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 .
Status of the claims
The argument received on January, 14 2025 has been acknowledged and entered. Claims 1-12 and 14 are amended. Claims 15-19 are newly added. Thus, claims 1-19 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments filed January, 14 2025 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and they are persuasive. Thus, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments filed January, 14 2025 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and they are persuasive. Thus, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 15, “the buffer capacity corresponding to a full charge level of the battery pack” should read --the buffer capacity corresponds to a full charge level of the battery pack--
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-6 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim limitation of “the provided percentage is based on a sum capacity of a measured capacity of the batter pack and the remaining capacity of the power bank with a buffer capacity of the battery pack” lacks proper written description. Examiner notes that no description related to the claim limitation related to the provided percentage is based on a sum capacity. The Examiner further notes that applicant explains, in para. [0013], a sum capacity of the calculated remaining capacity of the power bank and the measured capacity of the battery pack received from the battery pack with a buffer capacity of the battery pack to determine a chargeable range of the battery pack according to the comparison result. Further, applicant explains, in para. [0058], that the sum capacity of the capacity of the battery pack and the capacity of the power bank is 9 Ah. In this case, since the sum capacity is less than the buffer capacity 10 Ah of the battery pack, 90%, which is an SOC value corresponding to 9 Ah, is derived from the capacity and SOC table as shown in the table of FIG. 2. However, these features do not reasonably identify how to acquire “the provided percentage based on a sum capacity of a measured capacity of the batter pack and the remaining capacity of the power bank with a buffer capacity of the battery pack.” As such, this phrase lacks proper written description. Dependent claims 2-6 and 15-19 are rejected based on their dependence from claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(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 1-6 and 15-19 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.
Regarding claim 1, The limitation of “the provided percentage is based on a sum capacity of a measured capacity of the batter pack and the remaining capacity of the power bank with a buffer capacity of the battery pack” is indefinite. It is unclear whether the provided percentage is chargeable capacity of the battery pack based on the received measured capacity information of the battery pack and a remaining capacity of the power bank or is SOC value in Fig. 2 related to sum capacity of the capacity of the battery pack and the capacity of the power bank. Dependent claims 2-6 and 15-19 are rejected based on their dependence from claim 1.
No prior art is being applied to Claims 1-6 and 15-19 because the prior art does not disclose or make obvious “a sum capacity of a measured capacity of the batter pack and the remaining capacity of the power bank with a buffer capacity of the battery pack,” as currently claimed, in the combination, and as best understood.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-14 are allowed over the prior art of record.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 7, the closest prior art fails to teach a method for charging a battery pack that has following the limitation:
“comparing, by the power bank, a sum capacity of the calculated remaining capacity of the power bank and the measured capacity of the battery pack received from the battery pack with a buffer capacity of the battery pack to determine a chargeable range of the battery pack according to a comparison result.”
Dependent claims 7-10 are patent eligible based on dependence from claim 7.
Regarding claim 11, the closest prior art fails to teach a power bank has following the limitation:
“a chargeable range determination unit configured to compare a sum capacity of the measured capacity of the charging target battery pack received by the information receiving unit and the remaining capacity of the power bank calculated by the remaining capacity calculation unit with a buffer capacity of the charging target battery pack to determine a chargeable range of the charging target battery pack according to a comparison result.”
Dependent claims 12-14 are patent eligible based on dependence from claim 11.
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 SANGKYUNG LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3669. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30am-4:00pm.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached on (571)270-5628. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SANGKYUNG LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858