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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/12/2024 was in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means,” and are therefore interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Such claim limitations include: “means for calculating available electric energy” in claims 19-21, 23, and 25; “means for charging” in claims 19 and 21; “means for measuring electric energy” in claims 20, 22, and 24; “means for determining whether the measured electric energy usage of the CPE exceeds an idle threshold” in claim 20; “means for calculating a first available electric energy” in claims 21 and 23-24; “means for calculating a representation of electric energy” in claim 21; “means for calculating a second available electric energy” in claims 21-22 and 24; “means for determining whether the first available electric energy from the PSU exceeds a charge threshold” in claim 22; “means for determining whether the second available electric energy from the PSU exceeds a charge threshold” in claim 24; “means for determining whether the available electric energy from the PSU exceeds a charge threshold” in claim 25; “means for streaming battery status information” in claim 26; and “means for receiving, at the CPE, a battery charge command” in claim 27.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
For example, “means for calculating available electric energy,” “means for determining whether the measured electric energy usage of the CPE exceeds an idle threshold,” “means for calculating a first available electric energy,” “means for calculating a representation of electric energy,” “means for calculating a second available electric energy,” “means for determining whether the first available electric energy from the PSU exceeds a charge threshold,” “means for determining whether the second available electric energy from the PSU exceeds a charge threshold,” and “means for determining whether the available electric energy from the PSU exceeds a charge threshold,” are disclosed by the specification as being implemented via computer processing/program instructions ([0011], [0039], [0042], FIGS. 3A and 3B processing system 314, [0049]). The structure of “means for charging” are disclosed for example in FIGS. 3A and 3B (charger 304) and [0048]-[0049]. The structure of “means for measuring electric energy” are disclosed for example in FIG. 3B electrical energy measurement module 320 and [0048]-[0049].
No reasonably clear structure is described by Applicant’s figures and specification corresponding to “means for streaming battery status information” and “means for receiving, at the CPE, a battery charge command,” such that these elements form the basis for the rejections of claims 26 and 27 under 112(a) and 112(b) set forth herein.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Objections
Claim 28 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 28 lines 4-5, “the CPE” lacks antecedent relation and fails to spell out the acronym, such that “the CPE” in lines 4-5 should read “a customer premises device (CPE).”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding the interpretation of claims 26 and 27 under 112(f) set forth above, Examiner is unable to find reasonably clear description of structure corresponding to “means for streaming battery status information” and “means for receiving, at the CPE, a battery charge command” such that it is not clear that Applicant had possession of the invention specified in claims 26 and 27.
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.
Claims 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
As to claims 26-27, as noted in the grounds for rejecting claims 26-27 under 112(a), Applicant’s specification fails to disclose structure corresponding to “means for streaming battery status information” and “means for receiving, at the CPE, a battery charge command,” which is required under the required 112(f) interpretation to ascertain the scope of each of claims 26 and 27.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention in each of these claims is directed to the abstract idea judicial exception without significantly more.
Independent claim 10, substantially representative also of independent claims 1, 19, and 28, recites:
“[a] customer premises device (CPE) comprising a processing system configured with processing system-executable instructions to cause the processing system to perform operations, comprising:
calculating available electric energy from a power supply unit (PSU) of the CPE; and
charging at least one battery of the CPE using the available electric energy from the PSU.”
The claim limitations considered to fall within in the abstract idea are highlighted in bold font above and the remaining features are “additional elements.”
Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis entails determining whether the claimed subject matter falls within one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Each of claims 10 and 19 recite a device, claim 1 recites a method, and claim 28 recites an article of manufacture and therefore each fall within a statutory category.
Step 2A, Prong One of the analysis entails determining whether the claim recites a judicial exception such as an abstract idea. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the highlighted portions of claim 10 fall within the abstract idea judicial exception. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the highlighted subject matter falls within the mental processes category (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
The recited function “calculating available electric energy from a power supply unit (PSU) of the CPE” may be performed as mental processes (e.g., evaluation of factors such as supply current/power, equipment loading factors, etc., and judgment to determine energy availability).
Step 2A, Prong Two of the analysis entails determining whether the claim includes additional elements that integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. “A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception” (MPEP § 2106.04(d)).
MPEP § 2106.04(d) sets forth considerations to be applied in Step 2A, Prong Two for determining whether or not a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application. Based on the individual and collective limitations of claim 10 and applying a broadest reasonable interpretation, the most applicable of such considerations appear to include: improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)); applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)); and effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)).
Regarding improvements to the functioning of a computer or other technology, none of the “additional elements” including “customer premises device (CPE) comprising a processing system configured with processing system-executable instructions to cause the processing system to perform operations” and “charging at least one battery of the CPE using the available electric energy from the PSU,” in any combination appear to integrate the abstract idea in a manner that technologically improves any aspect of a device or system that may be used to implement the highlighted step or a device for implementing the highlighted step such as a signal processing device or a generic computer. A broadest reasonable interpretation of CPE in view of Applicant’s specification entails a broad array of equipment to include computers (e.g., personal computers) that may include networking capabilities, and does not appear to have any particularized, technically significant relation to the step of calculating available energy. Therefore, the use of a CPE as a platform for implementing the calculating step represents computer programmed implementation of the step falling within the judicial exception and therefore constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity that neither integrates the judicial exception into a practical application nor results in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. The step of “charging at least one battery of the CPE using the available energy from the PSU” also does not integrate the calculating step into a practical application at least in part because this step is not clearly dependent on the calculating step per the claim language. A broadest reasonable interpretation does not require any controlling of the charging based on the particular determination made in the calculating step, such that the charging step is rendered as activity having only an inferred functional relation to the calculating step. Furthermore, to the extent that the charging step is viewed as dependent on the calculating step (e.g., setting the manner of charging based on the calculated energy available), such step effectively entails post-solution activity in terms of implementing a standard activity (charging) in order to implement the fundamental feature of the claimed invention (ascertaining energy availability for charging) with no particularity that represents a technical improvement beyond the abstract idea itself.
Regarding application of the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, the additional elements are not configured or otherwise implemented a particularized manner of monitoring energy availability and charging of an equipment battery.
Regarding a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, claim 10 does not include any such transformation or reduction. Instead, claim 10 as a whole entails applying standard processing techniques (processing via some form of computer) to implement the calculating step and performing a battery charging step in a manner having an unclear relation to the calculating step.
In view of the various considerations encompassed by the Step 2A, Prong Two analysis, claim 10 does not include additional elements that integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, claim 10 is directed to a judicial exception and requires further analysis under Step 2B.
Regarding Step 2B, and as explained in the Step 2A Prong Two analysis, the additional elements in claim 10 constitute extra-solution activity and therefore fail to result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception as well as failing to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Furthermore, the additional elements appear to be generic and well understood as evidenced by the disclosures of Lee (US 5,963,015) and Gong (US 6,222,347 B1), each of which teach substantially similar processing platforms in which batteries are charged using determine energy availability metrics.
As explained in the grounds for rejecting claim 10 under 103, Lee teaches customer equipment having one or more batteries (Abstract method for charging an “extra” battery for portable electronic device); FIG. 3 depicting extra battery 300 for portable computer 400; FIG. 5) a processing system (FIGS. 2 and 3 external battery charger 200 including microcontroller 220 and portable computing system 400; FIG. 5 portable computing system 400 (incorporating and labeled as “external charger” in specification)) configured with processing system-executable instructions to cause the processing system to perform operations (microcontroller 220 inherently includes executable instructions for performing operations) and charging at least one battery of the equipment using the available electric energy from the PSU (col. 5 line 50- col. 6 line 62 describing control provided by microcontroller 220 to switching circuit and/or charger regulator 210 to vary the level/rate of charge to extra battery 300 based on current/energy availability in accordance with load current detection; FIG. 4 step S16 various available current levels used for charging, col. 6 lines 44-62), as does Gong (FIG. 1 power management microprocessor 106 for implementing processing steps in conjunction with battery charge circuit 108 for charging battery 104).
Therefore, the additional elements are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Independent claim 10 is therefore not patent eligible under 101.
Each of independent claims 1, 19, and 28 includes substantially the same limitation as claim 10 that falls within the judicial exception and none of claims 1, 19, and 28 include further additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 1, 19, and 28 are therefore likewise not patent eligible under 101.
Claims 2-9, 11-18, 20-27, and 29-36 depending respectively from claims 1, 10, 19, and 28, provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded algorithm that includes the abstract idea of the independent claims (Step 2A, Prong One). None of dependent claims 2-9, 11-18, 20-27, and 29-36 recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two), and all fail the “significantly more” test under the step 2B for substantially similar reasons as discussed with regards to the independent claims.
For example, claims 2, 11, 20, and 29 further recite “determining whether the measured electric energy usage of the CPE exceeds an idle threshold, wherein calculating the available electric energy from the PSU comprises calculating the available electric energy from the PSU using a representation of electric energy usage of the CPE over a duration in response to determining that the electric energy usage at the CPE exceeds the idle threshold, and wherein calculating the available electric energy from the PSU comprises calculating the available electric energy from the PSU using an idle electric energy usage of the CPE in response to determining that the electric energy usage at the CPE does not exceed the idle threshold,” which may be performed via mental processes (e.g., evaluation and judgment) and therefore falls within mental processes exception. Claims 2, 11, 20, and 29 further recites the additional element “measuring electric energy usage of the CPE,” which represents high level data collection having no particularized relation to the steps falling within the judicial exception other than data provisioning and therefore constitutes extra solution activity.
Claims 3, 12, 21, and 30 recite “calculating a first available electric energy from the PSU,” “calculating a representation of electric energy usage of the CPE over a duration; and calculating a second available electric energy from the PSU of the CPE using the representation of electric energy usage of the CPE over the duration,” which may be performed via mental processes (e.g., evaluation and judgment) and therefore falls within mental processes exception. Claims 3, 12, 21, and 30 further recite “wherein charging the at least one battery of the CPE using the available electric energy from the PSU comprises charging the at least one battery of the CPE using the second available electric energy from the PSU,” which similar to the charging step in claim 1 represents insignificant post-solution activity.
Claims 4, 13, 22, and 31 recite “wherein calculating the first available electric energy from the PSU comprises calculating the first available electric energy from the PSU using the measuring electric energy usage of the CPE; and determining whether the first available electric energy from the PSU exceeds a charge threshold, wherein calculating the second available electric energy from the PSU using the representation of electric energy usage of the CPE over the duration comprises calculating the second available electric energy from the PSU using the representation of electric energy usage of the CPE over the duration in response to determining that the first available electric energy from the PSU exceeds the charge threshold,” which may be performed via mental processes (e.g., evaluation and judgment) and therefore falls within mental processes exception. Claims 4, 13, 22, and 31 further recite the additional element “measuring electric energy usage of the CPE,” which represents high level data collection having no particularized relation to the steps falling within the judicial exception other than data provisioning and therefore constitutes extra solution activity.
Claims 5, 14, 23, and 32 recite “wherein calculating the available electric energy from the PSU comprises calculating a first available electric energy from the PSU using an idle electric energy usage of the CPE,” which may be performed via mental processes (e.g., evaluation and judgment) and therefore falls within mental processes exception.
Claims 6, 15, 24, and 33 recite “calculating a second available electric energy from the PSU of the CPE using the measured electric energy usage of the CPE; and determining whether the second available electric energy from the PSU exceeds a charge threshold, wherein calculating the first available electric energy from the PSU using the idle electric energy usage of the CPE comprises calculating the first available electric energy from the PSU using the idle electric energy usage of the CPE in response to determining that the second available electric energy from the PSU exceeds the charge threshold,” which may be performed via mental processes (e.g., evaluation and judgment) and therefore falls within mental processes exception. Claims 6, 15, 24, and 33 further recite the additional element “measuring electric energy usage of the CPE,” which represents high level data collection having no particularized relation to the steps falling within the judicial exception other than data provisioning and therefore constitutes extra solution activity.
Claims 7, 16, 25, and 34 recites “calculating the available electric energy from the PSU comprises calculating the available electric energy from the PSU using a value representative of electric energy usage at the CPE operating with maximum upstream and downstream data throughputs with a foreign exchange subscriber port ringing even” and “determining whether the available electric energy from the PSU exceeds a charge threshold,” which may be performed via mental processes (e.g., evaluation and judgment) and therefore falls within mental processes exception.
Claims 8, 17, 26, and 35 recite the additional element “streaming battery status information from the CPE to a remote monitoring device,” which represents conventional, routine data processing activity having no particular functional relation to the steps falling within the judicial exception and therefore constitutes extra solution activity.
Claims 9, 18, 27, and 36 recite “receiving, at the CPE, a battery charge command from a remote monitoring device, wherein charging the at least one battery of the CPE using the available electric energy from the PSU comprises charging the at least one battery of the CPE in response to receiving the battery charge command,” which represents conventional, routine data processing and communication activity having no particular functional relation to the steps falling within the judicial exception and therefore constitutes extra solution activity.
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.
Claim 1, 5-6, 10, 14-15, 19, 23-24, 28, and 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 5,963,015) in view of Gong (US 6,222,347 B1).
As to claims 1, 10, 19, and 28 Lee teaches “[a] method for performing charging of at least one battery of” [an equipment] (Abstract method for charging an “extra” battery for portable electronic device); FIG. 3 depicting extra battery 300 for portable computer 400; FIG. 5 depicted portable computer 400 including battery 400; FIG. 4)”, “a processing system (FIGS. 2 and 3 external battery charger 200 including microcontroller 220 and portable computing system 400; FIG. 5 portable computing system 400 (incorporating and labeled as “external charger” in specification)) configured with processing system-executable instructions to cause the processing system to perform operations (microcontroller 220 inherently includes executable instructions for performing operations)”, “means for” (implementing processing steps) (FIGS. 2, 3, and 5 depicted system including sensing, microcontroller, and charge regulation, and charging means), “[a] non-transitory processing system-readable medium having stored thereon processing system-executable instructions configured to cause a processing system to perform operations (microcontroller 220 inherently incudes stored readable instructions for performing operations)”, the method/operation “comprising:
calculating available electric energy from a power supply unit (PSU) of the” [equipment] (FIG. 3 load current detector 240 configured to detect load current from AC adapter 100 to computer 400 (in effect calculating electric energy available from AC adapter for charging extra battery 300), col. 5 lines 43-50 voltage variation (reflecting available energy) from load current detector 240 is supplied to microcontroller 220) “; and
charging the at least one battery of the” [equipment] “using the available electric energy from the PSU (col. 5 line 50- col. 6 line 62 describing control provided by microcontroller 220 to switching circuit and/or charger regulator 210 to vary the level/rate of charge to extra battery 300 based on current/energy availability in accordance with load current detection; FIG. 4 step S16 various available current levels used for charging, col. 6 lines 44-62).”
Lee does not expressly label the battery equipment as being a “customer premises device (CPE)” as may imply, by examples provided in Applicant’s specification, network-related hardware. However, based on Applicant’s specification, it appears the customer premises equipment is characterized as entailing a particularly broad set of equipment including a variety of different types of computer equipment including laptop computers, rack mounted computers, etc. ([0025] defining user equipment (UE) as including lap top computers, rack mounted computer, etc. as also including CPE; [0027] disclosing examples of what “customer premises device” may entail including model, router, switch, wireless access point, etc. that may provide network connectivity.
A broadest reasonable interpretation of “customer premises device/equipment” in view of Applicant’s specification entails any network-related hardware end user device, such that a personal computer having network connectivity functionality (network interface, modem, router) would fall within the scope of “customer premises device/equipment.”
Gong discloses a method for regulating battery charging based on determined available energy (Abstract) in which the battery equipment is a portable computer (Abstract) that may include network connectivity functionality such that it constitutes a customer premises device/equipment (col. 6 lines 37 portable computer device may include external communication (network) system functionality such as modem).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to have applied Gong’s teaching of regulating battery charging for equipment that includes network connectivity functionality (BRI of CPE) to the method taught by Lee such that in combination the method is implemented with respect to at least one battery of a CPE. Regarding claims 10 and 19, the “CPE” would incorporate equipment directly associated with CPE function such as extra batteries and external chargers for charging such batteries.
Such a combination would amount to selecting a known design choice for battery powered equipment for which battery charging regulation would be useful to achieve predictable results.
As to claims 5, 14, 23, and 32, the combination of Lee and Gong teaches “wherein calculating the available electric energy from the PSU comprises calculating a first available electric energy from the PSU using an idle electric energy usage of the CPE (Lee: FIG. 4 step S16 energy availability for charge determine with respect to idle state (IL=0 or IL=10% each representing an “idle” state/threshold per col. 6 lines 51-53)).”
As to claims 6, 15, 24, and 33, the combination of Lee and Gong teaches the method of claim 5, CPE of claims 14 and 23, and non-transitory system processor-readable medium of claim 32, further comprising:
“measuring electric energy usage of the CPE (Lee: FIGS. 2 and 3 load current detector 240 in conjunction with microcontroller 220 measures load current to portable computer 400 resulting in effective calculation by microcontroller 220 of available current as depicted in FIG. 4 step S16);
calculating a second available electric energy from the PSU of the CPE using the measured electric energy usage of the CPE (Lee: col. 6 lines 7-17 describing current sharing in which microcontroller calculates available current from power supply based on measured load current; FIG. 4 step S16 various available/charging currents determined corresponding to measured load currents); and
determining whether the second available electric energy from the PSU exceeds a charge threshold (Lee: FIG. 4 steps S12 and S16 determine whether detected/measured load current is less than maximum supply capacity (effectively determining whether there is sufficient current available for charging), col. 6 lines 43-62),
wherein calculating the first available electric energy from the PSU using the idle electric energy usage of the CPE comprises calculating the first available electric energy from the PSU using the idle electric energy usage of the CPE in response to determining that the second available electric energy from the PSU exceeds the charge threshold (Lee: FIG. 3 microcontroller 220 configured to “open” switch Q1 in response to determining a current level per steps S12 and S14 in FIG. 4 that the measured/detected load current is at the maximum supply current (such that the charge threshold is not exceeded), and alternatively determines, at steps S14 and S16, that the measured/detected load current is below the maximum supply current (charge threshold exceeded) as a prerequisite to determine idle state load currents IL=0 or IL=10%).”
Claims 2-4, 11-13, 20-22, and 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Gong as applied to claims 1, 10, 19, and 28 above, and further in view of Brennan (US 2024/0266829 A1).
As to claims 2, 11, 20, and 29, the combination of Lee and Gong teaches that the method/operations further comprise:
“measuring electric energy usage of the CPE (Lee: FIG. 2 and 3 load current detector 240 configured to measure energy in the form of current from AC adapter 100 to portable computer 400 with such measurement being ascertained/implemented by microcontroller 220; col. 4 lines 63-65; FIG. 4 step S10, col. 6 lines 22-24); and
determining whether the measured electric energy usage of the CPE exceeds an idle threshold (Lee: FIG. 4 step S12 determine whether measured load current exceeds a maximum power supply rating (inherently exceeds an idle threshold in which the equipment drawing little or no current) and step S16 determine various levels (e.g., IL=30% IL=50% ) above IL=0 or IL=10% (each representing an “idle” state/threshold per col. 6 lines 51-53)),
wherein calculating the available electric energy from the PSU comprises calculating the available electric energy from the PSU using a representation of electric energy usage of the CPE” “in response to determining that the electric energy usage at the CPE exceeds the idle threshold (Lee: FIG. 4 block S16 if IL=30% or 50% (determine level exceeds 0 or 10%) determine/calculate available energy as corresponding to 70% or 50% based on the 30% or 50% representation of usage), and
wherein calculating the available electric energy from the PSU comprises calculating the available electric energy from the PSU using an idle electric energy usage of the CPE in response to determining that the electric energy usage at the CPE does not exceed the idle threshold (Lee: FIG. 4 step S16 and col. 5 lines 59-64 if no current drawn by equipment (idle) charging set (determined/calculated) as maximum; FIG. 4 step S16 if IL=10% determine/calculate available energy as the corresponding 90% of available supply (ide energy usage)).”
Lee does not appear to expressly teach using a “representation” of electric energy usage of the CPE “over a duration” to calculate available energy.
Gong further teaches that the determination of available power may be performed periodically, with a specified sampling time interval (FIG. 5A blocks 504, 508, and 510, col. 8 line 55 through col. 6 line 17 consumption-based power availability determined for defined time periods such that the consumption determination is “representative” of the corresponding period).
Furthermore, Brennan discloses an energy management method/system that includes determining available energy as part of energy balancing sources and loads/consumption and prioritizing loads (Abstract) in which some loads may entail battery charging ([0040] and [0042]) and in which consumption affecting energy availability for load prioritization is determined based on energy usage/consumption over a period of time ([0064] input to energy management system may include average power utilized over different times or power levels over a period of time; [0080] load current may be monitored over time and determined load current may be an average current value; FIG. 6 blocks 604 and 606, [0091] load profile determined for corresponding loads such as current data collected over a predetermined time interval).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to have applied Brennan’s teaching of determining energy usage/consumption as a metric determined over a time period to the method taught by Lee as modified by Gong in which an energy usage value representing available energy is determined in response to determining that an energy usage exceeds an idle level such that in combination the energy usage value representing available energy is a representation of electric energy usage of the CPE over a duration.
The motivation would have been to account for dynamic fluctuations in energy usage to provide a more accurate and temporally stable estimate of energy usage and correspondingly more accurate and temporally estimate of available energy for charging load such that variations in loading (via charging or otherwise) determined by the system management may be implemented in a relatively smooth and accurate manner.
As to claims 3, 12, 21, and 30 the combination of Lee and Gong teaches “wherein calculating the available electric energy from the PSU comprises calculating a first available electric energy from the PSU (Lee: FIGS. 2 and 3 load current detector 240 measures load current to portable computer 400 resulting in effective calculation by microcontroller 220 of available current, col. 6 lines 7-17 describing current sharing in which microcontroller calculates available current based on measured load current),” the method/operations further comprising:
“calculating a representation of electric energy usage of the CPE (Lee: FIG. 4 step S16 various levels of current usage determined/calculated)” “and
calculating” “available electric energy from the PSU of the CPE using the representation of electric energy usage of the CPE (Lee: FIG. 4 step S16 representations of current usage (detected load currents) used to determine/calculate corresponding current levels available for charging)”
“wherein charging the at least one battery of the CPE using the available electric energy from the PSU comprises charging the at least one battery of the CPE using” [determined/calculated] “available electric energy from the PSU (Lee: col. 5 line 50- col. 6 line 62 describing control provided by microcontroller 220 to switching circuit and/or charger regulator 210 to vary the level/rate of charge to extra battery 300 based on current/energy availability in accordance with load current detection; FIG. 4 step S16 various available current levels used for charging, col. 6 lines 44-62).”
Lee does not appear to expressly teach using a calculating a “representation” of electric energy usage of the CPE “over a duration” and calculating “a second” available electric energy from the PSU of the CPE using the representation of electric energy usage of the CPE “over the duration.”
Gong further teaches that the determination of available power may be performed periodically, with a specified sampling time interval (FIG. 5A blocks 504, 508, and 510, col. 8 line 55 through col. 6 line 17 consumption-based power availability determined for defined time periods) such that the consumption determination is “representative” of the corresponding period.
Furthermore, Brennan discloses an energy management method/system that includes determining available energy as part of energy balancing sources and loads/consumption for load prioritization (Abstract) in which some loads may entail battery charging ([0040] and [0042]) and in which consumption affecting energy availability is determined based on energy usage/consumption over a period of time ([0064] input to energy management system may include average power utilized over different times or power levels over a period of time; [0080] load current may be monitored over time and determined load current may be an average current value; FIG. 6 blocks 604 and 606, [0091] load profile determined for corresponding loads such as current data collected over a predetermined time interval).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to have applied Brennan’s teaching of determining energy usage/consumption as a metric determined over a time period to the method taught by Lee as modified by Gong in which an energy usage/consumption value representing available energy is determined such that in combination the method includes calculating a representation of electric energy usage of the CPE “over a duration” and calculating “a second” available electric energy from the PSU of the CPE using the representation of electric energy usage of the CPE “over the duration,” such that the method consequently further includes charging the at least one battery of the CPE using “the second” available electric energy from the PSU.
The motivation would have been to account for dynamic fluctuations in energy usage to provide a more accurate and temporally stable estimate of energy usage and correspondingly more accurate estimate of available energy for charging such that variations in loading (via charging or otherwise) determined by the system management may be implemented in a relatively smooth and accurate manner.
As to claims 4, 13, 22, and 31, the combination of Lee, Gong, and Brennan teaches the method of claim 3, CPE of claims 12 and 21, and non-transitory system processor-readable medium of claim 30, further comprising:
“measuring electric energy usage of the CPE (Lee: FIGS. 2 and 3 load current detector 240 in conjunction with microcontroller 220 measures load current to portable computer 400 resulting in effective calculation by microcontroller 220 of available current as depicted in FIG. 4 step S16), wherein calculating the first available electric energy from the PSU comprises calculating the first available electric energy from the PSU using the measuring electric energy usage of the CPE (Lee: col. 6 lines 7-17 describing current sharing in which microcontroller calculates available current based on measured load current; FIG. 4 step S16 various available/charging currents determined corresponding to measured load currents); and
determining whether the first available electric energy from the PSU exceeds a charge threshold (Lee: FIG. 4 steps S12 and S16 determine whether detected/measured load current is less than maximum supply capacity (effectively determining whether there is sufficient current available for charging), col. 6 lines 43-62),
wherein calculating the second available electric energy from the PSU using the representation of electric energy usage of the CPE over the duration (Brennan as combined with Lee and Gong for claim 3).”
Regarding “calculating the second available electric energy from the PSU using the representation of electric energy usage of the CPE over the duration in response to determining that the first available electric energy from the PSU exceeds the charge threshold,” Lee teaches determining that the first available electric energy from the equipment exceeds the charge threshold as a prerequisite to further energy availability/charge level determinations (FIG. 3 microcontroller 220 configured to “open” switch Q1 in response to determining a current level per steps S12 and S14 in FIG. 4 that the measured/detected load current is at the maximum supply current (such that the charge threshold is not exceeded) and correspondingly determines, at steps S14 and S16, that the measured/detected load current is below the maximum supply current (charge threshold exceeded)), such that Lee teaches determining energy availability for charging based at least in part on the condition of (in response to) such threshold/prerequisite determination.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to have applied Brennan’s teaching of using a representation of energy over a duration as metric of energy consumption (and corresponding energy availability) to the method taught by Lee as modified by Gong in which a preliminary energy availability thresholding step is implemented (switch Q1 remaining closed) for subsequent or concurrent energy availability determinations for charging such that in combination the method is configured to use a measured threshold decision (e.g., Lee switch remains closed or is opened) and energy usage over duration is used as energy availability to set charging rate.
The motivation would have been to selectively employ a known design option for determining load energy availability (energy usage over duration) that is advantageous in terms of providing a more accurate and temporally stable estimate of energy usage and correspondingly more accurate estimate of available energy for charging that would be readily available as an addition or alternative to the direct energy availability metrics disclosed by Lee (FIG. 4 charging currents reflecting available energy determined in accordance with direct measurements) that is subject to (performed in response to) the measured energy availability thresholding disclosed by Lee.
Claims 7, 16, 25, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Gong as applied to claims 1, 10, 19, and 28 above, and further in view of Ludewig (US 11,303,150 B1).
As to claims 7, 16, 25, and 34, the combination of Lee and Gong teaches “wherein calculating the available electric energy from the PSU comprises calculating the available electric energy from the PSU using a value representative of electric energy usage at the CPE operating with maximum” [capacity] (Lee: FIG. 4 step S12 determine that detected load is at maximum supply (in FIG. 3 with portable computer 400 as only load, indicates maximum consumption by portable computer 400)),”
the method/operations further comprising “determining whether the available electric energy from the PSU exceeds a charge threshold (Lee: FIG. 4 steps S12, S14, and S16 determining whether or not detected/measured load current is less than maximum supply capacity (effectively determining whether there is sufficient current available for charging), col. 6 lines 43-62).”
Regarding “calculating the available electric energy from the PSU using a value representative of electric energy usage at the CPE operating with maximum upstream and downstream data throughputs with a foreign exchange subscriber port ringing even,” Examiner notes that this activity reflects measurement activity that is largely incidental to equipment activity that depends on the equipment configuration and bears little if any significance in terms of the positively recited functions recited in claim 7.
Neither Lee nor Gong expressly characterize the battery equipment as including a foreign exchange subscriber port and Lee teaches determining energy usage by the equipment in a generalized manner (not specific to any particular type of activity).
Ludewig discloses a method for managing power supplied to a network equipment that includes a backup battery source (Abstract) and that further includes foreign exchange subscriber functionality including FXS ports (col. 1 lines 54-55; col. 4 lines 53-54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to have applied Ludewig’s teaching that networking equipment including FXS ports that inherently handle upstream and downstream data throughputs and “ringing even” events may include a backup battery to the method taught by Lee as modified by Gong, which teaches the charging/recharging technique for network equipment backup batteries that includes calculating the available electric energy from the PSU using a value representative of electric energy usage at the CPE operating at maximum capacity in which the maximum capacity is determined in whatever particular manner the subject equipment is incidentally operating in, such that in combination the method includes calculating the available electric energy from the PSU using a value representative of electric energy usage at the CPE, which comprises networking equipment that includes FXS ports, operating with maximum capacity in which the value representative of energy usage incidentally coincides with “upstream and downstream data throughputs with a foreign exchange subscriber port ringing even.”
Such a combination would amount to combining known energy availability and energy usage determination techniques in known ways (monitoring energy usage that is collected irrespective of the underlying specifics of the equipment activity) to achieve predictable results.
Claims 8-9, 17-18, 26-27, and 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Gong as applied to claims 1, 10, 19, and 28 above, and further in view of Klein (US 2024/0250547 A1).
As to claims 8, 17, 26, and 35, Gong further teaches” [transmitting/sending] “battery status information from the CPE to a remote monitoring device (FIG. 1 battery monitor 112 integral to smart battery 104 (part of portable computing device that per col. 6 lines 37-39 includes networking functionality and therefore constitutes part of CPE) configured to send information to power management microprocessor 106; col. 4 lines 44-65 battery monitor 112 provides battery status information (e.g., battery voltage, temperature, capacity) to power management microprocessor 106 that receives and processes such information for determining charge current and voltage. Examiner notes that by receiving and processing such status data, power management microprocessor 106 is itself a “monitoring” device and is remote in terms of not being integrated with the “local” battery monitor 112.).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to have applied Gong’s teaching of transmitting/sending battery status information from a CPE to a remote monitoring device to the method taught by Lee as modified by Gong such that in combination the method includes transmitting/sending battery status information from the CPE to a remote monitoring device.
The motivation would have been to provide battery status information to a monitoring device that is helpful in terms of determining optimal charging settings in accordance with relevant battery status information as disclosed by Gong.
Gong does not expressly characterize the sending of the battery status information as “streaming,” which in a broadest reasonable interpretation in view of Applicant’s specification is determined to encompass substantially continuous transmission.
Gong discloses that the charging control is performed “dynamically” in accordance with dynamically monitored power consumption and battery conditions (col. 3 lines 23-34 and col. 7 lines 12-15), such that the Gong at least suggests that the battery status information is transmitted in a substantially continuous, temporally regularized manner.
Furthermore, Klein discloses a method/system for controlling battery charging rate based on system consumption and power supply capacity (Abstract) that includes transmitting information from a battery backup unit to a remote monitoring device (FIG. 2 battery backup unit 230 communicatively coupled with management controller 210, [0031] management controller 210 varies/controls battery charge rate based on power consumption, power availability, and battery status information such as charge status; [0032]-[0033] management controller is physically separate from information handling system and battery backup unit; [0033] battery backup unit 230 communicates to management controller 210) in which the data used for determining battery charge rate (e.g., power consumption, battery charge status) is collected/received periodically but in a substantially continuous (short intervals) manner (streaming) ([0046] telemetry data associated with determining charging rate collected/received every minute).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to have applied Klein’s teaching of employing substantially continuous data stream for sending battery status information to the remote monitoring device to the method taught by Lee as modified by Gong which teaches sending battery status information from a CPE to a remote monitoring device such that in combination the method includes streaming battery status information from the CPE to a remote monitoring device.
The motivation would have been to provide substantially timely information reflecting dynamic changes in battery condition to the battery monitoring to optimize the time-relevance of information used for dynamically controlling battery charge as suggested by Klein.
As to claims 9, 18, 27, and 36, the combination of Lee and Gong teaches “receiving, at the CPE (Lee: FIG. 5 depicting alternative configuration in which charge regulator 406 is incorporated within the portable computer 400 (referred to alternatively in FIG 5 as charger) including the primary “backup” battery 420 and is therefore part of CPE as combined with Gong), a battery charge command from a” “monitoring device (Lee: FIG. 5 charge regulator 406 receives charge instruction from microcontroller 410 that monitors load current, col. 7 lines 10-18), wherein charging the at least one battery of the CPE using the available electric energy from the PSU comprises charging the at least one battery of the CPE in response to receiving the battery charge command (Lee: FIG. 5 charge regulator 406 controls charging of battery 420 according to charge instruction from microcontroller, col 7 lines 13-18).”
In Lee’s embodiment depicted in FIG. 5, the microcontroller is local to the CPE such that the battery charge command is not received from a “remote” monitoring device.
Klein discloses a method/system for controlling battery charging rate based on system consumption and power supply capacity (Abstract) that includes use of a remote monitoring device that provides/sends battery charge commands to a battery charger (FIG. 2 management controller 210 configured to transmit charge control commands to battery charger 235 within battery backup unit 230, [0032]-[0033] management controller is physically separate from information handling system and battery backup unit; [0034]-[0035] power manager 220 of management controller 210 determines charge rate based on monitored metrics such as system power, system consumption, and battery status and the determined charge rate is used and therefore received by battery charger 235).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to have applied Klein’s teaching of using a remote monitoring device to provide charge instructions to equipment such as charging equipment to the method taught by Lee as modified by Gong in which charge commands are received at CPE such that in combination the method includes receiving, at the CPE, a battery charge command from a “remote” monitoring device.
Such a combination would amount to combining known elements in known ways to achieve predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW W BACA whose telephone number is (571)272-2507. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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.
/MATTHEW W. BACA/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ANDREW SCHECHTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights