Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/600,859

SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR CHARGING A MOBILE PHONE AND A MOBILE PHONE COVER

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Mar 11, 2024
Examiner
SAMS, MATTHEW C
Art Unit
2646
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Star Co. Scientific Technologies Advanced Research Co. LLC D/B/A Star Co.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
67%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
79%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 67% — above average
67%
Career Allow Rate
500 granted / 747 resolved
+4.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+11.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
38 currently pending
Career history
785
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
5.1%
-34.9% vs TC avg
§103
57.1%
+17.1% vs TC avg
§102
21.8%
-18.2% vs TC avg
§112
8.9%
-31.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 747 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/19/2025 has been entered. Response to Amendment This office action has been changed in response to the amendment filed on 11/19/2025. Claim 1 has been amended. The 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection has been withdrawn due to the amendment to add “a mobile phone cover having a housing…”. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 11/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to the Applicant’s argument that Shin “does not disclose phone performing passthrough-priority charging logic, selecting charging the phone battery first before the case battery, or processor-controlled selective coupling tied to a passthrough parameter” (Page 4), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Shin teaches in Figs. 4-6 “a schematic diagram illustrating a setting of an interactive graphical user interface 510 displayed by a screen of the handheld device” and “Referring to FIG. 4 and FIG. 5, through the interactive graphical user interface 510, the user can set to charge the handheld device 410 when a battery level of the handheld device 410 is lower than a threshold LL”. (Page 7 [0033]) Additionally, Shin teaches “FIG. 6 is a charging schematic diagram of an interactive graphical user interface displayed by a screen of the handheld device. Referring to FIG. 4 and FIG. 6, when the user sets to charge the handheld device 410 through the interactive graphical user interface 610, the handheld device 410 controls the slave battery module SBM to charge the battery of the SBM through the slave application circuit SAC.” (Page 8 [0037]) Finally, Shin teaches “when the handheld device 410 of FIG. 4 is placed into the insertion device 420 of FIG. 7 or FIG. 8, and the user sets to charge the handheld device 410 through the interactive graphical user interface, the handheld device 410 can control the slave application circuit SAC to charge the battery of the handheld device 410 with the external power Power_IN, or charge the slave battery module SBM”. (Page 10 [0044]) Accordingly, since Shin is controlling which battery is charged first, from the external power supply (i.e. A/C power), via the interactive interface and display of the mobile phone (Figs. 4-6), the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s assertion. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Additionally, Shin discloses the user manages control of the charging of the battery in the mobile phone and the battery within the mobile phone cover via an interface and application on the phone. (Page 10 [0044]) Accordingly, the Examiner would argue at least partially, the “controller” can be mapped to the interactive graphical user interface within the handheld device of Shin. 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. Claim 1 is 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. It is not clear to the Examiner which “a battery” is “the battery of the mobile phone”. Applicant states “a battery of a mobile phone cover”, “a battery disposed within the housing of the mobile phone cover”, “the battery” which presumably is referring back to the “battery of the mobile phone cover” and now “the battery of the mobile phone” and “the mobile phone battery”. 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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (GB 2487095A, hereinafter, Shin) in view of Suomela (US-2014/017921). Regarding claim 1, Shin teaches a mobile phone (Fig. 4 [410] and Pages 6-7 [0032]), comprising: one or more processors (inherent to the handheld device and required for the “interactive application program”, see Fig. 4 [415], Page 6 [0032] and Pages 7-8 [0034]) configured to selectively couple a battery (Fig. 4 [SBM]) of a mobile phone cover (Fig. 4 [420/430]) to a charging interface (Fig. 4 [440]) according to a passthrough charging parameter; (Page 6 [0032] through Page 8 [0034] and Claims 1-3 i.e. the application thresholds (Fig. 5 [UL & LL]) are enacted by Fig. 4 [SAC] to start and stop providing power from the battery (Fig. 4 [SBM]) to the mobile terminal (Fig. 4 [410]) via the charging interface Fig. 4 [440]) a mobile phone cover a housing (Fig. 4 [420/430]) configured to removably attach to the mobile phone (Fig. 4 [410]); (Page 6 [0032]) a battery disposed within the housing of the mobile phone cover; (Fig. 4 [SBM]) a controller (Page 7 [0032] “The handheld device 410 has a control power of the slave application circuit SAC, and the handheld device 410 displays an interactive graphical user interface to guide the user to set the insertion device 420 to provide electricity for the handheld device 410, so as to prolong a utilization time of the handheld device 410.”, Pages 7-8 [0034] and Page 10 [0044]) configured to manage the charging of the battery of the mobile phone (Page 8 [0038] “"MASTER" and "BACKUP" indicated in FIG. 6 respectively represent the battery of the handheld device 410 and the slave battery module SBM”) by controlling the power transfer according to the charge level of the battery (Pages 7-8 [0033-0034] and Claims 1-3 i.e. the application thresholds (Fig. 5 [UL & LL]) are enacted by Fig. 4 [SAC] to start and stop providing power from the battery (Fig. 4 [SBM]) to the mobile terminal (Fig. 4 [410]) via the charging interface Fig. 4 [440]) according to a passthrough charging parameter (Page 10 [0044] “when the handheld device 410 of FIG. 4 is placed into the insertion device 420 of FIG. 7 or FIG. 8, and the user sets to charge the handheld device 410 through the interactive graphical user interface, the handheld device 410 can control the slave application circuit SAC to charge the battery of the handheld device 410 with the external power Power_IN”), wherein the passthrough charging parameter causes the mobile phone battery to charge prior to charging the battery of the mobile phone cover. (Page 10 [0044] “the user sets to charge the handheld device 410 through the interactive graphical user interface, the handheld device 410 can control the slave application circuit SAC to charge the battery of the handheld device 410 with the external power Power_IN, or charge the slave battery module SBM”) Shin differs from the claimed invention by not explicitly reciting a wireless power receiver electrically coupled to the battery and a wireless power transmitter configured to transfer power from the battery to the mobile phone. In an analogous art, Suomela teaches a method and apparatus for optimized device to device charging (Abstract) that includes a mobile phone (Fig. 2D [10]) that comprises a wireless power receiver (Fig. 2D [26”, 150’” and 152”] or Fig. 2D [26, 150 & 152] i.e. both mapped due to clarity issues as explained above in sections 7-11) electrically coupled to the battery; (Fig. 2D [102] and Page 9 [0163] i.e. both devices have batteries) a wireless power transmitter (Fig. 2D [100 & 100”]) configured to transfer power from the battery to the mobile phone; (Page 11 [0183]) and a controller configured to manage the charging via the wireless power transmitter according to the charge level of the battery. (Page 11 [0185]) Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to implement the invention of Shin after modifying it to incorporate the ability to utilize a wireless power transfer of Suomela since it enables charging without being plugged into an AC power source and requiring the correct cable for the charging interface. (Suomela Page 7 [0144-0148]) Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW C SAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-8099. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5 EST. 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, Matthew Anderson can be reached at (571)272-4177. 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 C Sams/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 11, 2024
Application Filed
Nov 04, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
May 05, 2025
Response Filed
May 14, 2025
Final Rejection — §103, §112
Nov 19, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Nov 26, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 26, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603924
ELECTRONIC DEVICE, AND METHOD FOR PROCESSING IMS-BASED CALL IN ELECTRONIC DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12587868
Systems and Methods for Proxying Real Traffic for Simulation
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12581455
REDUCED BEAM FOR PAGING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12574762
MANAGING A NETWORK SLICE PARAMETER FOR ADMISSION CONTROL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12568167
System and Method of Capturing, Tracking, Composing, Analyzing and Automating Analog and Digital Interactions
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
67%
Grant Probability
79%
With Interview (+11.9%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 747 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month