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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDSes filed 9/27/23, 10/16/24 and 1/26/26 have all been considered and placed of record. The three (3) initialed copies are attached herewith.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HA et al. (US 2020/0266499) in view of Korean document KR20140108384A (see machine translation).
Re claim 1, HA discloses an electronic device 101 (fig 3) comprising: a first battery 321; a second battery 322 connected in parallel with the first battery, wherein the first battery and the second battery are branched at a first node (where 331 splits); a charger 210 configured to charge the first battery and the second battery using power input from an external device; a voltage detection circuit 332/333 configured to detect a voltage of the first battery and a voltage of the second battery while the first battery and the second battery are being charged; and a balancing circuit 341/342 disposed between the first node and the first battery and configured to control a connection between the first node and the first battery in a pulse width modulation (PWM) method based on detecting a difference between the voltage of the first battery and the voltage of the second battery (para 71 and 72). See figures 1-3; para 60-84. [note: Bolded text is not disclosed in HA].
HA does not disclose using PWM method to control the connection. The Korean document teaches cell balancing using PWM method (refers to fig 1 and corresponding paragraph). It would have been obvious to have incorporated the PWM method as taught by the Korean document into the device of HA in order to ensure the output currents of the batteries are same with other batteries’ currents.
Re claim 12, both references do not disclose the first battery and the second battery are housed separately and are connected to each other via a hinge. It would have been well within the skill of one versed in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have housed the batteries separately via a hinge module since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
Re claim 13, both references do not disclose the second battery connected to the charger by a FPCB. It would have been well within the skill of one versed in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have utilized a FPCB since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Re claim 14, the method steps performed the functions of the limitations of claim 1 are rejected above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-11 and 15-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Art of record does not disclose or made obvious the electrical components connected as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to the Examiner at the below-listed number. The Examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thu from 7:00am-5:00pm.
The Examiner’s SPE is Drew Dunn and he can be reached at 571.272.2312. The fax number for the organization where this application is assigned is 571.273.8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800.786.9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571.272.1000.
/EDWARD TSO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859 571.272.2087
Prosecution Insights