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 .
Status of the Claims
In the communication filed on 10/04/2023 claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claim 1 is directed towards a method and independent claims 8 and 15 are directed towards apparatuses, as identified in Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test outlined in MPEP 2106.
The claims recite receiving data and making determinations based on the data which are considered exceptions because the limitations fall under the methods of mental processes, as identified in Step 2A Prong one.
The limitations from claim 1 that are considered exceptions are the following:
“obtaining load parameters based on an operational mode;”
“selecting a first power source from a set of power sources based on the load parameters and a set of source parameters that correspond to the set of power sources;”
“determining a usage estimate based on at least one measured voltage of the first power source and a characteristic function of the first power source;” and
“selecting a second power source from the set of power sources based on the usage estimate”.
The limitations that are considered exceptions for claims 8 and 15 are similar in scope to those of claim 1. These limitations are considered abstract ideas because these could be done mentally by an individual by first writing down the load parameter on a paper, determining which power source to select based on analysis of the data obtained, looking at measured voltage and with the assistance of pen and paper perform an estimation of the usage time, and determining a second power source based on the estimated usage time.
These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application because managing power sources comprising a load subsystem, a power subsystem, a processor, and non-transitory computer-readable memory with generic structures, as identified in Step 2A prong Two (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), and these limitations do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount more than the judicial exceptions, as identified in Step 2B (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are rejected because they only further the abstract idea without additional practical use or significant structure. The dependent claims further add to the abstract idea by providing additional details of the data that is obtained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8, 10, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (USPGPN 20120256581; identified by the applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) and cited in the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority).
With respect to independent claim 1, Lee teaches a method for dynamic power source management (Fig. 2A, step 201; ¶[02]).
Lee teaches obtaining load parameters based on an operational mode (Fig. 2A, step 202; ¶[43], first sentence).
Lee teaches selecting a first power source from a set of power sources based on the load parameters and a set of source parameters that correspond to the set of power sources (Figs. 2A-2B, the method determine whether the load 50 is powered by the rechargeable battery 42 or the AC mains supply 10 based on the load parameters and the corresponding power source parameters. In particular, step 209 determines whether the load is powered by the rechargeable battery (step 210) or the AC mains (step 211)).
Lee teaches determining a usage estimate based on at least one measured voltage of the first power source and a characteristic function of the first power source (¶[27], teaches measuring the battery voltage and using it to determine the rechargeable battery’s power capacity, which corresponds to determining a usage estimate based on the measured voltage and a characteristic function of the first power source, as defined by the applicant in ¶[91] of the disclosure).
Lee teaches selecting a second power source from the set of power sources based on the usage estimate (Figs. 2A-2B, step 211).
With respect to independent claim 8, Lee teaches an apparatus configured to dynamically manage power sources (Fig. 1, a power energy management system with intelligent selection of operating modes), comprising a load subsystem (Fig. 1, load 50) configured to operate according to a plurality of operational modes (¶[17]) characterized by a corresponding plurality of load parameters (¶[27]).
Lee teaches a power subsystem (Fig. 1, switching circuit 30) configured to provide power from a set of power sources (Fig. 1; AC mains power supply 10, solar cell 20, and rechargeable battery 42) characterized by a corresponding set of source parameters and a corresponding set of characteristic functions (¶[27], teaches that voltage is detected and from it “power capacity of the rechargeable battery” is derived what matches the definition of “characteristic function” in ¶[91] of the applicant’s disclosure).
Lee teaches a processor, a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions (Fig. 1, microcontroller 60).
Lee teaches obtain first load parameters based on a first operational mode of the plurality of operational modes (Figs. 2A-2B, step 202; ¶[43], first sentence).
Lee teaches select a first power source from the set of power sources based on the first load parameters (Figs. 2A-2B, the method determine whether the load 50 is powered by the rechargeable battery 42 or the AC mains supply 10 based on the load parameters and the corresponding power source parameters. In particular, step 209 determines whether the load is powered by the rechargeable battery (step 210) or the AC mains (step 211)).
Lee teaches determine a first usage estimate based on at least one measured voltage of the first power source and a first characteristic function of the first power source (¶[27], teaches measuring the battery voltage and using it to determine the rechargeable battery’s power capacity, which corresponds to determining a usage estimate based on the measured voltage and a characteristic function of the first power source, as defined by the applicant in ¶[91] of the disclosure).
Lee teaches select a second power source from the set of power sources based on the first usage estimate (Figs. 2A-2B, step 211).
With respect to claim 10, Lee teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 8. Further, Lee teaches where the power subsystem further comprises an internal rechargeable battery and where the first characteristic function describes a relationship between the at least one measured voltage and a remaining battery capacity of the internal rechargeable battery (¶[27]).
With respect to independent claim 15, Lee teaches an apparatus configured to dynamically manage power sources (Fig. 1, a power energy management system with intelligent selection of operating modes).
Lee teaches a load subsystem (Fig. 1, load 50) configured to operate according to a plurality of operational modes (¶[17]) characterized by a corresponding plurality of load parameters (¶[27]).
Lee teaches a power subsystem (Fig. 1, switching circuit 30) configured to provide power from a set of power sources (Fig. 1; AC mains power supply 10, solar cell 20, and rechargeable battery 42) characterized by a corresponding set of source parameters and a corresponding set of characteristic functions (¶[27], teaches that voltage is detected and from it “power capacity of the rechargeable battery” is derived what matches the definition of “characteristic function” in ¶[91] of the applicant’s disclosure).
Lee teaches a first logic configured to enable at least a first power source of the set of power sources based on a first operational mode, a first load parameter, and a first source parameter (Figs. 2A-2B, step 202; ¶[43], first sentence; Figs. 2A-2B, the method determine whether the load 50 is powered by the rechargeable battery 42 or the AC mains supply 10 based on the load parameters and the corresponding power source parameters. In particular, step 209 determines whether the load is powered by the rechargeable battery (step 210) or the AC mains (step 211)).
Lee teaches a second logic configured to calculate a first usage estimate of the first power source based on a first characteristic function (¶[27], teaches measuring the battery voltage and using it to determine the rechargeable battery’s power capacity, which corresponds to determining a usage estimate based on the measured voltage and a characteristic function of the first power source, as defined by the applicant in ¶[91] of the disclosure).
With respect to claim 19, Lee teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 15. Further, Lee teaches where the second logic is further configured to calculate the first usage estimate based on at least one measured voltage of the first power source and a characteristic function of the first power source and select a second power source from the set of power sources based on the first usage estimate (¶[27]; explains the voltage is detected and from it “power capacity of the rechargeable battery” is derived what matches the definition of “characteristic function” in ¶[91] of the applicant’s disclosure).
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.
Claims 2-4, 11-12, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (USPGPN 20120256581).
With respect to claim 2, Lee teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Applicant does not disclose a criticality for where the load parameters or the set of source parameters comprise one or more of: a nominal voltage, a maximum voltage, a minimum voltage, an average voltage, a nominal current, a maximum current, a minimum current, an average current, a duty cycle, a nominal slew rate, a maximum slew rate, a minimum slew rate, a nominal frequency, a spectral envelope, or a roll-off frequency. As such, it would have been obvious to select one of these or a plurality of these parameters depending on the operational circumstances of the overall power system. The advantage of this being the system makes decisions with precise control thus improving safety, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness.
With respect to claim 3, Lee teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Lee teaches where the set of power sources comprises an internal rechargeable battery (Fig. 1, rechargeable battery 42).
Although, Lee does not explicitly teach a housing for an external battery, the applicant does not disclose a criticality for an external battery with a housing. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to include additional batteries within their own respective housing. The advantage of this being a larger available power source inventory, thus, improving flexibility and greater resilience.
With respect to claim 4, Lee teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 3. Further, Lee teaches where the set of power sources further comprises at least one of an AC adaptor configured to obtain power from a power outlet (Fig. 1, AC mains power supply 10), or a solar cell configured to convert light into power (Fig. 1, solar cell 20).
With respect to claim 11, Lee teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 8. Further, Lee teaches where the first characteristic function describes a relationship between the at least one measured voltage and a remaining battery capacity (¶27]).
However, Lee fails to explicitly teach where the power subsystem further comprises an external housing configured to connect to an external battery.
Although, Lee does not explicitly teach a housing for an external battery, the applicant does not disclose a criticality for an external battery with a housing. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to include additional batteries within their own respective housing and to consider the characteristic functions of that battery. The advantage of this being a larger available power source inventory, thus, improving flexibility and greater resilience.
With respect to claim 12, Lee teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 11. Although, Lee fails to explicitly teach the limitations of claim 12, the applicant does not disclose a criticality for where the external battery comprises either a rechargeable battery or a single-use battery. Thus, it would have been obvious for the external battery to comprise either a rechargeable battery or a single-use battery since these are the two main category types of batteries manufactured and readily available.
With respect to claim 17, Lee teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 15. Further, Lee teaches where the power subsystem further comprises an internal rechargeable battery (Fig. 1, rechargeable battery 42), and at least one of an AC adaptor configured to obtain power from a power outlet (Fig. 1, AC mains power supply 10), or a solar cell configured to convert light into power (Fig. 1, solar cell 20).
However, Lee fails to explicitly teach an external housing configured to connect to an external battery.
Although, Lee does not explicitly teach a housing for an external battery, the applicant does not disclose a criticality for an external battery with a housing. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to include additional batteries within their own respective housing. The advantage of this being a larger available power source inventory, thus, improving flexibility and greater resilience.
With respect to claim 18, Lee teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 15. Further, Lee teaches the first logic is further configured to obtain first load parameters based on the first operational mode (¶[07]).
Although, Lee does not explicitly teach where the first operational mode is selected by a user, the applicant does not disclose a criticality for the user selecting the operational mode. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to design the device such a manner that allows user input based on operational modes. The advantage of this being personalized operation and optimized experience.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (USPGPN 20120256581) and further in view of Bishop et al. (USPGPN 20150097518).
With respect to claim 5, Lee teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. However, Lee fails to explicitly each the limitations of claim 5.
Bishop teaches where the characteristic function comprises at least one of a first battery discharge curve for a rechargeable battery or a second battery discharge curve for a single-use battery (Fig. 2, a first discharge curve for Li-ion battery 350 and a second discharge curve for Pb battery 360).
A battery’s discharge curve is a graph that shows how its voltage changes as it uses up its stored energy. Understanding the discharge curve of different batteries helps predict real-world device performance. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have applied Bishop’s discharge curve monitoring of different batteries to Lee’s power energy management system with intelligent selection of operating modes. The advantage of this being increased flexibility and enhanced operational value (see Bishop’s abstract).
Claims 6-7, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (USPGPN 20120256581) and further in view of Catalano et al. (USPGPN 20190267834).
With respect to claim 6, Lee teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. However, Lee fails to explicitly teach the limitations of claim 6.
Catalano teaches a dynamic load having a duty cycle (Fig. 16; ¶[129-130]).
Loads that operate using a duty cycle is a common industry practice. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted Catalano’s duty cycle based load to Lee’s intelligent power system in order to have an operational mode that is associated with the dynamic load having a duty cycle. The advantage of this being that the load may be regulated based on the duty-cycle thus improving power management control (see ¶[129-130] of Catalano).
With respect to claim 7, Lee teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 6. However, Lee fails to explicitly teach the limitations of claim 7.
Catalano teaches where the at least one measured voltage comprises a plurality of measured voltages over a rolling window based on the duty cycle (¶[130], voltage to current converter 1616 receives voltage feedback via sensor connected across a resistor in series with LEDs 1604 based on the duty cycle of the regulated LED current. A rolling window is understood to be the plurality of instances the voltage is measured, thus the voltage of the LED is measured over a rolling window based on the duty cycle of the regulated LED current).
Loads that operate using a duty cycle is a common industry practice. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted Catalano’s duty cycle based load to Lee’s intelligent power system in order to have an operational mode that is associated with the dynamic load having a duty cycle. The advantage of this being that the load may be regulated based on the duty-cycle thus improving power management control (see ¶[129-130] of Catalano).
With respect to dependent claims 9 and 16, Lee teaches the invention as discussed above in claims 8 and 15, respectively. However, Lee fails to explicitly teach the limitations of claim 9 and 16.
Catalano teaches where the load subsystem further comprises a light module that is configured to generate light based on a selectable duty cycle, and where the first load parameters are based on the selectable duty cycle (Fig. 16, LEDs 1604 operate on a selectable duty cycle, see ¶[129] where the first load parameters
Loads that operate using a duty cycle is a common industry practice. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted Catalano’s duty cycle based load to Lee’s intelligent power system in order to have an operational mode that is associated with the dynamic load having a duty cycle. The advantage of this being that the load may be regulated based on the duty-cycle thus improving power management control (see ¶[129-130] of Catalano).
Claims 13-14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (USPGPN 20120256581) and further in view of Stites-Clayton et al. (USPGPN 20210135489; identified by the applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) and cited in the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority).
With respect to claim 13, Lee teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 8. Although Lee teaches the first usage estimate for the first power source as discussed above in claim 8, Lee fails to explicitly teach a user interface subsystem.
Stites-Clayton teaches a user interface subsystem (¶[33], “It would be appreciated by one skilled in the art that the means of providing both indication and a physical interface may be distinct in various embodiments of the invention, incorporating other appropriate technologies including, for example and without limitation, an LCD or LED display screen, an audio indicator, toggle buttons, capacitive touch sensors or a touch screen interface.”).
User interfaces are commonly adapted in apparatuses as a way to bridge the communication between humans and machines. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted Stites-Clayton’s user interface into Lee’s intelligent power system. The advantage of this being allowing a user control over the advice (see ¶[33] of Stites-Clayton) , thus enhancing usability and accessibility.
With respect to claim 14, Lee teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 8. Further, Lee teaches where the instructions further cause the apparatus to determine a usage estimate based on a characteristic function of the power source (¶[27], teaches measuring the battery voltage and using it to determine the rechargeable battery’s power capacity, which corresponds to determining a usage estimate based on the measured voltage and a characteristic function of the first power source, as defined by the applicant in ¶[91] of the disclosure).
However, Lee fails to explicitly teach a second usage estimate based on a second characteristic function of the second power source; and where the user interface subsystem is further configured to display the second usage estimate for the second power source.
Although, Lee does not explicitly teach a second usage estimate based on a second characteristic function of the second power source, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to duplicate the usage estimate of a second power source based on a second characteristic function in order to achieve similar results. The advantage of this being having readily available the data required for estimating the usage of an additional power source, thus improving decision making.
Stites-Clayton teaches the user interface subsystem (¶[33]).
User interfaces are commonly adapted in apparatuses as a way to bridge the communication between humans and machines. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted Stites-Clayton’s user interface into Lee’s intelligent power system in order to show the plurality of results including the first usage estimate and the second usage estimate. The advantage of this being allowing a user control over the advice (see ¶[33] of Stites-Clayton) , thus enhancing usability and accessibility.
With respect to claim 20, Lee teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 8. Further, Lee teaches a third logic configured to calculate a usage estimate of the power source based on a characteristic function (¶[27]).
However, Lee fails to explicitly teach a second usage estimate based on a second characteristic function of the second power source; a user interface subsystem configured to display the first usage estimate and the second usage estimate.
Although, Lee does not explicitly teach a second usage estimate based on a second characteristic function of the second power source, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to duplicate the usage estimate of a second power source based on a second characteristic function in order to achieve similar results. The advantage of this being having readily available the data required for estimating the usage of an additional power source, thus improving decision making.
Stites-Clayton teaches the user interface subsystem (¶[33]).
User interfaces are commonly adapted in apparatuses as a way to bridge the communication between humans and machines. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted Stites-Clayton’s user interface into Lee’s intelligent power system in order to show the plurality of results including the first usage estimate and the second usage estimate. The advantage of this being allowing a user control over the advice (see ¶[33] of Stites-Clayton) , thus enhancing usability and accessibility.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The additional prior art identified by the applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) were considered by the examiner, however, for examination purposes were not relied upon for citation purposes.
Recker et al. (USPGPN 20180213626) teaches a wireless lighting module that can run from normal external power and also use a built-in battery or other energy storage device.
Ellenberger (USPGPN 20230007745) teaches a self-contained solar-powered charging and lighting station for places with unreliable or no grid electricity. The system can power lights and charge external devices such as phones, while also charging internal batteries. A key feature is that it can accept batteries of different chemistries and figure out what kind of batteries are installed by measuring their voltage behavior over time
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Frank A Silva whose telephone number is (703)756-1698. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 09:30 am -06:30 pm ET.
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 571-272-2312. 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.
/FRANK ALEXIS SILVA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/DREW A DUNN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights