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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8, 10-12, 15, 19, 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konopka et al, US 2021/0328448, in view of Mitchel et al, US Patent No. 6,018,228.
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Konopka et al disclose systems and methods for battery charging comprising: a circuit controller 210 for controlling a charging circuit 400; a switching/charge-signal-shaping circuit having at least one switch and at least one inductor operably coupled with the switch; a filter circuit 406 including a first inductor 410 connected in series with first transistor 412; the transistor 412 operates as a controlled switching device to pulse control signal 416 from 210; the controller 210 provides a control signal to transistor to selectively connect 410 to the battery cell 404, thereby generating a charging pulse for charging the battery; the controller selects a frequency component associated with a battery impedance characteristic and controls pulse-control signal 416 and/or PWM signal 426 to generate a harmonic charge pulse.
Konopka et al fails to disclose the physical arrangement where the computing is contained in first housing and the battery module is contained in a separate second housing, and a first portion of the switching circuit in included in the battery module while a second portion is included in the computing device.
Mitchell et al disclose a lithium-ion battery pack with integral regulator using cutoff transistor comprising: a battery and a circuit board 104 enclosed with a sealed package 106; a connector 102 connects the battery module to a mating connector in the computer system (Figs. 1, 2, 4; col. 2, line 40+ and col. 4, line 42+): Mitchell et al disclose a computing device in a housing and a battery module in a separate housing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the harmonically tuned charging circuit taught Konopka according to Mitchell et al known portable-computer/battery-pack architecture, including distribution portion of the switching circuit between the battery module and associated computing device in order to permit battery-specific charging control while accommodating the physical, thermal, space, and the system requirements of the portable computing device and the battery module. Therefore, it would have been an obvious extension as taught by the prior art.
Regarding claim 2, in addition to the rejection of claim 1 above, Konopka et al disclose that the controller 210 may be a digital controller, a microcontroller, ASIC, or other programmed control device for executing the charging operation (par. 0057). Konopka et al as modified by Mitchell et al render the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 3, in addition to the rejection of claim 1 above, a microcontroller is expressly disclosed in both Konopka et al and Mitchell et al. Konopka et al as modified by Mitchell et al render the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 4, Konopka et al disclose a programmed controller for performing the charging operation, including selecting charging parameters using stored/historical battery charging information, determining an initial charging frequency based on historical data relating to battery cells, previous charging sessions, etc. (See par. 0066). It would have been obvious for such information and executable charging control instructions to be maintain in conventional memory associated with the program controller to permit execution of the charging algorithm. Therefore, Konopka et al as modified by Mitchell et al render the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 8, Konopka et al as modified by Mitchell et al render the claim obvious (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 10, Konopka et al as modified by Mitchell et al, in addition to the rejection of claim 1 above, further disclose wherein the at least one harmonically tuned aspect of the charge signal comprises a harmonic associated with an impedance value ("minimum real impedance value") of a computing device (210) powered by the battery (404) (Konopka et al, Fig 4, para (0057], " .. a controller 210 to shape a recharging signal for a battery cell based on a frequency !Min corresponding to a minimum impedance value .. ", para (0059], " .. a charge signal to battery cell 404 ... may include a leading edge at a harmonic at or near the frequency fMn 322 corresponding to the minimum real impedance value. Konopka et al as modified by Mitchell et al render the claim obvious.
Regarding claims 11-12, Konopka et al as modified by Mitchell et al, in addition to the rejection of claim 1 above, further disclose wherein the at least one harmonically tuned aspect of the charge signal comprises a non-linear leading edge (912 or 1314) (IONTRA, Fig 4, 9A, 13, para (0059]," .. a charge signal to battery cell 404 ... may .include a leading edge at a harmonic at or near the frequency fMn 322 corresponding to the minimum real impedance value .. ", para (0088], " ..each pulse 914 ,916 is asymmetric with a leading edge 912 distinctly shaped relative to the trailing edge 910 .. ", para (0102), '\.sinusoidal leading edge 1314.:'', note: the shape of leading edge 912 is deemed to be clearly a non-linear shape based on Fig 9A and the description as being asymmetric relative to trailing edge 910). Konopka et al as modified by Mitchell et al render the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 19, Konopka et al further disclose, wherein at least a portion of the switching circuit (406) is included in the battery module (the "battery module" is deemed to correspond to battery cell 404 and associated circuitry 400 illustrated in Fig 4 of Konopka et al). Konopka et al as modified by Mitchell et al render the claim obvious.
Regarding claims 22 and 24, Konopka et al as modified by Mitchell et al render the claim obvious (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claims 21 and 23, with respect to the type of switch, that is a buck switching circuit. The prior art fails to explicitly disclose a buck switching circuit. However, such limitation is just merely a matter of choice for meeting specific customer requirements, such a step down converter for converting high input power to lower output power. Therefore, it would have been an obvious extension as taught by the prior art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 7, 13, and 16-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The applicant teaches a system which includes a computing device in a first housing, a battery module in a second housing separate from the first housing, wherein the battery module has a battery and a processor for charging the battery, at least one switch and at least one inductor operably coupled with the at least one switch to generate a charge signal for charging the battery, a first portion of the switching circuit included in the battery module and a second portion of the switching circuit included in the computing device, wherein the generated charge signal includes at least one harmonically tuned aspect, wherein the battery module includes an over-charge/over-discharge protection circuit comprising a first switching device and a second switching device connected in series to control a charge signal to the battery, wherein the first switching device and the second switching device further control a discharge signal from the battery. These limitations in conjunction with other limitations in the claims were not shown by the prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5, 7-8, 10-13, 15-19, 21-24 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. See examiner remarks.
Remarks:
In response to the applicant that the prior arts (Konopka in view of Crisp), the examiner respectfully disagrees. The new prior art (Mitchell et al) teach a lithium-ion battery pack with integral regulator using cutoff transistor comprising: a battery 100 and a circuit board 104 enclosed with a sealed package 106; a connector 102 connects the battery module to a mating connector in the computer system (Figs. 1, 2, 4; col. 2, line 40+ and col. 4, line 42+): Mitchell et al disclose a computing device in a housing and a battery module in a separate housing. Konopka et al as modified by Mitchell et al render the claims obvious.
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 ST CYR whose telephone number is (571)272-2407. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 8:00-8:00.
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, Pham Thomas can be reached at 571-272-3689. 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 ST CYR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2876
/DANIEL ST CYR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights