DETAILED ACTION
This is a first action on the merits, in response to the claims received 4/29/2024. Claims 1-7 are pending for prosecution below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS)(s) file on have been considered by the examiner. An initialed copy is attached herewith.
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1,2,4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang, (USNO.2009/0096427) in view of Ohkubo et al, (Ohkubo), (USPATNO.6,621,250).
As for claim 1, Yang discloses and shows in Figs.4-6 a power supply circuit which supplies, to a system, system power required for the system out of DC power supplied from a power supply, and charges a battery with charging power as remaining power, wherein when a cell voltage of the battery is a predetermined detection voltage or more and a charging current of the charging power becomes a predetermined detection current or less (combination with regulator and controller), the power supply circuit determines that a charged state of the battery is fully charged (via ref’s EOC detection), the cell voltage at a time when it is determined that the charged state is fully charged based on the cell voltage obtained in a specific charging state to the battery (par.[0019-0023,0042-0045,0049-0051]).
Yang discloses all limitations, but differs from the claimed invention because he does not explicitly disclose cell voltage at a time when it is determined that the charged state is fully charged based on the cell voltage obtained in a specific charging state to the battery is estimated as a second detection voltage, and the predetermined detection voltage is updated from a predetermined first detection voltage to the second detection voltage
Ohkubo discloses cell voltage at a time when it is determined that the charged state is fully charged based on the cell voltage obtained in a specific charging state to the battery is estimated as a second detection voltage, and the predetermined detection voltage is updated from a predetermined first detection voltage to the second detection voltage (col.22, line 66 – col.23, line 44)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have modified the teachings of Yang by using cell voltage at a time when it is determined that the charged state is fully charged based on the cell voltage obtained in a specific charging state to the battery is estimated as a second detection voltage, and the predetermined detection voltage is updated from a predetermined first detection voltage to the second detection voltage for advantages such as providing the ability to improve charged state judgement (col.2, line 54-64), as taught by Ohkubo.
As for claim 2, Yang in combination with Ohkubo discloses and shows charging the battery with the charging power without supplying the system power to the system, the cell voltage at the time when determining that the charged state is fully charged is determined to be the second detection voltage (obvious via further periods).
As for claim 4, Yang in combination with Ohkubo discloses and shows in Fig. 6 [of Yang] determining that the charged state is not fully charged even after a charging time to the battery exceeds a predetermined reference charging time, the predetermined detection voltage is changed to the first detection voltage.
As for claim 5, Yang in combination with Ohkubo discloses including the battery.
As for claim 6, Yang in combination with Ohkubo discloses an electronic apparatus comprising the circuit according to claim 1.
As for claim 7, Yang discloses and shows in Figs.4-6 a control method for a power supply circuit which supplies, to a system, system power required for the system out of DC power supplied from a power supply, and charges a battery with charging power as remaining power, and when a cell voltage of the battery is a predetermined detection voltage or more and a charging current of the charging power becomes a predetermined detection current or less (combination with regulator and controller), the power supply circuit determines that a charged state of the battery is fully charged (via ref’s EOC detection), wherein the power supply circuit estimates the cell voltage at a time when determining that the charged state is fully charged based on the cell voltage obtained in a specific charging state to the battery (par.[0019-0023,0042-0045,0049-0051]).
Ohkubo discloses cell voltage at a time when it is determined that the charged state is fully charged based on the cell voltage obtained in a specific charging state to the battery is estimated as a second detection voltage, and the predetermined detection voltage is updated from a predetermined first detection voltage to the second detection voltage (col.22, line 66 – col.23, line 44)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Yang by using cell voltage at a time when it is determined that the charged state is fully charged based on the cell voltage obtained in a specific charging state to the battery is estimated as a second detection voltage, and the predetermined detection voltage is updated from a predetermined first detection voltage to the second detection voltage for advantages such as providing the ability to improve charged state judgement (col.2, line 54-64), as taught by Ohkubo.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang, (USNO.2009/0096427) in view of Ohkubo et al, (Ohkubo), (USPATNO.6,621,250) and further in view of OHTOMO, (USNO.2013/0127415)
As for claim 3, Yang in combination with Ohkubo discloses all limitations, but differs from the claimed invention because he does not explicitly disclose a charging method for the battery is changed from a first charging mode for charging with a constant charging current to a second charging mode for charging with a constant charging voltage, a circuit resistance value from the power supply circuit to the battery is measured based on a charging voltage to the battery, the cell voltage, and the charging current, and a voltage dropped from the charging voltage due to the circuit resistance value and the detection current is determined to be a detection voltage.
Ohtomo discloses a charging method for the battery is changed from a first charging mode for charging with a constant charging current to a second charging mode for charging with a constant charging voltage, a circuit resistance value from the power supply circuit (via ref’s electric resistance) to the battery is measured based on a charging voltage to the battery, the cell voltage, and the charging current, and a voltage dropped from the charging voltage due to the circuit resistance value and the detection current is determined to be a detection voltage (ref’s via battery voltage at fully charged state) (par.[0032-0033])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined teachings of Yang and Ohkubo by using a charging method for the battery is changed from a first charging mode for charging with a constant charging current to a second charging mode for charging with a constant charging voltage, a circuit resistance value from the power supply circuit to the battery is measured based on a charging voltage to the battery, the cell voltage, and the charging current, and a voltage dropped from the charging voltage due to the circuit resistance value and the detection current is determined to be a detection voltage for advantages such as providing the ability to improve charged state judgement (abstract), as taught by Ohtomo.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARUN C WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-9765. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9 a.m. - 6 p.m..
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Julian Huffman can be reached on 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 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.
/ARUN C WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
