Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Title
The title of the invention “System and Method for Powering a Device” is overly broad and is not descriptive. The present application is only a method and directed to powering via an external battery power source, none of which is captured by the present Title.
A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. (see 37 CFR 1.72).
Response to Arguments
Regarding the Claim objections.
Applicant’s arguments regarding a lack of formal statutory requirement for claims comprising article identifiers is reason to not have use them. This is not persuasive. Indeed the standard and norm for patent drafting is use of them. Furthermore use of article idenfiiers conforms with correct and proper English, which thereby makes the claims easier to read. Applicant has been put on notice means to make the claims better, easier to read, and in line with the classic patent drafting. With this, it is unclear why Applicant would continue to refuse to draft the claims without using them.
Claim Objections
Claims 14 and 16-21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The zero article claim language lacks proper introductory language and antecedent basis, creating claims that fail to properly introduce or refer back to elements, leading to ambiguity.
The claims lack clarity as failing to start with “A” or “The” thereby identifying a new claim referring back to a subsequent referenced claim. This is particularly important given the various other 112 issues with the claim making clarity particularly important in light of the already plurality of issues with the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
Claim(s) 16, 18, 21 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Tuukkanen et al. (“Tuuk”) US 2013/0140899.
Tuuk teaches:
16. The method of claim 21 further comprising determining to charge the internal battery with one or both of: a power source and the external battery (See Steps 308, FIG3 and 408, FIG4).
18. The method of claim 21 further comprising switching from one of the internal battery and the external battery that is powering the device to the other of the internal battery and the external battery (Step 314, FIG3).
Claim 21. A method of controlling powering a device comprising:
Determining a capacity of one of an internal battery (step 302, FIG3) and an external battery that is powering the device (Device is powered on, 300) relative to a threshold (threshold stated as “low”); and
Determining to switch from the one of an internal battery and the external battery that is powering the device to the other of the internal battery and the external battery (step 314) based on said determining a capacity (based on previous step 302);
Wherein the external battery comprises a standalone power source (standalone power source 220 of 2, see FIG2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 14 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tuukkanen et al. (“Tuuk”) US 2013/0140899 in view of Idzik et al. US 2009/0278490.
Tuuk fails to teach:
14. The method of claim 21 wherein powering the device by the external battery comprises a connection between the external battery and a holster.
Idzik teaches wherein an external power supply is incorporated within a holster to hold the electronic device (internal battery) (see FIGs 2,4).
It would have been obvious to incorporate a holster as taught by Idzik to accommodate the external source (charger) of Tuuk with the motivation of providing a known and desirable user configuration allowing easy connection and use of said external source of Tuuk.
Claim 17 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tuukkanen et al. (“Tuuk”) US 2013/0140899 in view of Yu US 2013/0127687.
Tuuk fails to teach: Claim 17. The method of claim 16 wherein said determine to charge comprises evaluating a capacity of the internal battery relative to a second threshold.
Yu teaches determining to charge an internal battery (first battery) comprises evaluating a capacity of the battery relative to a second threshold (See spec. @ [0016-0019] and respective FIGUREs 6-9 and corresponding specification).
It would have been obvious to incorporate said second threshold as taught by Yu into the system of Tuuk with the motivation of having greater control over the battery charge such as conserving power and maintaining battery health and also preventing excessive cycling between charging and discharging.
Claim 19 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tuukkanen et al. (“Tuuk”) US 2013/0140899 in view of Kim US 7,868,583.
Tuuk fails to teach:
19. The method of claim 18 wherein said switching is based on determining which of the internal battery and the external battery is powering the device .
Kim teaches wherein said switching is based on determining which of the internal battery and the external battery is powering the device (as determined in step S140 which determination is made that external battery is supplying power via said battery being discharged and determination made to switch to embedded battery step S160, FIG2).
It would have been obvious to provide the capability to switch between power sources as taught by Kim into the system of Tuuk with the motivation to provide desirable power features to the user in which power is switched between sources a opposed to a static power supply system that chooses the source (ie internal source) upon startup as the default which limits power efficiency and useability.
Claim 20 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tuukkanen et al. (“Tuuk”) US 2013/0140899 in view of Hoffer et al. US 2007/0090806.
Tuuk fails to teach The method of claim 21 wherein the threshold is 50%.
Hoffer teaches a method wherein said threshold is 50% (see spec. @ [0039]).
It would have been obvious to set said threshold taught by Tuuk to 50% as taught by Hoffer with the motivation of preserving the battery lifespan (depending on the type of battery used) and/or to set a relatively high threshold to ensure and maximizes the amount of stored power availability.
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 CAVALLARI whose telephone number is (571)272-8541. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0900-18:30.
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, Rexford Barnie can be reached at (571)272-7492. 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 CAVALLARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights