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 .
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgement is made of amendment filed on 05/11/2026 in which claims 1-5,7-15 and 17-19 are currently amended, claims 6,16 and 20 have been canceled while claims 21-23 have been newly added. By this amendment, claims 1-5,7-15,17-19 and 21-23 are now pending in the application.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3,5,7-8 and 22 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3,5-7 and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,581,745. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1,3-5,7-8 and 22 are broader in scope than claims 1-3,5-7 and 18 of the ‘745 patent and thus are fully anticipated.
Claims 1,3,5,7-8,13-14,17- 23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1,4-6,9-10,13-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,990,774 as previously set forth in the non-final office action.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1,3,5,7-8,13-14,17-23 are broader in scope than claims 1,4-6,9-10,13-20 of the ‘774 patent and thus are fully anticipated. Furthermore, rearranging the wording of the claims would not make the instant application patentably distinct from the 745’ and the 774’ patents as set forth in the tables that was shown in the non-final office action dated 02/11/2026 .
Claims 1-5,7-15,17-19, and 21-23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No.10,734,830. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because a terminal is also an electronic device(as applied to claims 1-9 of USPAT 10,734,830) and also rearranging the wording of the claims (as applied to claims 1-20 of USPAT 11,581,745) would not make the instant application patentably distinct from the ‘830 and the ‘745 patents.
Furthermore, terminal in the knowledge of the art refers to either a connector or to an electronic device, and includes electronics such as processor, battery for power supply, and transceiver and/or cable for handshake protocol and transmission. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to configure the terminal in the ‘830 patent to generating instruction information according to the value of the voltage between the positive and negative electrodes of the battery, sending the instruction information to a charger to instruct the charger to output an output voltage of at least K times the value of the voltage between the positive and negative electrodes of the battery to enable a processing circuitry to convert a voltage from the charger into 1/K times the voltage received from the charger, and convert a current received from the charger into K times the current to charge the battery, wherein K is a conversion coefficient of a conversion circuit with a fixed conversion ratio in the electronic device, wherein K is a constant value, and wherein K is any real number greater than one, as recited.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-5,7-15,17-19 and 21-23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 05/11/2026, with respect to 1-5,7-15,17-19 and 21-23 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous art rejections of claims 1-5,7-15,17-19 have been withdrawn in view of the amendment. However, the double patenting rejections have been maintained as set forth in the previous non-final office action paper no./mail date 20251202 in view of USPATs 10,734,830; 11,581,745; and 11,990,774 since the amendments since previous dependent claims 6,16 and 20 were previously rejected under double patenting and moving their limitations into their respective independent claims would not the present application patentably distinct from USPAT 10,734,830, USPAT 11,581,745 and USPAT 11,990,774.
Furthermore claim 21 is similar to previous claim 14, limitations of claim 22 is similar to claim 1, claim 23 is similar to claim 17 and thus would all be rejected under double patenting for the same reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5,7-15,17-19 and 21-23 would be allowed subjected to a timely filed and approved terminal disclaimer(s) over of USPAT 10,734,830, USPAT 11,581,745 and USPAT 11,990,774.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M'BAYE DIAO whose telephone number is (571)272-6127. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 10:00AM-6:30PM and OFF most of the time Friday when working IFP.
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 A 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.
M'BAYE DIAO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2859
/M BAYE DIAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859 June 16, 2026
Prosecution Insights