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 § 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 applicant 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.
Claim 1 recites that the logic control module is configured to output a power control signal, and that the power control module is configured turn on a power supply from the battery to the main control module in response to receiving the power control signal, but that the main control module is configured to send the logic enable signal to the logic control module while power is supplied to the main controller module. This is vague/ indefinite because it is unclear how the main control module sends the logic enable signal to the logic control module while power is supplied, and then the logic control module outputs a power control signal to the power control module to turn on a power supply from the battery to the main control module because power is already recited as supplied to the main control moule when it sends the first logic enable signal to the logic control module. Therefore, when the power is supplied and in response to what is unclear because power seems to already be on before the power control module turns it on, thus rending the claim vague/ indefinite. The dependent claims are rejected at least based on their dependency.
Appropriate correction is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan et al., as discussed above.
Re claim 1, Tan et al. teaches a battery management circuit (paragraph [0001], [0006]+) for managing a battery (106) that provides energy to an external device, characterized in that the battery management circuit comprises:
a main control module (BMIC), a logic control module (270+271+273), and a power control module (272), wherein
the logic control module (270+271+273) is configured to output a power control signal (gate signal of MOSFET 272 per FIG. 2) in response to receiving a logic-enable signal (power latch signal 142), and to skip outputting a power control signal in response to not receiving the logic-enable signal (FIG. 2 and paragraph [0052] “The BMIC continues to monitor the RCE Enquiry Status signal…”);
the power control module (272) is configured to turn on the power supply from the battery (106) to the main control module (BMIC) in response to receiving the power control signal (gate signal of MOSFET 272 per FIG. 2) from the logic control module (270+271+273), and to turn off the power supply from the battery (106) to the main control module (BMIC) in response to not receiving the power control signal (gate signal of MOSFET 272 per FIG. 2) from the logic control module (270+271+273); and
the main control module (BMIC) is configured to send the logic-enable signal (power latch signal 142) to the logic control module (270+271+273) while power is supplied to the main control module (BMIC) from the battery (106), and to skip sending the logic-enable signal (power latch signal 142) to the logic control module in a first predetermined state (charger status signal 134/ load status signal 136).
Re the newly added limitations to claim 1 wherein when the power supply from the battery to the main control module is turned off (interpreted as an external device/load being removed/ disconnected or per paragraph [0041] when all 3 kick start signals indicate inactive a power latch, signal 142 cuts off power to conserve power), the Examiner note that the logic control module prevents the power control module from being turned on in response to an attenuated output signal generated by the main control module because removal of the power supply from the battery to the main controller such as occurring when the load/ external device is disconnected, the logic control would not be outputting a power control signal to turn on the power supply because the power latch signal 142 will be at a LOW/OFF state because the buck regulator 180 will not be provided the 5V to the BMIC to power it and the electronic circuity is shut down to conserve power (paragraph [0063] and [0046]) when the load is determined as removed (discharge control). Though silent to specifically teaching an attenuated output of the main control module not being able to turn on the power control module by the logic control module, the Examiner notes that that the logic control module would not be outputting a signal to the power control module because the latch signal would not be present, because the 5V to power the BMIC would not be present. Additionally, paragraph [0063] teaches that at threshold voltage of 2V is required to turn on 270/ 272/ 390 and the bulk regulator 180. Therefore, it would have been obvious that at attenuated output lower that that taught, would prevent the power control module to be turned on by the logic control module.
Re claim 2, Tan et al. teaches the battery management circuit according to Claim 1, characterized in that the battery management circuit further comprises a wake-up module (kick start circuit 190/190a) , the wake-up module being configured to send a logic-enable signal (wakeup signal 138) to the logic control module (270+271+273) in response to receiving a wake-up signal (pushing the switch 102 create a wakeup signal/ voltage across the capacitor 294). A second logic signal is interpreted as a separate time/ instance.
Re claim 3, Tan et al. teaches the battery management circuit according to claim 1, characterized in that the logic-enable signal is a level not lower than a first threshold, because as the threshold is not defined or specified, it is implicit that by being sensed/ output that it is above (not lower) than a first threshold.
Re claim 4, Tan et al. teaches the battery management circuit according to claim 3, characterized in that the first predetermined state is that: the battery supplies no power to the main control module ; or the main control module receives no operating signal from the external device within a predetermined time period (load present / status signals 126/136 and charger present/ status signals 124/134).
Re claim 5, Tan et al. teaches the battery management circuit according to claim 2, characterized in that the wake-up signal is a triggering signal generated by the battery in response to a user's triggering action or an operating signal of the external device (taught by the trigger actions of switch 102).
Re claim 6, Tan et al. teaches the battery management circuit according to claim 5, characterized in that the triggering action is a user action triggering an energy status indicator switch of the battery (this has been discussed above by the switch).
Re claim 7, Tan et al. teaches the battery management circuit according to claim 4, characterized in that an operating signal of the external device is: a triggering signal generated by the external device; in response to a user's triggering action; or a voltage signal or current signal related to the operating state of the external device, as Tan et al. teaches present/ status signals 126/136 wherein a present load is a voltage/ current. .
Re claim 8, Tan et al. teaches the battery management circuit according to claim 5, characterized in that the wake-up module comprises an isolation unit, the isolation unit being configured to generate an induction signal in response to the wake-up signal wherein the induction signal is electrically isolated from the operating signal of the external device, through the use of the capacitor 294 of the kick start circuit 190a.
Re claim 9, Tan et al. teaches the battery management circuit according to claim 8, but is silent toe wake-up module further comprises a voltage-doubling unit, the voltage-doubling unit being configured to perform voltage amplification of the induction signal to generate the logic-enable signal. However, the Examiner notes that voltage boosting/ doubling is routine and conventional in the art to increase signals for processing, and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date for such expected results.
Re claim 10, Tan et al. teaches the battery management circuit according to claim 8, characterized in that the isolation unit is composed of a resistor-capacitor unit, an optocoupler, or a transformer (see claim 8).
Re claim 11, Tan et al. teaches the battery management circuit according to claim 1, characterized in that the battery management circuit further comprises: a battery monitoring module configured to monitor and/or display status parameters of the battery; and a communication module configured to communicate with the external device; the power control module is further configured to turn on the power supply from the battery to the battery monitoring module and the communication module in response to receiving the power control signal from the logic control module , and to turn off the power supply from the battery to the battery monitoring module and the communication module in response to not receiving the power control signal from the logic control module .
Re claim 12, Tan et al. teaches the battery management circuit according to claim 1, characterized in that the power control module (272) is in parallel to a power output circuit from the battery (106) to the external device (410). Though silent to parallel, it is intpereted as parallel as a power output circuit is not further specified so it is unclear. Further, the claim is drawn to a management circuit, and thus the intended environment (use) is not germane to the device claim, and therefore limitations drawn to other components and how those are connected do not patentably distinguish the device (circuit) claim.
Re claim 13, Tan et al. teaches the battery management circuit according to claim 3, characterized in that a level of the first threshold is between 3 volts and 3.3 volts. The Examiner notes that the level is well known for logic level detection, and as MOSFETs 270/272 are interpreted to require a gate voltage higher than the threshold for activation, as it would have bene obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to do so in order to have operating parameters consistent with what is practiced in the art for routine signal detection means.
Re claim 14, a battery assembly, characterized in that it comprises a battery and a battery management circuit according to claim 1 has been discussed above.
Re claim 15, Tan et al. teaches a power tool system comprising a power tool and a battery assembly according to claim 14, wherein the battery assembly is configured to supply power to the power tool (paragraphs [0002]+ and [0054]-[0056]+ teaches power tools).
Re claim 16, as discussed above, power is shutdown from the battery source 106 to the regulator to conserve power when no discharge current is sensed for a predetermined time duration (to determine when to cut off power). Though silent to reciting that a residual power of the main control module after shut off generated the attenuated output signal, the Examiner notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date that shutting down would result in a attenuated signal as the power dissipates, and that such a signal is not adequate to trigger maintaining power for the load/ device.
Re claim 17, as discussed above, power is turned off when the load is disconnected, and it is understood to be turned on when a wakeup module signal is provided to wake up the device.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan et al., as discussed above, in view of Yang et al. (US 20110304299).
Re claim 9, Tan et al. teaches the battery management circuit according to claim 8, but is silent to a wake-up module further comprises a voltage-doubling unit, the voltage-doubling unit being configured to perform voltage amplification of the induction signal to generate the logic-enable signal. However, the Examiner notes that voltage boosting/ doubling is routine and conventional in the art to increase signals for processing, and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date for such expected results.
Nonetheless, Yang et al. teaches such limitations (paragraph [0038]+.
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings to increase the signal for detection purposes.
Claim(s) 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan et al., as discussed above, in view of Owerko et al. (US 5907238).
The teachings of Tan et al. have been discussed above but are silent to preventing a power control module from being turned on in response to an attenuated output signal.
Owerko et al. in analogous art, teaches the sleep circuitry detects external loads and when no load is present, that no power is supplied to power discharge sensing circuitry (abstract+) which obviates in a sleep mode not turning on power control when there is an attenuated output signal (sleep circuitry consuming circuit with an attenuated signal will not turn on power for the device is a sleep mode).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings for energy conservation.
Re claims 2-15, the limitations have been discussed above.
Re claim 16, as discussed above, when power is shutdown, though silent to reciting that a residual power of the main control module after shut off generated the attenuated output signal, the Examiner notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date that shutting down would result in a attenuated signal as the power dissipates, and that such a signal is not adequate to trigger maintaining power for the load/ device.
Re claim 17, as discussed above, power is turned off when the load is disconnected, and it is understood to be turned on when a wakeup module signal is provided to wake up the device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have have been fully considered but they are not persuasive in light of the new art and rejections above. The Examiner also notes that possibly amending claim 9 to clarify (in combination with its dependent claims) could possibly place the application in better condition for allowance by possibly clarifying the second logic enable signal and/ or details regarding the attenuated signal that would distinguish it from prior art.
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 DANIEL I WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2409. The examiner can normally be reached 7-9pm.
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, Steven Paik can be reached at 571-272-2404. 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.
/DANIEL I WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights