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 Objections Claim 13 is objected to for its dependency from claim 10. Claim 10 is directed to swelling. Claim 13 is directed to security keys, which is unrelated to claim 10’s scope. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-15 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. In claim 1, at line 9, the phrase “the ferrite layer” lacks antecedent basis and renders the claims indefinite. T here is no ferrite layer previously recited in the claim. Furthermore, the “ferrite layer” and its relationship to other recited elements should be established before it is subject to encapsulating, i.e. , simply changing “the ferrite layer” to “a ferrite layer” is insufficient. Claims 2-15 are rejected for their dependency on rejected base claim 1. In claim 4, at line 2, the phrase “the insulating layer” lacks antecedent basis and renders the claim indefinite. Should claim 4 depend from claim 3? In claims 13, at line 2, the phrase “the device environment” lacks antecedent basis and is vague without further structural context. Claims 12 and 13 are further rejected for being uncertain in scope. Specifically, both claims 12 and 13 depend from claim 1. Claim 1 is directed to a battery system/apparatus. Claims 12 and 13 both recite determination and control steps . This mixing of statutory classes renders the claims indefinite in this situation because a POSITA would not know whether the claims are infringed upon its construction or when it is constructed and used. Applicant can amend the claims to require the battery system’s circuitry as configured to perform the recited steps. 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 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 . Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2012/0256585 to Partovi et al. (“ Partovi ”) and in view of US Patent No. 7,223,486 to Dorren et al. (“ Dorren ”). As to independent claim 1 , Partovi teaches: a battery system ( ¶ 0003 ) comprising: a rechargeable battery component (¶ 0131 , 0133 . B attery pack has rechargeable battery cells that receive an output from a receiver to charge. ) ; an induction coil mounted on a side of the rechargeable battery component (¶ 0131, 0133. Coil is mounted on the outside of the battery pack.) and electrically connected to a charging terminal of the rechargeable battery component (¶ 0131. Electrical connection from the receiver unit’s output to battery contacts.) ; circuitry connected to the induction coil and the charging terminal of the rechargeable battery component configured to manage current flow and voltage levels between the induction coil and the rechargeable battery component (¶ 0131, 0134, Fig. 6: 170, 172, 174, 176, 180, 182. Partovi identifies circuitry (regulators, charge management chips) positioned between the coil and the battery contacts that measures voltage and regulates power (managing current flow and voltage levels).) ; and a cover formed of a dielectric material at least partially covering encapsulating the rechargeable battery component, the induction coil, the ferrite layer, and the circuitry (¶ 0132, 0141, 0148 . Partovi teaches a ferrite layer between the receiver and the battery to shield the battery or device from EM fields (i.e., ferrite layer; ¶ 0141) during the construction of the integrated battery and receiver . Furthermore, Partovi these components are at least partially covered by dielectric material such as plastic. ) . Partovi differs from the claimed invention in a minor aspect: Partovi suggests but does not explicitly teach a cover formed of a dielectric material encapsulating the rechargeable battery component, the induction coil, the ferrite layer, and the circuitry. A POSITA would recognize it to be well known in the art of battery manufacturing to enclose an integrated battery pack within a cover formed of a dielectric material (such as a rigid plastic coating or polymer wrapper) that encapsulates the internal battery cells and associated management circuitry. See, for example, Dorren . Dorren teaches forming a self-contained, interchangeable battery pack by encapsulating a rechargeable battery cell and its associated charge management circuitry within a continuous dielectric cover (e.g., molded plastic resin or polymer wrapper) to provide mechanical rigidity, prevent moisture ingress, and electrically isolate the components from the surrounding environment (Abstract, 4:50-67 , 6:1-20 ). It would have been obvious to a POSITA to modify the integrated battery and receiver of Partovi to include a dielectric encapsulating cover as is known in the art (e.g., Dorren ). This combination allows for securing the integrated components in a single, structurally cohesive “after-market size and shape compatible battery pack” as intended by Partovi (¶ 0132), while providing the necessary electrical isolation and environmental protection to prevent short circuits and damage to the delicate coil traces during consumer handling and usage. As to claim 2 , t he battery system of claim 1 further comprising a ferrite layer interposed between the induction coil and the rechargeable battery component ( Partovi : ¶ 0134, 0141) . As to claim 3 , t he battery system of claim 1, wherein the induction coil is further configured as two planar layers of conductive coils; and the battery system further comprises an insulating layer formed of a dielectric material positioned between the two planar layers of the conductive coils ( Partovi : ¶ 0105, 0212, 0224. PCB inherently consists of planar conductive layers (the coils) separated by rigid insulating substrate layers (the dielectric material). Because Partovi explicitly teaches placing the conductive receiver coils on “separate PCB layers” that are stacked into a “multi-layer board”, it inherently teaches an insulating dielectric layer positioned between the two planar layers of the conductive coils. ) . As to claim 5 , t he battery system of claim 1, wherein the induction coil comprises a near field communication (NFC) antenna ( Partovi : ¶ 0142) . As to claim 15 , the battery system of claim 1, wherein the battery system is configured for removable connection with an electronic device and wireless inductive charging without connection to an electronic device ( Partovi : ¶ 0132: OEM battery can be replaced with after-market battery. ¶ 0469: a battery placed in proximity to a base unit can be charged, i.e., not connected to host device.) . Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Partovi in view of Dorren and in further view of US Pub. No. 2015/0123604 to Lee et al. (“Lee”). Partovi in view Dorren teach the limitations of claims 1 and 2 from which claim 8 depends. The combination, however, does not explicitly disclose a separation layer formed of an insulating material and positioned between the rechargeable battery component and the ferrite layer. Lee relates to wireless charging receiver assemblies and teaches a magnetic field shielding sheet configured to block AC magnetic fields from affecting a mobile device’s battery (Abstract, ¶ 0001) . Lee teaches the magnetic shielding assembly includes a thin magnetic sheet (ferrite layer) and further comprises an insulating separation layer, such as a “protective film” or “double-sided tape”, adhered to the surface of the magnetic sheet to safely separate and attach the magnetic layer to the main body/battery of the device (Lee: Abstract , 0043 ). It would have been obvious to a POSITA to modify the integrated battery pack of Partovi and Dorren to include an insulating separating layer positioned between the rechargeable battery component and the ferrite layer, as taught by Lee. The combination allows for securely fixing the ferrite shield to the battery while electrically isolating the battery’s outer metal casing from the potentially conductive ferrite shielding layer. This prevents unwanted electrical short circuits and protects the battery cell from physical abrasion against rigid ferrite material, ensuring safety and durability of the integrated battery pack. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Partovi in view of Dorren and in further view of US Pub. No. 2019/0369154 to Voisine (“ Voisine ”) . Partovi in view of Dorren does not teach the limitations of claim 9: determine a temperature of the battery system based at least in part on measured changes of electrical resistance within the induction coil. Voisine teaches using resistance changes of a coil/winding to determine temperature ( Abstract ). It would have been obvious to a POSITA to modify the circuitry taught by Partovi in view of Dorren to monitor resistance of the existing receiver/induction coil and convert resistance changes to a temperature estimate, as taught by Voisine , because doing so provides overtemperature protection and uses a known and existing physical property to infer temperature. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Partovi in view of Dorren and in further view of US Pub. No. 2014/0042961 to Lan (“Lan”) . Partovi in view of Dorren does not teach the limitations of claim 10: wherein the circuitry is further configured to determine a circumstance of swelling by the rechargeable battery component based at least in part on measured changes of electrical resistance within the induction coil. Lan teaches detecting battery swelling using a strain gauge whose resistance increases when the battery swells, and using that change (or a voltage derived from it) as the “signal” for swelling detection (Abstract, ¶ 0011). It would have been obvious to a POSITA to modify the circuitry taught by Partovi in view of Dorren to implement swelling detection technique using resistance measurements of the existing receiver/induction coil, rather than adding a separate strain gauge, to reduce parts count and add a safety/diagnostic feature. Claim s 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Partovi in view of Dorren and in further view of US Pub. No. 2018/0006473 to Bessegato et al. (“ Bessegato ”) and claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Partovi in view of Dorren and in further view of Lan and in even further view of Bessegato . Partovi in view of Dorren teach the limitations of claim 1 and 10 from which claims 11-13 depend. The combination further teaches device/battery/receiver identification, authentication concepts (including encrypted ID/authentication ideas) and selective enablement of charging/powering based on verification ( Partovi : ¶ 0091, 0185, 0287). The combination does not teach the limitations required by claims 11, 12, or 13. Bessegato teaches when the device connects to the battery pack, the processor challenges/authenticates by sending an inquiry message, waits for a reply, determines whether the reply is valid, and then enables or disables operation accordingly (¶ 0025-0027, these teac h all limitations of claim 11.). Bessegato goes on to teach the device can authenticate a battery using a database of valid electrical characteristics and/or an ID component, and if the battery is invalid/unauthorized it disables operation (E.g., opening a switch to prevent energy transfer. ¶ 0022, 0028, 0029 teach the limitations of claim 12.). Furthermore, Bessegato teaches authentication exchanges “include various encryption and authentication key algorithms” (¶ 0022) and specifically the processor can verify an authentication key exists in the reply; if not (invalid reply/wrong key), the processor can disable operation (¶ 0025-0028 teach the limitations of claim 13.) It would have been obvious to a POSITA to modify the teachings of Partovi and Dorren or Partovi , Dorren , and Lan to implement Bessegato’s authentication techniques in order to improve safety/compatibility and prevent operation with unauthorized or electrically incompatible battery/receiver modules. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Partovi in view of Dorren and in further view of Texas Instruments White Paper to Pathare (“ Pathare ”). Partovi in view Dorren does not teach the limitations of claim 14: wherein the induction coil comprises a coil configured according to Qi standards. A POSITA recognizes the Qi standard is ubiquitous in the wireless power art and it requires receiver and transmitter coils to meet configuration standards established by the WPC. See, for example, Pathare at page 1. It would have been obvious to a POSITA to configure Partovi’s receiver/induction coil to be Qi compliant because doing so is a predicable design choice to provide standardized interoperability/compatibility with widely adopted Qi transmitters/chargers. Claim s 16, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Partovi in view of Dorren and in further view of Voisine and Bessegato . Independent claim 16 : independent claim 16 incorporates the battery system structure recited in claims 1 and 2, which were shown above to be taught by Partovi in view of Dorren . Furthermore, claim 16 adds method limitations that correspond to similarly recited in claims 9, 11, and 12. Those limitations were shown to be taught by Voisine and Bessegato , respectively. These above findings and rationales are relied upon and are not reiterated. It would have been obvious to a POSITA to modify the battery system taught by Partovi in view of Dorren , as shown for claims 1 and 2, with the teachings of Voisine and Bessegato to provide a battery system that monitors operating conditions present in the device environment in which the battery system is connected (e.g., a thermal/overheating condition during inductive charging/operation) by measuring changes in electrical resistance of the induction coil, and to control operation of the battery system in response to those conditions indicated by the measured resistance changes. Incorporating Voisine’s resistance-based monitoring into Partovi’s induction coil and control circuity is a predictable design choice to improve safety and reliability (e.g., detecting abnormal thermal/operating conditions) while potentially reducing part counts by leveraging an already present coil rather than requiring a separate sensor. Incorporating Bessegato’s control logic for enabling/disabling operation based on a connected system state (e.g., compatibility/authentication) is a predicable design choice to improve safe operation and interoperability by preventing operation in undesirable connection states. The combinations therefore yield predictable benefits including improved fault/condition monitoring, improved operational safety, and improved compatibility control, without changing the basic inductive charging function of the Partovi / Dorren system. As to claim 17 , t he method of claim 16 further comprising determining a temperature within the battery system based at least in part on a measured change of electrical resistance within the induction coil; and halting current flow to the rechargeable battery component if the temperature exceeds a threshold ( Voisine teaches determining temperature from coil resistance (Abstract). Besseg a to teaches a disab ling the rechargeable battery (i.e., halting current flow to) in response to a detection (¶ 0029 , 0051 ) . Voisine and Bessegato together teach condition-based control that detects overheating ( Voisine ) and logic to disable charging of the battery when a fault or overtemperature is detected ( Bessegato ). ) . As to claim 19 , the method of claim 16 further comprising: exchanging a first security key with an electronic device connected to the battery system; and preventing operation of the battery system with respect to the electronic device connected to the battery system if a corresponding second security key of the electronic device is incompatible with the first security key ( Bessegato : ¶ 0022, 0025-0029. See rejections of claims 11-13 above for Bessegato’s teachings in more detail.) . Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Partovi in view of Dorren and further view of Voisine and Bessegato and in even further view of Lan . The combination of references applied to claim 16 and 17 teaches condition-based control of charging, such as halting current flow to the rechargeable battery if the temperature or resistance exceeds a threshold ( Voisine and Bessegato ). The combination, however, does not teach: determining a circumstance of swelling of the rechargeable battery component based at least in part on a measured change of electrical resistance within the induction coil . Lan teaches detecting battery swelling using a strain gauge whose resistance increases when the battery swells, and using that change (or a voltage derived from it) as the “signal” for swelling detection (Abstract, ¶ 0011). Lan further teaches comparing the resulting signal to a setting/value threshold and activates a protection mechanism, wherein the protection mechanism can command the charger to stop charging the battery module (¶ Abstract, 0014). It would have been obvious to a POSITA to incorporate Lan’s resistance based swelling detection into the battery system and methodology taught by the combination of references applied in claim 16 to provide an additional, known safety feature that detects abnormal swelling and stops charging to prevent further swelling and safety risks to yield predictable results. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Partovi in view of Dorren and further view of Voisine and Bessegato and in even further view of US Pub. No. 2022/0271568 to Cordier et al. (“Cordier”). The combination of references applied to claim 16 teach the induction coil comprises an NFC antenna ( Partovi : ¶ 0142), but does not explicitly teach the method steps of: monitoring for a resonant charging signal on the NFC antenna; and connecting the NFC antenna to the rechargeable battery component only upon detection of the resonant charging signal. Cordier teaches NFC wireless charging in which an antenna is used with an energy recovery device and a switch controllable by an NFC controller to selectively couple the energy recovery device to a battery charging circuit (Abstract) , where the switch is closed during wireless charging cycles and is closed when the NFC controller detects an external wireless charging device (polling circuit) emitting a field (Abstract, ¶ 0024, 0073) . Corrdier’s external NFC wireless charging field (received on a tuned NFC antenna) corresponds to the claimed “resonant charging signal”, and the selective closing of the switch to couple the antenna/energy recovery path to the battery charging circuit corresponds to “connecting…only upon detection”. It would have been obvious to a POSITA to incorporate Cordier’s NFC charging gating architecture into the battery system and methodology taught by the combination of references as applied to claim 16 to provide an NFC based wireless charging implementation in which the antenna/coil is only coupled to the battery charging path upon detection of a valid charging field. The incorporation avoids undesired loading during non-charging operation and improves compatibility and usability of the wireless charging function. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 4, 6, and 7 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. Claims 4, 6, and 7 would be allowable if rewritten in the manner above because the prior art of record does not teach or suggest a battery system having all the combinations of elements are recited in and required by claim 4. Claims 6 and 7 depend from claim 4. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT SURESH MEMULA whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-8046 , and any inquiry for a formal Applicant initiated interview must be requested via a PTOL-413A form and faxed to the Examiner's personal fax phone number: (571) 273-8046. Furthermore, Applicant is invited to contact the Examiner via email ( suresh.memula@uspto.gov ) on the condition the communication is pursuant to and in accordance with MPEP §502.03 and §713.01. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 9am-6pm. If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Jack Chiang, can be reached on 571-272-7483. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned (i.e., central fax phone number) 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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. /SURESH MEMULA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2851