery is charged with a constant current until a preset cut-off voltage is reached, after which the battery is constantly charged at constant voltage using the cut-off voltage (See Par.66).
However, XIE does not disclose wherein the first charging manner comprises N1 charging phases in sequence, wherein N1 is a positive integer greater than or equal to 1, and in the N1-th charging phase, the first battery is charged constantly with the charge cut-off voltage Un.
CHEN discloses a battery charging system and method comprising a first charging manner, the first charging manner comprises N1 charging phases in sequence, wherein N1 is a positive integer greater than or equal to 1, and in the N1-th charging phase, the first battery is charged constantly with the charge cut-off voltage Un (See Fig.1 and Par.35, discloses a plurality of constant current charging phases [T1-Tn-1] followed by constant voltage phase Tn, the value charging duration is measured to determine when it is shorter than a threshold i.e. battery deterioration is present and adjusting the cut-off voltage when the duration is less than a threshold i.e. the battery is deteriorated/aged).
XIE and CHEN are analogous art since they both deal with battery charging that considers battery ageing conditions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by XIE with the teachings of CHEN by adopting the multi stage constant-current charging scheme in the constant current/constant voltage scheme for the benefit of extending the charging time of a stage of the multi-stage constant-current charging for the benefit of reducing the overall the charging time by keeping the electronic device in constant current charging for a longer period to account for battery deterioration (regarding claims 8 and 18, the examiner explains that the claim is interpreted to mean that charging is performed using a multi stage constant current as disclosed by CHEN at the updated cut-off voltage, XIE as modified by CHEN discloses updating the cut-off voltage and charging using a plurality of constant-current stages).
Regarding claims 9-10 and 19-20 (claim 19 is considered representative for limitation matching purposes), XIE discloses the electronic apparatus according to claim 11 as discussed above, However, XIE does not disclose wherein the first charging manner comprises M1 constant-current charging phases in sequence, wherein M1 is a positive integer greater than 1, after the first battery is charged to the charge cut-off voltage Un with a constant current, each of the subsequent constant-current charging phases is cut off by using the charge cut-off voltage Un, and the M1 constant-current charging phases are each defined as an i-th charging phase, with i = 1, 2, ..., M1, wherein a charge current of an (i+1)-th charging phase is less than a charge current of the i-th charging phase.
CHEN discloses a battery charging system and method comprising a first charging manner, the first charging manner comprising M1 constant-current charging phases in sequence, wherein M1 is a positive integer greater than 1, after the first battery is charged to the charge cut-off voltage Un with a constant current, each of the subsequent constant-current charging phases is cut off by using the charge cut-off voltage Un, and the M1 constant-current charging phases are each defined as an i-th charging phase, with i = 1, 2, ..., M1, wherein a charge current of an (i+1)-th charging phase is less than a charge current of the i-th charging phase (See Fig.1 and Par.35, discloses a plurality of constant current charging phases [T1-Tn-1] followed by constant voltage phase Tn, the value charging duration is measured to determine when it is shorter than a threshold i.e. battery deterioration is present and adjusting the cut-off voltage when the duration is less than a threshold i.e. the battery is deteriorated/aged. The value of the current in T2 is less than that in T1 and the current in Tn-1 is less than T2).
XIE and CHEN are analogous art since they both deal with battery charging that considers battery ageing conditions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by XIE with the teachings of CHEN by adopting the multi stage constant-current charging scheme in the constant current/constant voltage scheme for the benefit of extending the charging time of a stage of the multi-stage constant-current charging for the benefit of reducing the overall the charging time by keeping the electronic device in constant current charging for a longer period to account for battery deterioration (regarding claims 10 and 20, the examiner explains that the claim is interpreted to mean that charging is performed using a multi stage constant current as disclosed by CHEN at the updated cut-off voltage, XIE as modified by CHEN discloses updating the cut-off voltage and charging using a plurality of constant-current stages wherein the charging current in each stage is less than the constant current in the stage that precedes it).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHMED H OMAR whose telephone number is (571)270-7165. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 am -7:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Drew Dunn can be reached at 571-272-2312. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AHMED H OMAR/ Examiner, Art Unit 2859