DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
Figures 3-5 and 13 are objected to because the drawings lack legends which are deemed to be necessary, or the provided legends in the drawings are illegible. According to 37 CFR 1.84(o), suitable legends may be required by the examiner where necessary for understanding of the drawing.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are indicated in the table below, along with corresponding structure and/or lack thereof:
Claim limitation
Claim Numbers
Structure (PGPUB citation)
Detection module
1
Power sensor [0055], [0102]
a charging control module
1, 4
A processor [0046]
a switching module
1, 3
A charging unit switching submodule, which comprises switches [0058] or a battery pack switching module
a charging unit switching submodule
3
Switches [0058]
a battery pack switching submodule
3
Switches [0060]
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites a plurality of variants separated by “or”. In the last variant after an “or” starting with “a switch of the plurality of switches” “the plurality of different types of charging units” is recited although the first recitation is in an alternative limitation of claim 4. Claim 4 should be amended to more clearly indicate the alternative limitations and use proper antecedent basis in each, such that each stands on its own.
Furthermore, it is unclear whether the first recitation of claim 4 (“a plurality of different types of charging units”) is required for each of the following recitations or whether it is “ANDed” together with the following limitation “a plurality of switches…” and then alternative in its entirety to the other recitations starting with “the switched are connected…” and “a switch of the”. For the purpose of examination, Examiner is interpreting the alternative limitation “the switches are connected with different types of charging units” as being a complete alternative limitation and the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 4.
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, 12-14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maalouf et al. US PGPUB 2018/0076635.
Regarding claim 1, Maalouf discloses a circuit for charging [fig. 5] comprising
a detection module configured to detect state information of a charge pump charging system [figs. 5 & 8; par. 84; detection module 520];
a charging control module, having an input end connected with an output end of the detection module, and being configured to output a corresponding control instruction according to the state information [fig. 5; 520 outputs to charge pump control 530 that outputs control instructions according to the input that controls 506, 508, 510 and 512; pars. 83-84]; and
a switching module configured to receive the control instruction from the charging control module and to switch a charging path of the charge pump charging system [fig. 5; switches 506, 508, 510 and 512; pars. 83-84].
Regarding claim 2, Maalouf discloses wherein the state information comprises at least one of type of charger, type of charging cable, power consumption of load, or state of battery voltage [pars. 97 & 99; based on the battery voltage the charge pump is operated in a certain mode].
Regarding claim 3, Maalouf discloses wherein the switching module comprises at least one of,
a charging unit switching submodule configured to switch a connection path of a charging unit according to the control instruction [fig. 5; pars. 64-65; the connection path can bypass the charge pump or go through the charge pump according instructions from 530 that operate switches 506-512]; or
a battery pack switching submodule configured to switch a connection scheme of a plurality of batteries according to the control instruction.
Regarding claim 6, Maalouf discloses a method for charging comprising
acquiring state information of a charge pump charging system [figs. 5 & 8; par. 84; detection module 520; fig. 5; 520 outputs to charge pump control 530 that outputs control instructions according to the input that controls 506, 508, 510 and 512; pars. 83-84]; and
outputting, according to the state information, a corresponding control instruction to switch a charging path of the charge pump charging system [fig. 5; switches 506, 508, 510 and 512 receive control instruction; pars. 83-84].
Regarding claim 7, Maalouf discloses wherein the state information comprises at least one of, type of charger, type of charging cable, power consumption of load, or state of battery voltage [pars. 97 & 99; based on the battery voltage the charge pump is operated in a certain mode]; and
switching the charging path of the charge pump charging system comprises at least one of, switching a connection path of a charging unit [fig. 5; pars. 64-65; the connection path can bypass the charge pump or go through the charge pump according instructions from 530 that operate switches 506-512], or switching a connection scheme of the batteries.
Regarding claim 12, Maalouf discloses an electronic device, comprising a memory, a processor and a computer program stored in the memory and executable by the processor which [par. 46; controller 250 in the receiver], when executed by the processor causes the processor to carry out a method for charging comprising
acquiring state information of a charge pump charging system [figs. 5 & 8; par. 84; detection module 520; fig. 5; 520 outputs to charge pump control 530 that outputs control instructions according to the input that controls 506, 508, 510 and 512; pars. 83-84]; and
outputting, according to the state information, a corresponding control instruction to switch a charging path of the charge pump charging system [fig. 5; switches 506, 508, 510 and 512 receive control instruction; pars. 83-84].
Regarding claim 13, Maalouf discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer-executable instruction which when executed by a processor, causes the processor to carry out the method as claimed in claim 6 [par. 46; controller 250 in the receiver].
Regarding claim 14, Maalouf discloses wherein the state information comprises at least one of, type of charger, type of charging cable, power consumption of load, or state of battery voltage [pars. 97 & 99; based on the battery voltage the charge pump is operated in a certain mode]; and
switching the charging path of the charge pump charging system comprises at least one of, switching a connection path of a charging unit [fig. 5; pars. 64-65; the connection path can bypass the charge pump or go through the charge pump according instructions from 530 that operate switches 506-512], or switching a connection scheme of the batteries.
Regarding claim 19, Maalouf discloses wherein,
the state information comprises at least one of, type of charger, type of charging cable, power consumption of load, or state of battery voltage [pars. 97 & 99; based on the battery voltage the charge pump is operated in a certain mode]; and
switching the charging path of the charge pump charging system comprises at least one of, switching a connection path of a charging unit [fig. 5; pars. 64-65; the connection path can bypass the charge pump or go through the charge pump according instructions from 530 that operate switches 506-512], or switching a connection scheme of the batteries.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 4, 8, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maalouf et al. US PGPUB 2018/0076635 in view of Kong US PGPUB 2017/0117724.
Regarding claim 4, Maalouf does not explicitly disclose wherein the charging unit switching submodule comprises, a plurality of different types of charging units each configured for voltage conversion; and a plurality of switches, wherein, a switch of the plurality of switches has an end connected with the charger and another end connected with the charging unit; or the switches are connected with different types of charging units; or a switch of the plurality of switches has an end connected with a charging unit of the plurality of different types of charging units, and another end connected with one of the batteries; and each of the switches is configured to be switched to an activated state or a deactivated state according to the control instruction from the charging control module, to switch the connection path of a respective one of the charging units.
However, Kong discloses a charge pump charging system wherein the charging unit switching submodule comprises the switches are connected with different types of charging units [fig. 4; the switches are connected to high voltage and normal chargers (“different types of charging units”); pars. 31-33, 35 & 39-40].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Maalouf to further include wherein the charging unit switching submodule comprises the switches are connected with different types of charging units for the purpose of allowing the either a high voltage or low voltage charging unit to be selected, as taught by Kong (pars. 31-33, 35 & 39-40).
Regarding claim 8, Maalouf does not explicitly disclose wherein outputting the control instruction to switch the charging path of the charge pump charging system according to the state information comprises, performing a determination as to the type of the charger according to the state information; in response to a determination that the charger is of the type of a low-voltage charger, outputting a control instruction to switch the charging path of the charge pump charging system to a path in which, charging is performed by means of a low-voltage voltage-divided charging unit; and the batteries are connected in parallel.
However, Kong discloses a charge pump charging system wherein outputting the control instruction to switch the charging path of the charge pump charging system according to the state information comprises, performing a determination as to the type of the charger according to the state information [pars. 34 & 38-39; based on whether quick charging or conventional charging is used, the charging path is switched];
in response to a determination that the charger is of the type of a low-voltage charger, outputting a control instruction to switch the charging path of the charge pump charging system to a path in which, charging is performed by means of a low-voltage voltage-divided charging unit; and the batteries are connected in parallel [par. 44; for conventional charging (low voltage) batteries are connected in parallel, the voltage is divided across the batteries being charged].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Maalouf to further include wherein outputting the control instruction to switch the charging path of the charge pump charging system according to the state information comprises, performing a determination as to the type of the charger according to the state information; in response to a determination that the charger is of the type of a low-voltage charger, outputting a control instruction to switch the charging path of the charge pump charging system to a path in which, charging is performed by means of a low-voltage voltage-divided charging unit; and the batteries are connected in parallel for the purpose of allowing switching between conventional and fast charging to charge the batteries faster when available, as taught by Kong (pars. 39-41).
Regarding claim 15, Maalouf does not explicitly disclose wherein outputting the control instruction to switch the charging path of the charge pump charging system according to the state information comprises performing a determination as to the type of the charger according to the state information; in response to a determination that the charger is of the type of a low-voltage charger, outputting a control instruction to switch the charging path of the charge pump charging system to a path in which, charging is performed by means of a low-voltage voltage-divided charging unit; and the batteries are connected in parallel.
However, Kong discloses a charge pump charging system wherein outputting the control instruction to switch the charging path of the charge pump charging system according to the state information comprises, performing a determination as to the type of the charger according to the state information [pars. 34 & 38-39; based on whether quick charging or conventional charging is used, the charging path is switched];
in response to a determination that the charger is of the type of a low-voltage charger, outputting a control instruction to switch the charging path of the charge pump charging system to a path in which, charging is performed by means of a low-voltage voltage-divided charging unit; and the batteries are connected in parallel [par. 44; for conventional charging (low voltage) batteries are connected in parallel, the voltage is divided across the batteries being charged].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Maalouf to further include wherein outputting the control instruction to switch the charging path of the charge pump charging system according to the state information comprises, performing a determination as to the type of the charger according to the state information; in response to a determination that the charger is of the type of a low-voltage charger, outputting a control instruction to switch the charging path of the charge pump charging system to a path in which, charging is performed by means of a low-voltage voltage-divided charging unit; and the batteries are connected in parallel for the purpose of allowing switching between conventional and fast charging to charge the batteries faster when available, as taught by Kong (pars. 39-41).
Regarding claim 20, Maalouf does not explicitly disclose wherein outputting the control instruction to switch the charging path of the charge pump charging system according to the state information comprises, performing a determination as to the type of the charger according to the state information; in response to a determination that the charger is of the type of a low-voltage charger, outputting a control instruction to switch the charging path of the charge pump charging system to a path in which, charging is performed by means of a low-voltage voltage-divided charging unit; and the batteries are connected in parallel.
However, Kong discloses a charge pump charging system wherein outputting the control instruction to switch the charging path of the charge pump charging system according to the state information comprises, performing a determination as to the type of the charger according to the state information [pars. 34 & 38-39; based on whether quick charging or conventional charging is used, the charging path is switched];
in response to a determination that the charger is of the type of a low-voltage charger, outputting a control instruction to switch the charging path of the charge pump charging system to a path in which, charging is performed by means of a low-voltage voltage-divided charging unit; and the batteries are connected in parallel [par. 44; for conventional charging (low voltage) batteries are connected in parallel, the voltage is divided across the batteries being charged].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Maalouf to further include wherein outputting the control instruction to switch the charging path of the charge pump charging system according to the state information comprises, performing a determination as to the type of the charger according to the state information; in response to a determination that the charger is of the type of a low-voltage charger, outputting a control instruction to switch the charging path of the charge pump charging system to a path in which, charging is performed by means of a low-voltage voltage-divided charging unit; and the batteries are connected in parallel for the purpose of allowing switching between conventional and fast charging to charge the batteries faster when available, as taught by Kong (pars. 39-41).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-11 and 16-18 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.
Claim 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With respect to claim 5, the following is an examiner's statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to further teach or suggest “the plurality of the switches comprise a first switch, a second switch, a third switch, a fourth switch and a fifth switch; and the first switch has an end connected with the charger, and has another end connected with an input end of the high-voltage voltage-divided charging unit; the second switch has an end connected with an output end of the high-voltage voltage- divided charging unit, and has another end connected with one of the batteries; the third switch is connected between the output end of the high-voltage voltage-divided charging unit and an input end of the low-voltage voltage-divided charging unit; the fourth switch has an end connected with the charger, and has another end connected with the input end of the low-voltage voltage-divided charging unit; and the fifth switch has an end connected with an output end of the low-voltage voltage-dividing charging unit, and has another end connected with one of the batteries” in combination with all the other elements recited in claim 5.
With respect to claim 9, the following is an examiner's statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to further teach or suggest “in response to a determination that the charger is of the type of a high-voltage charger, performing a further determination as to the type of the charging cable according to the state information; and in response to a determination that the charging cable is of the type of a high-power cable, outputting a control instruction to switch the charging path of the charge pump charging system to a path in which, charging is performed by means of a low-voltage voltage-divided charging unit; and the batteries are connected in parallel” in combination with all the other elements recited in claim 9.
Claims 10-11, being dependent on claim 9, would be allowable for the same reasons as claim 9.
With respect to claim 16, the following is an examiner's statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to further teach or suggest “in response to a determination that the charger is of the type of a high-voltage charger, performing a further determination as to the type of the charging cable according to the state information; and in response to a determination that the charging cable is of the type of a high-power cable, outputting a control instruction to switch the charging path of the charge pump charging system to a path in which, charging is performed by means of a low-voltage voltage-divided charging unit; and the batteries are connected in parallel” in combination with all the other elements recited in claim 16.
Claims 17-18, being dependent on claim 16, would be allowable for the same reasons as claim 16.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Huang et al. US PGPUB 2018/0166902 discloses a charger with a charge pump circuit that has a bypass mode.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID V HENZE whose telephone number is (571)272-3317. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 9am to 7pm.
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, Julian Huffman can be reached at 571-272-2147. 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.
/DAVID V HENZE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights