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 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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more (See 2019 Update: Eligibility Guidance).
Independent Claim(s) 1 recites
determining whether a battery of the electronic device is being charged;
based on determining that the battery is being charged,
determining a charging current value;
determining a charging state corresponding to the determined charging current value;
and
outputting charging information corresponding to the determined charging state
[Mathematical Concepts – mathematical relationships; mathematical formulas or equations or mathematical calculation] and/or [Mental Processes - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)].
In combination with Independent Claim(s) 1, Claim(s) 2-5 recite(s)
based on the charging current value being less than a first threshold value,
determining the charging state to be a slow charging state.
based on the charging current value being greater than a second threshold value,
determining the charging state to be a fast charging state.
determining a charging completion time based on the charging current value;
and
outputting the charging completion time.
determining the charging completion time based on the charging current value and a present charging progress status
[Mathematical Concepts – mathematical relationships; mathematical formulas or equations or mathematical calculation] and/or [Mental Processes - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)].
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) (i.e. An electronic device comprising: a memory in which a program for outputting charging information is recorded; and a processor configured to execute the program, wherein the program comprises instructions that cause the processor to perform:);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) (i.e. heating an aerosol-generating substrate of a cigarette inserted in the electronic device, by using power provided by the battery); or
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)) (i.e. heating an aerosol-generating substrate of a cigarette inserted in the electronic device, by using power provided by the battery).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. The additional elements simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)) (i.e. See Alice Corp. and cited references for evidence of additional elements (i.e., generic computer structure)).
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by HOWARD ET AL. (US 20230218009 A1) (hereinafter “HOWARD”).
With respect to Claim(s) 1, HOWARD teaches ‘An apparatus and a method is described comprising: charging a battery of an aerosol generating device in a first mode of operation when a charge level of the battery is below a first threshold; and charging the battery of the aerosol generating device in a second mode of operation when the charge level of the battery is above the first threshold’ and the BRI of:
An electronic device
comprising:
a memory in which a program for outputting charging information is recorded; and a processor configured to execute the program, wherein the program comprises instructions that cause the processor (See, e.g., Fig(s). 1, 8, 9, 13, 14)
to perform:
determining whether a battery of the electronic device is being charged (See, e.g., Fig(s). 4);
based on determining that the battery is being charged, determining a charging current value (See, e.g., Fig(s). 4);
determining a charging state corresponding to the determined charging current value (See, e.g., Fig(s). 4);
and
outputting charging information corresponding to the determined charging state (See, e.g., ¶ 0099; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 14).
With respect to Claim(s) 2, HOWARD teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
HOWARD further teaches the BRI of:
based on the charging current value being less than a first threshold value, determining the charging state to be a slow charging state (See, e.g., Fig(s). 4).
With respect to Claim(s) 3, HOWARD teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
HOWARD further teaches the BRI of:
based on the charging current value being greater than a second threshold value, determining the charging state to be a fast charging state (See, e.g., Fig(s). 4).
With respect to Claim(s) 6, HOWARD teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
HOWARD further teaches the BRI of:
heating an aerosol-generating substrate of a cigarette inserted in the electronic device, by using power provided by the battery (See, e.g., ¶ 0003).
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.
Claim(s) 4, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the cited references of the parent claim(s) in view of RUAN ET AL. (US 20210325466 A1) (hereinafter “RUAN”).
With respect to Claim(s) 4, HOWARD teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
However, HOWARD is lacking the explicit language of:
determining a charging completion time based on the charging current value; and outputting the charging completion time.
RUAN teaches ‘A method includes: estimating a first estimated time required for the battery to be charged from the state of charge estimation initial value to an upper limit of the state of charge estimation section; estimating a second estimated time required for the battery to be changed in temperature from the temperature estimation initial value to an upper limit of the temperature estimation section; determining a new state of charge estimation initial value, a new state of charge estimation section, and a new temperature estimation initial value and a new temperature estimation section based on a smaller estimated time between the first estimated time and the second estimated time, until an upper limit of an state of charge estimation section reaches a target state of charge and a smaller estimated time is a first estimated time; and accumulating every determined smaller estimated times to obtain an estimated remaining charging time’ and the BRI of:
determining a charging completion time based on the charging current value; and outputting the charging completion time (See, e.g., ¶ ABSTRACT; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify HOWARD to include determining a charging completion time based on the charging current value; and outputting the charging completion time.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify HOWARD because it would be beneficial for convenience for the user of a rechargeable device. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With respect to Claim(s) 5, HOWARD, RUAN teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
RUAN further teaches the BRI of:
determining the charging completion time based on the charging current value and a present charging progress status (See, e.g., ¶ ABSTRACT; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify HOWARD to include determining the charging completion time based on the charging current value and a present charging progress status.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify HOWARD because it would be beneficial for convenience for the user of a rechargeable device. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAYMOND NIMOX whose telephone number is (469)295-9226. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 10am-8pm CT.
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, ANDREW SCHECHTER can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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.
RAYMOND NIMOX
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2857
/RAYMOND L NIMOX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit
Prosecution Insights