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 § 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.
Claims 1 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Marek (US 5,483,144).
As to claims 1 and 17, Marek discloses in figure 1, an on-board multi-bank marine battery charger [see figure 1, battery charger (10); Col. 3, lines 55-56] for a recreational fishing boat [Col. 2, lines Col. 2, lines 8-12, lines 51-55] having installed thereon at least one 12 Vdc battery [12V battery and element (72)] to power marine electronics and at least one 24 Vdc or 36 Vdc battery [battery (48) is 24V battery] to power a trolling motor, comprising:
a housing [element (10)] configured to mount on the recreational fishing boat [Col. 2, lines 8-11];
at least one single voltage charging bank positioned within the housing and configured to charge one of the at least one 12 Vdc battery [element (72)] ;
at least one multi-voltage charging bank positioned within the housing and configured to charge one of the at least one 24 Vdc or 36 Vdc battery [transformer circuit elements are used to charge the batteries].
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.
Claims 2-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marek (US 5,483,144) in view of Nagai et al. (US 5,691,620).
As to claim 2, Marek discloses all of the claim limitations except, wherein the at least one multi-voltage charging bank is configured to determine a battery voltage class of the one of the at least one 24 Vdc or 36 Vdc battery when connected thereto
Nagai discloses in figure 6, , wherein the at least one multi-voltage charging bank is configured to determine a battery voltage class of the one of the at least one 24 Vdc or 36 Vdc battery when connected thereto [see Col. 2, lines 10-16 and also figure 6, steps S1-S5; battery voltage is measured and battery classification is determined based on the measured voltage].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to identify battery of Marek by applying charging current as taught by Nagai in order to reliable and efficiently charge the batteries without causing any damage.
As to claim 3, Nagai discloses in figure 6, wherein the at least one multi-voltage charging bank is configured to determine a battery voltage class by applying a constant current signal to the one of the at least one 24 Vdc or 36 Vdc battery when connected thereto and by measuring a voltage thereof after a predetermined period and comparing the voltage to a predetermined threshold for each battery voltage class [see Col. 2, lines 10-16 and also figure 6, steps S1-S5; battery voltage is measured and battery classification is determined based on the measured voltage].
As to claim 4, Marek in combination with Nagi discloses, applying constant current.
However, neither Marek nor Nagai discloses, wherein the constant current is 2 A.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to choose appropriate charging current value in order to protect battery overcharging or undercharging, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine s-kill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
As to claim 5, Nagai discloses in figure 9, applying charging current for a predetermined period of time [see Col 2, lines 106-16].
However, neither Marek nor Nagai discloses, wherein the predetermined period is one minute.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to choose appropriate charging period to determine battery type in order to accurately determine battery type, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine s-kill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
As to Claim 6, neither Marek nor Nagai discloses, wherein the predetermined threshold for a 24 Vdc battery class is 16 Vdc to 30 Vdc.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to choose appropriate voltage range to determine battery class in order to ensure proper determination of battery type, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine s-kill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
As to claim 7, neither Marek nor Nagai discloses, wherein the predetermined threshold for a 36 Vdc battery class is 32 Vdc to 48 Vdc.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to choose appropriate voltage range to determine battery class in order to ensure proper determination of battery type, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine s-kill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
As to claim 8, neither Marek nor Nagai discloses, wherein the at least one multi-voltage charging bank is configured to determine the battery voltage class of the one of the at least one 24 Vdc or 36 Vdc battery connected thereto is 24 Vdc when the measured voltage thereof is greater than 18 Vdc and less than 30 Vdc.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to choose appropriate voltage range to determine battery class in order to ensure proper determination of battery type, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine s-kill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
As to claim 10, neither Marek nor Nagai discloses, wherein the at least one multi-voltage charging bank is configured to determine the battery voltage class of the one of the at least one 24 Vdc or 36 Vdc battery connected thereto is 36 Vdc when the measured voltage thereof is greater than 30 Vdc.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to choose appropriate voltage range to determine battery class in order to ensure proper determination of battery type, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine s-kill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
` It is also noted that all the claimed elements of applicant’s inventions were known in the prior art (e.g. voltage measuring, pulse charging, charge limiting current and voltage values, and etc.,) and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, proper motivation/rationale to combine is as given in the office action. See KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marek in view of Nagai, in view of Machine Translation of CN212695762U), hereinafter 762’.
As to claim 9, Marek in combination with Nagai discloses all of the claim limitations except, wherein the at least one multi-voltage charging bank is configured to charge the one of the at least one 24 Vdc or 36 Vdc battery at 10 A and 29.2 Vdc when the battery voltage class is determined to be 24 Vdc.
762’ discloses wherein the at least one multi-voltage charging bank is configured to charge the one of the at least one 24 Vdc or 36 Vdc battery at 10 A and 29.2 Vdc when the battery voltage class is determined to be 24 Vdc [charger with a battery with 29.2V/10A disclosed; see ¶004 of page 3].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to use charger with 10A and 29.2V outputs as taught by 762’ in Marek’s apparatus in order to effectively charge the rechargeable battery and prolong battery life.
As to claim 11, neither Marek nor Nagai discloses , wherein the at least one multi-voltage charging bank is configured to charge the one of the at least one 24 Vdc or 36 Vdc battery at 10 A and 45 Vdc when the battery voltage class is determined to be 36 Vdc.
762’ discloses charging with 10A and 29.2V.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to use charger with 10A and 29.2V outputs as taught by 762’ in Marek’s apparatus in order to effectively charge the rechargeable battery and prolong battery life.
However, neither Marek nor 762’ discloses charging output with 10A and 45V.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the charging of Marek to output charging voltage with 45V in order to effectively charge the battery, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine s-kill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
It is also noted that all the claimed elements of applicant’s inventions were known in the prior art (e.g. voltage measuring, charger with 10A/29.2V outputs, and etc.,) and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, proper motivation/rationale to combine is as given in the office action. See KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Claims 12 -15 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marek in view of Cummings et al. (US 6,137,265), hereinafter Cummings.
As to claim 12, Marek discloses all of the claim limitations except, wherein the at least one multi-voltage charging bank is configured to turn on the one of the at least one 24 Vdc or 36 Vdc battery when a sensed voltage of the battery connected thereto is less than a predetermined threshold.
Cummings discloses in figure 3, wherein the at least one multi-voltage charging bank is configured to turn on the one of the at least one 24 Vdc or 36 Vdc battery when a sensed voltage of the battery connected thereto is less than a predetermined threshold [see Col. 3, lines 50-60[ charging initiates when battery voltage is below predetermined voltage].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to start charging of the battery of Marek when the battery is below threshold voltage as taught by Cummings in order to avoid battery damage due to overdischarging.
As to claim 13, neither Marek nor Cummings discloses, wherein the predetermined threshold is 2 Vdc.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use predetermined battery voltage threshold to imitate charging to avoid battery overdischarging, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine s-kill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
As to claim 14, Marek discloses all of the claim limitations except, wherein the at least one multi-voltage charging bank is configured to turn on the one of the at least one 24 Vdc or 36 Vdc battery by providing a current pulse thereto until the sensed voltage is above the predetermined threshold.
Cummings discloses in figures 1-3, wherein the at least one multi-voltage charging bank is configured to turn on the one of the at least one 24 Vdc or 36 Vdc battery by providing a current pulse thereto until the sensed voltage is above the predetermined threshold [charging the battery until the battery voltage exceeds threshold voltage; see Col. 2, lines 55-67].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to stop charging of the battery of Marek when the battery is above threshold voltage as taught by Cummings in order to avoid battery damage due to overcharging.
As to claim 15, Cummings discloses in figures 1-3, wherein the at least one multi-voltage charging bank is configured to provide the current pulse no more than a predetermined number of times [Col. 5, lines 45-66].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to apply pulse charging in Marek’s apparatus for a predetermined period as taught by Cummings in order to avoid battery damage due to overcharging.
As to claim 18, Cummings discloses in figures 1-3, wherein the step of determining a battery voltage class comprises the steps of: applying a constant current signal to the one of the at least one 24 Vdc or 36 Vdc battery; measuring a voltage of the one of the at least one 24 Vdc or 36 Vdc battery after a predetermined period; and comparing the voltage to a predetermined threshold for each battery voltage class [see Col. 2, lines 55-67 and Col. 5, lines 45-66].
As to claim 19, neither Marek nor Cummings discloses explicitly, wherein the step of determining determines that the battery voltage class is 24 Vdc when the voltage from the step of measuring is greater than 18 Vdc and less than 30 Vdc, and that the battery voltage class is 36 Vdc when the voltage from the step of measuring is greater than 30 Vdc .
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to choose appropriate voltage range to determine battery class in order to ensure proper determination of battery type, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine s-kill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
As to claim 20, Cummings discloses in figures 1-3, further comprising the steps of: sensing a voltage of the one of the at least one 24 Vdc or 36 Vdc battery; comparing the voltage to a predetermined threshold; and applying a current pulse to the one of the at least one 24 Vdc or 36 Vdc battery until the voltage rises above the predetermined threshold [see Col. 2, lines 55-67 and Col. 5, lines 45-66].
It is also noted that all the claimed elements of applicant’s inventions were known in the prior art (e.g. voltage measuring, pulse charging, charge limiting current and voltage values, and etc.,) and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, proper motivation/rationale to combine is as given in the office action. See KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marek in view of Cole (US 4,394,613), hereinafter Cole.
As to claim 16, Marek discloses all of the claim limitations except, wherein the at least one multi-voltage charging bank is configured to charge the one of the at least one 24 Vdc or 36 Vdc battery until a charging current drops to below 1 A, at which point the at least one multi-voltage charging bank is configured to indicate charging is complete.
Cole discloses in figure 1, wherein the at least one multi-voltage charging bank is configured to charge the one of the at least one 24 Vdc or 36 Vdc battery until a charging current drops to below 1 A, at which point the at least one multi-voltage charging bank is configured to indicate charging is complete [noted that charging battery is stopped when charging current is below 50ma which is below 1A and LED emits light to indicate battery process is completed; see Col. 1, lines 27-30 and Col.2, lines 52-68].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify Marek’s apparatus and allow indicator lights to emit light when the charging current is below a threshold such as 1A as taught by Cole in order to provide protection against battery overcharging while maintain it in a fully charged state .
The method steps will be met during the normal operation of the apparatus described above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL BERHANU whose telephone number is (571)272-8430. The examiner can normally be reached M_F.
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, Julian A. Huffman can be reached at Julian.Huffman@uspto.gov. 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.
/SAMUEL BERHANU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights