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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments/amendments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection. The examiner notes that two pieces of evidence will be employed in consideration of the new prior art reference:
Intel ( “Endianness White Paper” Intel, Published Nov 15 2004, Accessed online Feb 11 2004, https://www.pascal-man.com/navigation/faq-java-browser/jython/endian.pdf )
Kumar ( “Understanding Little and Big Endian Architecture”, Krishan Kumar, cs-fundamentals.com, published online as dated by google Nov 21 2013, Accessed online Feb 11 2004, https://cs-fundamentals.com/c-programming/endianness-little-and-big-endian )
The drawing and specification objections are withdrawn due to the amendments.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over
claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. 10581262;
claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 11233416;
claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11791651
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims generally have the same scope, esp. with overlapping (and narrower scope) for the independent claims of the patents above. These are all in the same family. They involve communication to establish whether quick charging can be performed, setting the quick charging voltage/current, and modifying the quick charging voltage/current due to further communication once it has already started.
Similarly, the same assignee has the same scope in:
claims 1-27 of U.S. Patent No. 10424953
claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. 10673261
These applications/patents are in view of Kanou et al (USPGPN 20160118815), as evidenced by Intel ( “Endianness White Paper” Intel, Published Nov 15 2004, Accessed online Feb 11 2004, https://www.pascal-man.com/navigation/faq-java-browser/jython/endian.pdf ) and Kumar ( “Understanding Little and Big Endian Architecture”, Krishan Kumar, cs-fundamentals.com, published online as dated by google Nov 21 2013, Accessed online Feb 11 2004, https://cs-fundamentals.com/c-programming/endianness-little-and-big-endian )
The difference between the applications/patents above and the present claims are wherein at least one of the following is comprised: when the power supply device transmits an instruction that comprises a plurality of bits, the power supply device firstly transmits a most significant bit (MSB); or when the power supply device receives an instruction that comprises a plurality of bits, the power supply device firstly receives a MSB.
Kanou teaches at least one of the following is comprised: when the power supply device transmits an instruction that comprises a plurality of bits, the power supply device firstly transmits a most significant bit (MSB); or when the power supply device receives an instruction that comprises a plurality of bits, the power supply device firstly receives a MSB (MSB, i.e. big-endian, communication is described in ¶’s [37, 46-48, esp. 37, 48]). Intel (pages [5-7, esp. bottom section of 6]) describes that most communication processors use big-endian [i.e. most significant bit, MSB] style, and that MSB is more efficient than little endian [i.e. least significant bit, LSB]). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art understands that by allowing for the ability to interpret some of the data prematurely (“, you can always test whether the number is positive or negative by looking at the byte at offset zero. You don't have to know how long the number is, nor do you have to skip over any bytes to find the byte containing the sign information.”), the processing of the communication can be sped up. Furthermore, Kumar provides evidence (see page 4 of 5, advantages section) that MSB/big-ending data is both more efficient and quicker.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the applications/patents with Kanou to provide improved efficiency and quickness.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4-7, 9, 12-15, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al (USPGPN 20150180244) in view of Nishikawa et al (USPGPN 20160028255; hereinafter Nishi) and Kanou et al (USPGPN 20160118815), as evidenced by Intel ( “Endianness White Paper” Intel, Published Nov 15 2004, Accessed online Feb 11 2004, https://www.pascal-man.com/navigation/faq-java-browser/jython/endian.pdf ) and Kumar ( “Understanding Little and Big Endian Architecture”, Krishan Kumar, cs-fundamentals.com, published online as dated by google Nov 21 2013, Accessed online Feb 11 2004, https://cs-fundamentals.com/c-programming/endianness-little-and-big-endian )
Independent Claim 1, Jung teaches a charging method (method shown in Figs. 8-11, based on structure of Figs. [1A-4B]), comprising:
conducting a handshake communication (Figs. 8 & 9 describes the handshaking communication of the voltage and current, see further ¶’s [11-14, 30, 48, 59, 61-63, 65, 69-71, 86-88]) between a terminal device (terminal is 217 shown in Fig. 3, which is shown by Fig. 2 to be inside 100, which is described in ¶[31] to include mobile phone, etc.) and a power supply device (Fig. 3 demonstrates adaptor 110) through a universal serial bus (USB) interface (see at least Fig. 3), to determine to charge a battery of the terminal device in a quick charging mode and determine a charging voltage or a charging current of the quick charging mode (¶'s [48, 49, 51] describes quick charging detection, while ¶'s [61-63] and Fig. 5 makes it clear that quick charge communication involves both signal from "master", i.e. power adapter, and "slave" i.e. electronic device, called a handshake;
Fig. 10 step 1004 describes receiving both the voltage and current of the mode from the mobile terminal, Figs. 8 & 9 describes the handshaking communication of the voltage & current, while ¶[78] describes first indication/signal for voltage & second indication/signal for current);
adjusting an output voltage or an output current output to the terminal device according to the charging voltage or the charging current of the quick charging mode to enter a constant current phase (¶[45] describes actually providing the charging and voltage values with constant current mode, while Fig. 10 describes actually charging with the handshake values in 1010); and
Jung is silent to conducting a handshake communication with the terminal device during the constant current phase to adjust the output current or the output voltage output to the terminal device. Jung further is silent to at least one of the following is comprised: when the power supply device transmits an instruction that comprises a plurality of bits, the power supply device firstly transmits a most significant bit (MSB); or when the power supply device receives an instruction that comprises a plurality of bits, the power supply device firstly receives a MSB.
Nishi teaches conducting a handshake communication with the terminal device during the constant current phase to adjust the output current or the output voltage output to the terminal device (¶’s [51-53, 60, 72-76, esp. 51-53, 60] describes charge control unit 21 of Fig. 1 in device being charged/terminal sending modifications of the charging voltage/current during charging to charger/power-supply 2, see modifications to the current level during charging in Figs. [5, 7-9]). Nishi teaches that by making these changes during charging, the degradation & charging duration can be reduced (¶’s [30, 67, 93, 101])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Jung with Nishi to provide reduced degradation and time.
Jung is silent to at least one of the following is comprised: when the power supply device transmits an instruction that comprises a plurality of bits, the power supply device firstly transmits a most significant bit (MSB); or when the power supply device receives an instruction that comprises a plurality of bits, the power supply device firstly receives a MSB.
Kanou teaches at least one of the following is comprised: when the power supply device transmits an instruction that comprises a plurality of bits, the power supply device firstly transmits a most significant bit (MSB); or when the power supply device receives an instruction that comprises a plurality of bits, the power supply device firstly receives a MSB (MSB, i.e. big-endian, communication is described in ¶’s [37, 46-48, esp. 37, 48]). Intel (pages [5-7, esp. bottom section of 6]) describes that most communication processors use big-endian [i.e. most significant bit, MSB] style, and that MSB is more efficient than little endian [i.e. least significant bit, LSB]). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art understands that by allowing for the ability to interpret some of the data prematurely (“, you can always test whether the number is positive or negative by looking at the byte at offset zero. You don't have to know how long the number is, nor do you have to skip over any bytes to find the byte containing the sign information.”), the processing of the communication can be sped up. Furthermore, Kumar provides evidence (see page 4 of 5, advantages section) that MSB/big-ending data is both more efficient and quicker.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Jun in view of Nishi with Kanou to provide improved efficiency and quickness.
Independent Claim 9, Jung teaches a charging method (method shown in Figs. 8-11, based on structure of Figs. [1A-4B]), comprising:
conducting a handshake communication (Figs. 8 & 9 describes the handshaking communication of the voltage and current, see further ¶’s [11-14, 30, 48, 59, 61-63, 65, 69-71, 86-88]) between a terminal device (terminal is 217 shown in Fig. 3, which is shown by Fig. 2 to be inside 100, which is described in ¶[31] to include mobile phone, etc.) and a power supply device (Fig. 3 demonstrates adaptor 110) through a universal serial bus (USB) interface (see at least Fig. 3), to determine to charge a battery of the terminal device in a quick charging mode and determine a charging voltage or a charging current of the quick charging mode (¶'s [48, 49, 51] describes quick charging detection, while ¶'s [61-63] and Fig. 5 makes it clear that quick charge communication involves both signal from "master", i.e. power adapter, and "slave" i.e. electronic device, called a handshake;
Fig. 10 step 1004 describes receiving both the voltage and current of the mode from the mobile terminal, Figs. 8 & 9 describes the handshaking communication of the voltage & current, while ¶[78] describes first indication/signal for voltage & second indication/signal for current);
adjusting an output voltage or an output current output to the terminal device according to the charging voltage or the charging current of the quick charging mode to enter a constant current phase (¶[45] describes actually providing the charging and voltage values with constant current mode, while Fig. 10 describes actually charging with the handshake values in 1010).
Jung fails to explicitly teach after the power supply device adjusts an output voltage or an output current of the power supply device according to the charging voltage or the charging current of the quick charging mode and enters a constant current phase, conducting a handshake communication with the power supply device, such that the power supply device adjusts the output current or the output voltage of the power supply device in the constant current phase. Jung further is silent to at least one of the following is comprised: when the power supply device transmits an instruction that comprises a plurality of bits, the power supply device firstly transmits a most significant bit (MSB); or when the power supply device receives an instruction that comprises a plurality of bits, the power supply device firstly receives a MSB.
Nishi teaches after the power supply device adjusts an output voltage or an output current of the power supply device according to the charging voltage or the charging current of the quick charging mode and enters a constant current phase, conducting a handshake communication with the power supply device, such that the power supply device adjusts the output current or the output voltage of the power supply device in the constant current phase (¶’s [51-53, 60, 72-76, esp. 51-53, 60] describes charge control unit 21 of Fig. 1 in device being charged/terminal sending modifications of the charging voltage/current during charging to charger/power-supply 2, see modifications to the current level during charging in Figs. [5, 7-9]). Nishi teaches that by making these changes during charging, the degradation & charging duration can be reduced (¶’s [30, 67, 93, 101])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Jung with Nishi to provide reduced degradation and time.
Jung is silent to at least one of the following is comprised: when the power supply device transmits an instruction that comprises a plurality of bits, the power supply device firstly transmits a most significant bit (MSB); or when the power supply device receives an instruction that comprises a plurality of bits, the power supply device firstly receives a MSB.
Kanou teaches at least one of the following is comprised: when the power supply device transmits an instruction that comprises a plurality of bits, the power supply device firstly transmits a most significant bit (MSB); or when the power supply device receives an instruction that comprises a plurality of bits, the power supply device firstly receives a MSB (MSB, i.e. big-endian, communication is described in ¶’s [37, 46-48, esp. 37, 48]). Intel (pages [5-7, esp. bottom section of 6]) describes that most communication processors use big-endian [i.e. most significant bit, MSB] style, and that MSB is more efficient than little endian [i.e. least significant bit, LSB]). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art understands that by allowing for the ability to interpret some of the data prematurely (“, you can always test whether the number is positive or negative by looking at the byte at offset zero. You don't have to know how long the number is, nor do you have to skip over any bytes to find the byte containing the sign information.”), the processing of the communication can be sped up. Furthermore, Kumar provides evidence (see page 4 of 5, advantages section) that MSB/big-ending data is both more efficient and quicker.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Jun in view of Nishi with Kanou to provide improved efficiency and quickness.
Independent Claim 15, Jung teaches a terminal device (100/110, in Figs. 1A-3, terminal is 217 shown in Fig. 3, which is shown by Fig. 2 to be inside 100, which is described in ¶[31] to include mobile phone, etc.) comprising:
a processor (201, 365); and
a computer-readable memory (obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art this memory is used with processor 325), coupled to the processor and storing a computer program therein which (method shown in Figs. 8-11, based on structure of Figs. [1A-4B]), when executed by the processor, causes the processor to:
conducting a handshake communication (Figs. 8 & 9 describes the handshaking communication of the voltage and current, see further ¶’s [11-14, 30, 48, 59, 61-63, 65, 69-71, 86-88]) between a terminal device (terminal is 217 shown in Fig. 3, which is shown by Fig. 2 to be inside 100, which is described in ¶[31] to include mobile phone, etc.) and a power supply device (Fig. 3 demonstrates adaptor 110) through a universal serial bus (USB) interface (see at least Fig. 3), to determine to charge a battery of the terminal device in a quick charging mode and determine a charging voltage or a charging current of the quick charging mode (¶'s [48, 49, 51] describes quick charging detection, while ¶'s [61-63] and Fig. 5 makes it clear that quick charge communication involves both signal from "master", i.e. power adapter, and "slave" i.e. electronic device, called a handshake;
Fig. 10 step 1004 describes receiving both the voltage and current of the mode from the mobile terminal, Figs. 8 & 9 describes the handshaking communication of the voltage & current, while ¶[78] describes first indication/signal for voltage & second indication/signal for current);
adjusting an output voltage or an output current output to the terminal device according to the charging voltage or the charging current of the quick charging mode to enter a constant current phase (¶[45] describes actually providing the charging and voltage values with constant current mode, while Fig. 10 describes actually charging with the handshake values in 1010); and
Jung fails to explicitly teach after the power supply device adjusts an output voltage or an output current of the power supply device according to the charging voltage or the charging current of the quick charging mode and enters a constant current phase, conducting a handshake communication with the power supply device, such that the power supply device adjusts the output current or the output voltage of the power supply device in the constant current phase. Jung is further silent to at least one of the following is comprised: when the power supply device transmits an instruction that comprises a plurality of bits, the power supply device firstly transmits a most significant bit (MSB); or when the power supply device receives an instruction that comprises a plurality of bits, the power supply device firstly receives a MSB.
Nishi teaches after the power supply device adjusts an output voltage or an output current of the power supply device according to the charging voltage or the charging current of the quick charging mode and enters a constant current phase, conducting a handshake communication with the power supply device, such that the power supply device adjusts the output current or the output voltage of the power supply device in the constant current phase (¶’s [51-53, 60, 72-76, esp. 51-53, 60] describes charge control unit 21 of Fig. 1 in device being charged/terminal sending modifications of the charging voltage/current during charging to charger/power-supply 2, see modifications to the current level during charging in Figs. [5, 7-9]). Nishi teaches that by making these changes during charging, the degradation & charging duration can be reduced (¶’s [30, 67, 93, 101])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Jung with Nishi to provide reduced degradation and time.
Jung is silent to at least one of the following is comprised: when the power supply device transmits an instruction that comprises a plurality of bits, the power supply device firstly transmits a most significant bit (MSB); or when the power supply device receives an instruction that comprises a plurality of bits, the power supply device firstly receives a MSB.
Kanou teaches at least one of the following is comprised: when the power supply device transmits an instruction that comprises a plurality of bits, the power supply device firstly transmits a most significant bit (MSB); or when the power supply device receives an instruction that comprises a plurality of bits, the power supply device firstly receives a MSB (MSB, i.e. big-endian, communication is described in ¶’s [37, 46-48, esp. 37, 48]). Intel (pages [5-7, esp. bottom section of 6]) describes that most communication processors use big-endian [i.e. most significant bit, MSB] style, and that MSB is more efficient than little endian [i.e. least significant bit, LSB]). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art understands that by allowing for the ability to interpret some of the data prematurely (“, you can always test whether the number is positive or negative by looking at the byte at offset zero. You don't have to know how long the number is, nor do you have to skip over any bytes to find the byte containing the sign information.”), the processing of the communication can be sped up. Furthermore, Kumar provides evidence (see page 4 of 5, advantages section) that MSB/big-ending data is both more efficient and quicker.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Jun in view of Nishi with Kanou to provide improved efficiency and quickness.
Dependent Claims 4, 14, and 20, the combination of Jung, Kanou, and Nishi teaches in the constant current phase, multiple constant current charging stages corresponding to different charging currents are conducted successively (Nishi in Figs. [5, 7-9]).
Dependent Claims 5, 12, and 18, the combination of Jung, Kanou, and Nishi teaches conducting the handshake communication between the terminal device and the power supply device to determine the charging voltage of the quick charging mode comprises:
conducting the handshake communication with the terminal device to determine whether the current output voltage output to the terminal device is proper to be the charging voltage of the quick charging mode;
determining the current output voltage output to the terminal device to be the charging voltage of the quick charging mode based a determination that the current output voltage output to the terminal device is proper; and
adjusting the current output voltage output to the terminal device based on a determination that the current output voltage output to the terminal device is high or low (see Jung Fig. 10 s1006 & s1016, ¶’s [73-81, esp.74-78]).
Dependent Claims 6, 13, and 19, the combination of Jung, Kanou, and Nishi teaches conducting the handshake communication with the terminal device in the constant current phase to adjust the output current or the output voltage output to the terminal device comprises: conducting the handshake communication with the terminal device to receive voltage information; and
adjusting the output current or the output voltage output to the terminal device according to the voltage information (see Nishi ¶’s [50-53, 60] in which 21 receives voltage information, and sends a signal based upon the voltage information to adjust the output current from charger 2 in light of the voltage information, which one of ordinary skill in the art understands would be functionally equivalent and obvious to performing the processing of when to change the current level either/both on the terminal as described by Jung or on the charger device).
Dependent Claim 7, the combination of Jung, Kanou, and Nishi teaches conducting the handshake communication between the terminal device and the power supply device to determine to charge the battery of the terminal device in the quick charging mode comprises:
transmitting an instruction to the terminal device to query whether the terminal device agrees to charge the terminal device in the quick charging mode; and
receiving a reply instruction from the terminal device, wherein the reply instruction is indicative of charging the terminal device in the quick charging mode (Jung: [1002, 1004, & 1012] of Fig. 10 is the functional equivalent of querying and agreeing to be charged in the quick charging mode, as one of ordinary skill in the art understands).
Claims 2, 10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of Kanou and Nishi, further in view of Raichle et al (USPGPN 20040000893; hereinafter Raich), as evidenced by Intel and Kumar
Dependent Claims 2, 10, and 16, the combination of Jung, Kanou, and Nishi teaches USB interface based charging for quick charging of a battery.
Jung is silent to conducting a handshake communication with the terminal device during the constant current phase to determine an impedance of a charging path of the terminal device;
determining whether coupling with the terminal device via the interface is bad according to the impedance of the charging path of the terminal device; and exiting the charging mode based on a determination that the coupling with the terminal device is bad.
Raich teaches conducting a handshake communication with the terminal device during the constant current phase to determine an impedance of a charging path of the terminal device; determining whether coupling with the terminal device via the interface is bad according to the impedance of the charging path of the terminal device (Figs. 2-5, ¶'s [32-40], impedance values described in ¶[35], while the resistance/ path impedance of the connection is determined in ¶'s [36-40]); and
exiting the charging mode based on a determination that the coupling with the terminal device is bad (¶’s [38-40 describes the user deciding to replace terminals, which one of ordinary skill in the art understands would involve disconnection of the terminals, and thus exiting the charging mode). One of ordinary skill in the art understands that with higher resistance/impedance of the charging path/cable, the higher the power losses (¶[33]), which means that by only charging when the resistance is not too high, the efficiency is improved.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Jung in view of [Kanou and Nishi] with Raich to provide improved efficiency.
Claims 3, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of Kanou and Nishi, further in view of Chu (USPGPN 20150340879)
Dependent Claims 3, 11, and 17, Jung is silent to executing, based on a determination that an error occurs in encoding with a reply instruction from the terminal device, at least one of the following: exiting the quick charging mode and stopping charging the terminal device.
Chu teaches executing, based on a determination that an error occurs in encoding with a reply instruction from the terminal device, at least one of the following: exiting the quick charging mode and stopping charging the terminal device (¶[46], where charging based upon encoding verification is the same across both wired and wireless charging, and one of ordinary skill in the art understands that by providing power only when it is verified, the efficiency of the system can be improved and costs by the provided can be reduced by not providing power to unauthorized users).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Jung in view of [Kanou and Nishi] with Chu to provide improved efficiency.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of Nishi, further in view of Walley et al (USPGPN 20110181110)
Dependent Claim 8, the combination of Jung, Kanou, and Nishi teaches conducting the handshake communication between the terminal device and the power supply device to determine the charging current of the quick charging mode comprises:
transmitting an instruction to the terminal device to query a charging current which is currently supported by the terminal device; and receiving a reply instruction from the terminal device, wherein the reply instruction indicates the charging current which is currently supported by the terminal device; and determining the charging current of the quick charging mode based on the reply instruction (Jung Fig. 10, ¶’s [79-81].
Jung is silent to query a maximum charging current which is currently supported by the terminal device; and receiving a reply instruction from the terminal device, the reply instruction indicates the maximum charging current which is currently supported by the terminal device
Walley teaches query a maximum charging current which is currently supported by the terminal device; and receiving a reply instruction from the terminal device, the reply instruction indicates the maximum charging current which is currently supported by the terminal device (¶'s [26, 32], Fig. 5, where ¶[26] describes the maximum charging current negotiation, ¶[32] further describes the negotiation, where Figs. 1-4 show analogous structure). Walley teaches this serves to provide improved efficiency and safety (¶’s [25-27, 33]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Jung in view of [Kanou and Nishi] with Walley to provide improved efficiency and safety.
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 JOHN T TRISCHLER whose telephone number is (571)270-0651. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30A-3:30P (often working later), M-F, ET, Flexible. 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, Drew Dunn can be reached at 5712722312. 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.
/JOHN T TRISCHLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859