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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in CN on 12/30/20. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the CN application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. It is noted that on 8/16/23 notice was sent to the applicant that the foreign copy was not received.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments/amendments filed 8/7/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant has argued the combination of Sporck and Gurla fails to teach “in response to detecting that the input current is less than a first current threshold and the battery output current is greater than a second current threshold, a path between the input & the output of the charging circuit to be disconnected.” as Sporck apparently does not teach responding to an input voltage collapse with the switching off of the switch 232. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner notes the applicant appears to be depending upon the description of Fig. 3. The examiner agrees, Fig. 3 does not teach the applicant’s claim well. However, it is noted that examiner further depended upon the also cited Fig. 4.
400 of Fig. 4 is unique from Fig. 3. 400 is used to determine whether to turn off switch 232 or not (¶’s [32, 33]). ¶’s [40-51] defines these conditions existing, with ¶’s [41-45, esp. 42, 45] best defining the scenario where the charging power supply has been removed, input voltage [and thus input charging current] has collapsed [i.e. at or near zero], and the battery is then discharging instead of charging towards the input area (see Fig. 6B as described in ¶[45]). Thus, Fig. 4 demonstrates that if 400 is yes for this input voltage collapse condition (and the battery current is negative, i.e. the input current is below 0). 308 is then when 232 is turned off. Therefore, the applicant’s arguments are respectfully refuted.
PNG
media_image1.png
742
468
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The drawing objections are maintained. Applicant is able to at least show a flowchart demonstrating e.g. a decision tree for what Claims 1 and 18 show.
It is further noted that the applicant has yet to perfect their priority.
Claim objections are withdrawn due to the amendments.
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 functional limitations of reacting to the input current/output current (turning on the switch and/or turning it off; flowchart recommended) of Claims 1-18 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 § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-8 and 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sporck et al (USPGPN 20140117944) in view of Gurlahosur (USPGPN 20130043829; hereinafter Gurla)
Independent Claim 1, Sporck teaches an anti-backflow (Figs. [3, 4]) charging circuit (Figs. [1, 2, 5, esp. 2]), comprising
a charging circuit (232, 222a, 222b, 222, L, 230, Cn, Cboot);
an input detection circuit (224, 226);
an output current detection circuit (20, ¶[30]); and
a control module (228, including detection circuits by [20, 224, 226]), wherein:
an input of the charging circuit is connected to a power adapter (202, ¶’s [04, 06]), and an output of the charging circuit is connected to a battery (14);
the input detection circuit is connected between the power adapter and the charging circuit, to detect an input power (224, 226);
the output current detection circuit is connected between the charging circuit and the battery, to detect a battery output current (charging/discharging current would need to be detected between the charging circuit and the battery (i.e. the node connecting 230, L, & 204);
and the control module is separately connected to the charging circuit, the input current detection circuit, and the output current detection circuit (see Fig. 2), and
is configured to control, in response to detecting that the input power is less than a first power threshold and the battery output current is greater than a second current threshold, a path between the input and the output of the charging circuit to be disconnected (see Figs. 3 & 4, it is well known to one of ordinary skill in the art that when the power from the outside collapses or is lost, the current from the outside would be lost as well, where abstract, ¶’s [06, 08, 33-38, 45, 51] describes that when power input is lost, the switch 232 is shut off ¶’s [28, 33-35], and thus as battery is providing discharging current during the period, the discharging current is greater than 0 ¶’s [06, 08], and so the switch is turned off).
PNG
media_image2.png
460
664
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Sporck is silent to an input current detection circuit; the input current detection circuit is connected between the power adapter and the charging circuit, to detect an input current.
Gurla teaches an input current detection circuit (62, Fig. 3, ¶[32]);
the input current detection circuit is connected between the power adapter and the charging circuit, to detect an input current (¶[32] describes Vbus being detected, i.e. between the adapter and the charging circuit starting with 14 shown in Fig. 3). One of ordinary skill in the art understands that by detecting the input current, in addition to the input voltage, it can improve the protection. Input voltage of Sporck would be incapable of protecting from such phenomena as overcurrent. Thus, this detection would provide added safety improvements.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sporck with Gurla to provide improved safety.
Thus, as Sporck functionally teaches the detection of lack of current via the voltage sensor [no current on the input means no input current, thus functionally the same], the combination of Sporck and Gurla teaches the claim limitations.
The applicant has argued the combination of Sporck and Gurla fails to teach “in response to detecting that the input current is less than a first current threshold and the battery output current is greater than a second current threshold, a path between the input & the output of the charging circuit to be disconnected.” as Sporck apparently does not teach responding to an input voltage collapse with the switching off of the switch 232. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner notes the applicant appears to be depending upon the description of Fig. 3. The examiner agrees, Fig. 3 does not teach the applicant’s claim well. However, it is noted that examiner further depended upon the also cited Fig. 4.
400 of Fig. 4 is unique from Fig. 3. 400 is used to determine whether to turn off switch 232 or not (¶’s [32, 33]). ¶’s [40-51] defines these conditions existing, with ¶’s [41-45, esp. 42, 45] best defining the scenario where the charging power supply has been removed, input voltage [and thus input charging current] has collapsed [i.e. at or near zero], and the battery is then discharging instead of charging towards the input area (see Fig. 6B as described in ¶[45]). Thus, Fig. 4 demonstrates that if 400 is yes for this input voltage collapse condition (and the battery current is negative, i.e. the input current is below 0). 308 is then when 232 is turned off. Therefore, the applicant’s arguments are respectfully refuted.
PNG
media_image1.png
742
468
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Independent Claim 10, Sporck teaches an electronic device (Figs. [1, 2, 5, esp. 2]), comprising the anti-backflow (Figs. [3, 4]) charging circuit comprising:
a charging circuit (232, 222a, 222b, 222, L, 230, Cn, Cboot);
an input detection circuit (224, 226);
an output current detection circuit (20, ¶[30]); and
a control module (228, including detection circuits by [20, 224, 226]), wherein:
an input of the charging circuit is connected to a power adapter (202, ¶’s [04, 06]), and an output of the charging circuit is connected to a battery (14);
the input detection circuit is connected between the power adapter and the charging circuit, to detect an input power (224, 226);
the output current detection circuit is connected between the charging circuit and the battery, to detect a battery output current (charging/discharging current would need to be detected between the charging circuit and the battery (i.e. the node connecting 230, L, & 204);
and the control module is separately connected to the charging circuit, the input current detection circuit, and the output current detection circuit (see Fig. 2), and
is configured to control, in response to detecting that the input power is less than a first power threshold and the battery output current is greater than a second current threshold, a path between the input and the output of the charging circuit to be disconnected (see Figs. 3 & 4, it is well known to one of ordinary skill in the art that when the power from the outside collapses or is lost, the current from the outside would be lost as well, where abstract, ¶’s [06, 08, 33-38, 45, 51] describes that when power input is lost, the switch 232 is shut off ¶’s [28, 33-35], and thus as battery is providing discharging current during the period, the discharging current is greater than 0 ¶’s [06, 08], and so the switch is turned off).
Sporck is silent to an input current detection circuit; the input current detection circuit is connected between the power adapter and the charging circuit, to detect an input current.
Gurla teaches an input current detection circuit (62, Fig. 3, ¶[32]);
the input current detection circuit is connected between the power adapter and the charging circuit, to detect an input current (¶[32] describes Vbus being detected, i.e. between the adapter and the charging circuit starting with 14 shown in Fig. 3). One of ordinary skill in the art understands that by detecting the input current, in addition to the input voltage, it can improve the protection. Input voltage of Sporck would be incapable of protecting from such phenomena as overcurrent. Thus, this detection would provide added safety improvements.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sporck with Gurla to provide improved safety.
Thus, as Sporck functionally teaches the detection of lack of current via the voltage sensor [no current on the input means no input current, thus functionally the same], the combination of Sporck and Gurla teaches the claim limitations.
The applicant has argued the combination of Sporck and Gurla fails to teach “in response to detecting that the input current is less than a first current threshold and the battery output current is greater than a second current threshold, a path between the input & the output of the charging circuit to be disconnected.” as Sporck apparently does not teach responding to an input voltage collapse with the switching off of the switch 232. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner notes the applicant appears to be depending upon the description of Fig. 3. The examiner agrees, Fig. 3 does not teach the applicant’s claim well. However, it is noted that examiner further depended upon the also cited Fig. 4.
400 of Fig. 4 is unique from Fig. 3. 400 is used to determine whether to turn off switch 232 or not (¶’s [32, 33]). ¶’s [40-51] defines these conditions existing, with ¶’s [41-45, esp. 42, 45] best defining the scenario where the charging power supply has been removed, input voltage [and thus input charging current] has collapsed [i.e. at or near zero], and the battery is then discharging instead of charging towards the input area (see Fig. 6B as described in ¶[45]). Thus, Fig. 4 demonstrates that if 400 is yes for this input voltage collapse condition (and the battery current is negative, i.e. the input current is below 0). 308 is then when 232 is turned off. Therefore, the applicant’s arguments are respectfully refuted.
Dependent Claims 2 and 11, Sporck teaches an input voltage detection circuit connected between the power adapter and the charging circuit (224, 226), wherein: the input voltage detection circuit is configured to detect an input voltage (¶’s [34-40, 50, 52, esp. 34-36, 38]]),
and the control module is connected to the input voltage detection circuit, and, after the path between the input and the output of the charging circuit is controlled to be disconnected, is further configured to output, when it is detected that the input voltage is less than a voltage threshold, an alarm signal that the charging circuit has been disconnected (regardless of the state of switch 232, when the input voltage has been shut off, a signal/alarm is sent to controller to that effect, see esp. Figs. [3, 4]).
Dependent Claims 3 and 12, Sporck teaches the control module is further configured to receive a charging recovery control signal based on a feedback of the alarm signal that the charging circuit has been disconnected after the alarm signal is output, and control the charging circuit to enter a charging state (see return loop from 314 in Figs. [3, 4]).
Dependent Claims 4 and 13, Sporck teaches after the path between the input and the output of the charging circuit is controlled to be disconnected, the control module is further configured to control, when it is detected that the input voltage is not less than the voltage threshold, the charging circuit to enter a charging state (see return loop from 314 in Figs. [3, 4]).
Dependent Claims 5 and 14, the combination of Sporck and Gurla teaches the charging circuit comprises an input field effect transistor and a switch field effect transistor group (see transistors of Sporck Figs. [1, 2] and Gurla Fig. 3); and
the control module is configured to control, when it is detected that the input current is less than the first current threshold and the battery output current is greater than the second current threshold, the input field effect transistor to be cut off or the switch field effect transistor group to be cut off, to control the path between the input and the output of the charging circuit to be disconnected (Sporck 232).
Dependent Claims 6 and 15, the combination of Sporck and Gurla teaches when it is detected that the input current is less than the first current threshold and the battery output current is greater than the second current threshold, the input field effect transistor is controlled to be cut off (232 Sporck); and
after the path between the input and the output of the charging circuit is controlled to be disconnected, the control module is further configured to:
control, when it is detected that an input voltage is less than a voltage threshold, the switch field effect transistor group to be cut off, to control the charging circuit to exit a charging state; or control, when it is detected that an input voltage is not less than a voltage threshold, the input field effect transistor to be conducted, to control the charging circuit to enter a charging state (Figs. [3, 4] describes these states).
Dependent Claims 7 and 16, the combination of Sporck and Gurla teaches the charging circuit is one of a switch-type charging circuit, a charge pump charging circuit, or a three-stage buck converter charging circuit (both Sporck and Gurla have switch type charging circuit).
Dependent Claims 8 and 17, the combination of Sporck and Gurla teaches the charging circuit is the switch-type charging circuit, and the switch field effect transistor group comprises a first field effect transistor and a second field effect transistor that are connected to the control module, wherein: a gate of the first field effect transistor and a gate of the second field effect transistor are both connected to the control module, a source of the first field effect transistor is connected to a drain of the second field effect transistor, a drain of the first field effect transistor is connected to a source of the input field effect transistor, and a source of the second field effect transistor is grounded (Sporck Figs. [1, 2] and Gurla Fig. 3).
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sporck in view of Gurla, further in view of Huang et al (USPGPN 20190190281), as evidenced by Genova et al (USPGPN 20140301005)
Dependent Claims 8 and 17, the Sporck is silent to the charging circuit is the charge pump charging circuit or the three-stage buck converter charging circuit, and the switch field effect transistor group comprises: a third field effect transistor, a fourth field effect transistor, a fifth field effect transistor, and a sixth field effect transistor that are connected to the control module, wherein:
a gate of the third field effect transistor, a gate of the fourth field effect transistor, a gate of the fifth field effect transistor, and a gate of the sixth field effect transistor are all connected to the control module,
a source of the third field effect transistor is connected to a drain of the fourth field effect transistor,
a source of the fourth field effect transistor is connected to a drain of the fifth field effect transistor,
a source of the fifth field effect transistor is connected to a drain of the sixth field effect transistor,
a drain of the third field effect transistor is connected to a source of the input field effect transistor, and
a source of the sixth field effect transistor is grounded.
Huang teaches the charging circuit is the charge pump charging circuit or the three-stage buck converter charging circuit (charge pump 141/14, Figs. [1, 2]), and the switch field effect transistor group comprises: a third field effect transistor, a fourth field effect transistor, a fifth field effect transistor, and a sixth field effect transistor that are connected to the control module (4 switches of Fig. 2), wherein:
a gate of the third field effect transistor, a gate of the fourth field effect transistor, a gate of the fifth field effect transistor, and a gate of the sixth field effect transistor are all connected to the control module (12),
a source of the third field effect transistor is connected to a drain of the fourth field effect transistor, a source of the fourth field effect transistor is connected to a drain of the fifth field effect transistor, a source of the fifth field effect transistor is connected to a drain of the sixth field effect transistor, a drain of the third field effect transistor is connected to a source of the input field effect transistor, and a source of the sixth field effect transistor is grounded (see connections of Q1-Q4 of Fig. 2). Genova provides evidence that charge pump converters provide improved efficiency and simplicity over other converters (¶’s [14, 15])
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sporck in view of Gurla with Huang to provide improved efficiency and simplicity.
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 JOHN T TRISCHLER whose telephone number is (571)270-0651. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30A-3:30P (often working later), M-F, ET, Flexible. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Drew Dunn can be reached at 5712722312. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN T TRISCHLER/
Prosecution Insights