DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are indicated in the table below, along with corresponding structure and/or lack thereof:
Claim limitation
Claim Numbers
Structure (PGPUB citation)
“control unit”
17-20
A processor coupled with memory [0021]
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the computer-readable storage medium covers both non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals. As such, these claims are drawn to signals per se and are not directed to one of the statutory categories of invention (See MPEP 2106.01).
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium that would permit the functionality of the program to be realized, would be directed to a product and be within a statutory category of invention. Since Applicant’s computer-readable storage medium covers both non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals, amending the claims to add the limitation “non-transitory” would typically not raise the issue of new matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 2-10, 16 and 20 are 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.
Claims 2-10 recites “the storage medium”, however, the prior recitation is “computer readable storage medium”. Thus, there is a lack of antecedent basis for this term.
Claim 4 recites “to define a set of three or more CC charge phase options”. It isn’t clear if the options are based on providing three CC charge phases or if the options are based on different beginning voltage values.
Claim 5 recites skipping “one or more of the defined CC charge phase options”, however, it isn’t clear how the options could be “skipped” if they are options that may or may not be selected. The same applies for claims 6 and 20
Claim 16 recites “wherein the method includes charging the current primarily in a CC charge mode using a temperature control loop with a voltage limit”. It isn’t clear how this recitation is to be viewed in light of the previous recitations of claim 11. For example, if the “temperature control loop” is something different than the “target limit” and “maximum operating battery temperature”.
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu et al. CN 115668579. (It is noted that the Liu citations are taken from the machine translation, until a translation is obtained.)
Regarding claim 1, Liu discloses a computer readable storage medium having instructions that when executed, perform a method comprising:
causing a charger to apply a first constant current (CC) charge phase to a battery; and interleaving the first CC phase with at least one constant voltage (CV) charge stage [fig. 3; par. 86-88 & 95; a plurality of first CC stage with CV stage interleaved].
Regarding claim 2, Liu discloses wherein the method comprises causing the charger to apply a second constant current (CC) charge phase, the first and second CC phases being at different current levels from each other, and interleaving the second CC phase with at least one constant voltage (CV) charge stage [fig. 3; par. 91 & 95; a plurality of second CC stages can also be used].
Regarding claim 3, Liu discloses wherein the first and second CC charge phases occur in a descending current level order [fig. 3].
Regarding claim 17, Liu discloses a computing system [fig. 5], comprising:
a platform processor [par. 172; an electronic device like a PDA, computer or phone];
a control unit coupled with the platform processor [fig. 5, 510 control unit ; and
a charger to charge a battery that is to provide power to the computing system, wherein the control unit is to control the charger to cause a charger to apply a first constant current (CC) charge phase to a battery, and the control unit is to interleave the first CC phase with at least one constant voltage (CV) charge stage [fig. 3; par. 86-88 & 95; a plurality of first CC stage with CV stage interleaved].
Regarding claim 18, Liu discloses wherein the control unit is to cause the charger to apply a second constant current (CC) charge phase, the first and second CC phases being at different current levels from each other, and it is to interleave the second CC phase with at least one constant voltage (CV) charge stage [fig. 3; par. 91 & 95; a plurality of second CC stages can also be used].
Regarding claim 19, Liu discloses wherein the first and second CC charge phases are to occur in a descending current level order [fig. 3].
Claims 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mehta US PGPUB 2011/0156661.
Regarding claim 11, Mehta discloses a computer readable storage medium having instructions that when executed [pars. 58-60], perform a method comprising:
causing a charger to charge current into a battery [figs. 1, 4 & 6-7; charger 410 charges battery 405 based on instructions from 415; pars. 41-42];
monitoring a battery temperature [pars. 20, 37, 42 & 48-49]; and
controlling the charging current until the temperature reaches a target limit that is below a rated maximum operating battery temperature [pars. 42 & 48-49; the charging current is controlled in general according to the maximum temperature (thus including until it reaches a target limit)].
Regarding claim 12, Mehta discloses wherein controlling includes reducing the charging current until the temperature reaches the target temperature limit [pars. 48-49; the current in CC stages are reduced step-wise while ensuring the temperature is under the limit (thus, until and after, in general)].
Regarding claim 13, Mehta discloses wherein reducing the charging current includes reducing the charging current based on a temperature difference between a current charge temperature and the temperature limit [pars. 48-51; figs. 6-7; the charging current is reduced in steps based on rate of temperature rise (which is a difference between a current temperature and some limit, with respect to another variable)].
Regarding claim 14, Mehta discloses wherein the difference is applied as feedback to proportionally reduce the charging current [fig. 7, steps 715, 725; the rate of temperature rise is used to proportionally set the ramp for the decrease from initial CC current to final CC current; pars. 50-51].
Regarding claim 15, Mehta discloses wherein the method includes maintaining the battery temperature and charging current in an equilibrium mode when the temperature reaches the limit [fig. 6; pars. 50-51 & 56; the current is designed to decrease based on the temperature increase, thus at some limit temperature the current will be constant (a plurality of CC steps) and for at least a small portion of the step the temperature will also be constant].
Regarding claim 16, Mehta discloses wherein the method includes charging the current primarily in a CC charge mode using a temperature control loop with a voltage limit [figs. 1; pars. 31-32, 39 & 42-43; the battery is charged up to 80% using CC (thus primarily via CC) and temperature and voltage limits are used].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 4-6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. CN 115668579 in view of Mehta US PGPUB 2011/0156661.
Regarding claim 4, Liu does not explicitly disclose wherein the method identifies beginning voltage values for the first and second CC charge phases prior to applying any of the first and second CC charge phases to define a set of three or more CC charge phase options, the set including the first and second CC charge phases.
However, Mehta discloses a multi-stage CC-CV charging system wherein the method identifies beginning voltage values for the first and second CC charge phases prior to applying any of the first and second CC charge phases to define a set of three or more CC charge phase options, the set including the first and second CC charge phases [figs. 1 & 6-7; pars. 48-51; (step-wise) CC/CV stage is used, thus contract the CC stage into a plurality of small steps (pars. 48-50,the smooth ramp of 605 in fig. 6 is actually a series of CC and CV steps), thus prior to some CC stages, CV voltage values are defined as part of the total ramp].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu to further include wherein the method identifies beginning voltage values for the first and second CC charge phases prior to applying any of the first and second CC charge phases to define a set of three or more CC charge phase options, the set including the first and second CC charge phases for the purpose of using a ramp to reduce charging time while avoiding temperatures that are too high, as taught by Mehta (pars. 48-51).
Regarding claim 5, Liu does not explicitly disclose wherein the method skips one or more of the defined CC charge phase options to more rapidly reduce temperature rise in the battery.
However, Mehta as applied in claim 4 discloses wherein the method skips one or more of the defined CC charge phase options to more rapidly reduce temperature rise in the battery [figs. 1 & 6-7; pars. 48-51; instead of doing the defined second CC stage, a ramp is used to more rapidly reduce temperature rise].
Regarding claims 6 and 20, Liu does not explicitly disclose wherein the method contracts one or more of the defined CC charge phase options to reduce a temperature rise in the battery.
However, Mehta discloses a multi-stage CC-CV charging system wherein the method contracts one or more of the defined CC charge phase options to reduce a temperature rise in the battery [figs. 1 & 6-7; pars. 48-51; instead of the second CC stage of fig. 1, a plurality (step-wise) CC/CV stage is used, thus contract the CC stage into a plurality of small steps (pars. 48-50,the smooth ramp of 605 in fig. 6 is actually a series of CC and CV steps), thus reducing the length of the CC stage, and reducing the temperature rise to below a temp limit by controlling the negative ramp rate (using a plurality of CC steps) of the CC portions of the CC/CV ramp].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu to further include wherein the method contracts one or more of the defined CC charge phase options to reduce a temperature rise in the battery for the purpose of reducing charging time while avoiding temperatures that are too high, as taught by Mehta (pars. 48-51).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. CN 115668579 in view of Lee at al. US PGPUB 2016/0064967
Regarding claim 8, Liu does not explicitly disclose wherein the method reads battery charge data from the battery before causing the charger to apply the first and second CC charge phases.
However, Lee discloses a multi-stage CC-CV charging system wherein the method reads battery charge data from the battery before causing the charger to apply the first and second CC charge phases [pars. 34 & 38-40; information regarding the battery type, the SOC, the current and the voltage are determined and used to set the periods for the CC stages].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu to further include wherein the method reads battery charge data from the battery before causing the charger to apply the first and second CC charge phases for the purpose of basing the charging period lengths on variables related to the battery, as taught by Lee (pars. 38-40).
Regarding claim 9, Liu discloses wherein the method is performed by a control unit in a computing platform [pars. 170-171; fig. 5, processor 510].
Regarding claim 10, Liu discloses wherein the control unit is part of the battery or is implemented within a separate IC within the computing platform [pars. 170-171; fig. 5, processor 510 is part of device 50 with the battery, or could be considered separate due to the bus connection].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With respect to claim 7, the following is an examiner's statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to further teach or suggest “wherein the method increases the number of CV charge phases within an executing CC charge phase to decrease a temperature in the battery” in combination with all the other elements recited in claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Paryani et al US PGPUB 2011/0012563 discloses a CC-CV charging system with multiple stages of each.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID V HENZE whose telephone number is (571)272-3317. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 9am to 7pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Julian Huffman can be reached at 571-272-2147. 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.
/DAVID V HENZE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights