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 .
This Office Action is in response to amendment filed on April 7, 2026.
Claims 1, 4, 11, 13, and 15 have been amended.
Claims 5 and 14 have been canceled.
The objections and rejections from the prior correspondence that are not restated herein are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on April 7, 2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that neither SPORCK nor MITTAL, alone or in combination, discloses or suggests “maintain[ing] a GUI indicating that the device is ‘still charging’ even though charging has temporarily ceased,” and points to [0084] of Applicant’s specification explaining that “this prevents the user from prematurely terminating the charging session… during a routine thermal pause” and that “applying Mittal's ‘failure/stopping’ alert would destroy the intended comforting/masking purpose of Applicant's ‘still charging’ GUI.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “GUI indicating that the device is ‘still charging’ even though charging has temporarily ceased” ) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The Examiner notes that amended claim 1 recites “responsive to… while the battery is charging…: causing… the battery to cease charging…; … the graphical user interface indicates… still charging.” In other words, the claims do not recite a causal or temporal sequence of the battery ceasing to charge followed by the GUI indicating still charging after the battery ceased to charge. Therefore, the combination of SPORCK and MITTAL still teaches the amended limitations of claim 1 as outlined in the rejection below.
If Applicant’s intent is for the claims to recite such a causal relationship, Examiner suggests using the language recited in [0082] of Applicant’s specification: “… based on causing the battery to cease charging for a period of time, generating, by the computing device, a graphical user interface, wherein the graphical user interface indicates that the computing device is still charging; and outputting, for display and by the computing device, the graphical user interface,” which appears to overcome the cited prior art.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-13, 15-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SPORCK (Pub. No.: US 20150229155 A1) in view of MITTAL (Pub. No.: US 20250124336 A1), hereafter MITTAL.
Regarding claim 1, SPORCK teaches:
A method comprising: obtaining, by a controller of a handheld computing device, a present temperature of an outer surface of the computing device while a battery of the handheld computing device is being charged (SPORCK [0016] teaches controlling a skin temperature of an electronic device, such as a handheld mobile device, so that the temperature of the casing does not exceed a threshold, where [0018] teaches thermal sensor circuits (“Temp Sensors”) 150 configured to sense temperature of the case to control the skin temperature, where thermal sensor 150 is coupled to battery charger circuit 110 to control current in the battery charger);
determining, by the controller and based on the present temperature of the outer surface of the handheld computing device and a target temperature of the outer surface of the handheld computing device, a charging current for the battery and system of the handheld computing device; causing, by the controller, the battery to charge with the determined charging current (SPORCK [0018] also teaches sensing skin temperature using a thermal sensor 150 and couple signals, such as a voltage, to battery charger 110 to set a current limit, which controls a maximum current in the battery charger, where reducing a current limit may reduce a maximum current flowing to battery 150 or to PMIC 111 and downstream components, for example, and reduce power dissipation in battery charger 150 to reduce the skin temperature; see also [0019-0021] & Fig. 2-3);
and responsive to determining that the present temperature of the outer surface is greater than a thermal threshold while the battery is charging with at least a minimum charging current: causing, by the controller, the battery to cease charging for a period of time (SPORCK [0025] teaches a device may have set temperature limits that guarantee the device never operates outside a pre-defined maximum temperature, where the system attempts to maintain a constant case (or skin) temperature by adjusting the current limit down and up based on a sensed temperature of the case. For example, as illustrated in plots 501 and 502, initially a current limit may be set high and the case temperature begins to increase over time period t1. When the temperature of the case increases above Tc (a center temperature within a window defined by a maximum temperature Tmax and minimum temperature, Tmin) the current limit is reduced. In this example, the temperature continues to increase at the new current limit value during t2. Accordingly, the current limit is reduced again, i.e. current limit reduction continues to increase (which would at one point fully limit the current for charging) if the case temperature does not decrease below a threshold).
SPORCK does not appear to explicitly teach generating, by the handheld computing device, a graphical user interface, wherein the graphical user interface indicates that the handheld computing device is still charging; and outputting, for display and by a display of the handheld computing device, the graphical user interface.
However, SPORCK in view of MITTAL teaches the limitation (MITTAL [0025] teaches various battery management actions including notifying a user via a graphical user interface (GUI), where claim 9 teaches notifying an entity regarding the normal charging event, where SPORCK [0027] teaches a mobile device with a display, and [0017] teaches display circuits 114 for driving a display).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the invention, having the teachings of SPORCK and MITTAL before them, to include MITTAL’s GUI notification in SPORCK’s skin temperature controlling system. One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to mitigate issues associated with the battery system failure as taught by MITTAL ([0080]), which would result in notifying users of temperature exceeding a threshold in SPORCK’s system.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites similar limitation as corresponding claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasons as claim 1 using similar teachings and rationale. SPORCK also teaches:
A handheld computing device, comprising a battery (SPORCK Fig. 1 battery 102);
a display (SPORCK Fig. 1 display 103);
and one or more processors configured (SPORCK Fig. 1 processor 112; [0017] also teaches electronic device 100 including data processors).
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites similar limitation as corresponding claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasons as claim 1 using similar teachings and rationale. SPORCK also teaches A non-transitory computer-readable medium, encoded with instructions that, when executed, cause one or more processors of a handheld computing device (SPORCK [0017] teaches electronic device 100 including at least one processor, which executes instructions stored on memory).
Regarding claim 2, SPORCK in view of MITTAL teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. SPORCK also teaches wherein the controller of the computing device is a proportional-integral-derivative controller, wherein the proportional- integral-derivative controller determines a clamp for one of a maximum charging current or minimum charging current for the battery and system of the handheld computing device (SPORCK claim 3 teaches the battery charger circuit comprises a comparator, which reduces the maximum current in the battery charging circuit; claim 8 teaches the battery charger circuit comprises an analog-to-digital converter reduces the maximum current in the battery charger circuit when the digital representation of the first voltage meets the digital representation of the threshold).
Regarding claim 3, SPORCK in view of MITTAL teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. SPORCK also teaches wherein causing the battery to charge further comprises causing the battery to charge via a power transmitter (SPORCK [0019] teaches battery charger may receive power from an external power source to charge the battery, and [0028-0030] & Fig. 8 teach battery charger provides power, where USB cable includes power supply voltage).
Regarding claim 4, SPORCK in view of MITTAL teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. SPORCK also teaches:
wherein determining that the present temperature of the outer surface is greater than the thermal threshold while the battery is charging with at least the minimum charging current comprises: obtaining, by the controller, a plurality of temperatures over a period of time of the outer surface of the handheld computing device while the battery of the handheld computing device is being charged; determining, by the controller and based on the plurality of temperatures of the outer surface, that the temperature of the outer surface of the handheld computing device has reached a predetermined thermal threshold while the battery is charging with at least a minimum charging current (SPORCK [0025] teaches a device may have set temperature limits that guarantee the device never operates outside a pre-defined maximum temperature, where the system attempts to maintain a constant case (or skin) temperature by adjusting the current limit down and up based on a sensed temperature of the case. For example, as illustrated in plots 501 and 502, initially a current limit may be set high and the case temperature begins to increase over time period t1. When the temperature of the case increases above Tc (a center temperature within a window defined by a maximum temperature Tmax and minimum temperature, Tmin) the current limit is reduced. In this example, the temperature continues to increase at the new current limit value during t2. Accordingly, the current limit is reduced again. The temperature begins to decrease during t3 until the temperature drops below Tmin. In one embodiment, after a first reduction, an additional reduction happens after a timer expiration (e.g., 2 seconds). After the temperature drops below Tmin, the current limit may be increased, which causes the temperature to increase again. In this manner, the algorithm may ensure the temperature does not increase above Tmax);
determining, by the controller, whether the handheld computing device is connected to a power source or is within a predetermined proximity with a power transmitter; wherein causing the battery to cease charging for the period of time comprises, based on determining that the handheld computing device is connected to the power source or is within the predetermined proximity with a power transmitter, causing, by the controller, the battery to cease charging for a period of time (SPORCK [0023] teaches an example circuit for adjusting a current limit in a battery charger, where a thermistor 451 in a thermal sensor 450 and resistor 452 are coupled to an input of an analog-to-digital converter (ADC) 411 on a battery charger IC 410 (i.e. the input voltage of the power source is known, which is seen as determining whether the power source is connected). Another input of ADC 411 is coupled to a reference voltage. ADC 411 receives a voltage from thermal sensor 450 and converts the voltage into a digital representation of the voltage (e.g., digital bits). An output of ADC 411 may be coupled to a digital comparator 412. Digital comparator 412 receives the digital representation of the thermal sensor voltage from ADC 411 and a digital representation of a threshold, where when the thermal sensor voltage meets a particular threshold, the digitized voltage increases above the digital threshold and digital comparator 412 produces an output signal to input current control circuit 430 to change an input current limit. Accordingly, when a temperature on the case increases to a threshold, a maximum input current in the battery charger is reduced to reduce the temperature of the case; see [0025] as taught above, where current limit reduction continues to increase (which would at one point fully limit the current for charging) if the case temperature does not decrease below a threshold, where the current limit happens after a timer expiration).
Regarding claim 6, SPORCK in view of MITTAL teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. SPORCK also teaches:
clamping, by the controller, the determined charging current at a minimum/maximum charge current (SPORCK [0018] teaches reducing a maximum current flowing to battery 150 or to PMIC 111 and downstream components; [0031] also teaches setting a maximum for the sensed current).
Regarding claim 7, SPORCK in view of MITTAL teaches the elements of claim 6 as outlined above. SPORCK also teaches causing, by the controller, the battery to charge at a variable charging current, wherein the variable charging current is based on a monotonic relationship between the variable charging current and the present temperature of the outer surface of the handheld computing device (see SPORCK [0023] & [0025] as taught above in claim 4).
Regarding claim 9, SPORCK in view of MITTAL teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. SPORCK also teaches wherein the present temperature is a composite of a plurality of temperatures from one or more temperature sensors (SPORCK [0027] teaches thermal sensors 650A-C are arranged between an interior surface of case 630 and an upper surface of heat spreaders 620 to sense the temperature of the case; [0028] teaches multiple thermal sensors 750-754 may be arranged to sense the temperature of a case 701 at different locations (e.g., proximate to different heat producing ICs) and monitored to reduce system power, and the battery charger may monitor the voltage from the thermal sensor for an extended time period, but periodically iterate through the other thermal sensors to make sure one of the others has not also increased above the threshold).
Regarding claim 10, SPORCK in view of MITTAL teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. SPORCK also teaches:
obtaining, by the controller, a plurality of temperatures of the outer surface of the handheld computing device while the battery of the handheld computing device is being charged (see SPORCK [0023] & [0025] as taught above in claim 4; see also [0027-0028] as taught above in claim 9),
wherein determining the charging current comprises determining a minimum or maximum charging current based on the plurality of temperatures; and causing the battery to charge with a charging current at least that of the minimum charging current and at most that of the maximum charging current (see SPORCK [0023] & [0025] as taught above in claim 4).
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites similar limitation as corresponding claim 2 and is rejected for similar reasons as claim 2 using similar teachings and rationale.
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites similar limitation as corresponding claim 4 and is rejected for similar reasons as claim 4 using similar teachings and rationale.
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites similar limitation as corresponding claim 6 and is rejected for similar reasons as claim 6 using similar teachings and rationale.
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites similar limitation as corresponding claim 7 and is rejected for similar reasons as claim 7 using similar teachings and rationale.
Regarding claim 19, the claim recites similar limitation as corresponding claim 9 and is rejected for similar reasons as claim 9 using similar teachings and rationale.
Regarding claim 20, the claim recites similar limitation as corresponding claim 10 and is rejected for similar reasons as claim 10 using similar teachings and rationale.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SPORCK in view of MITTAL as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of SANTOS (Pub. No.: US 20080103634 A1), hereafter SANTOS.
Regarding claim 8, SPORCK in view of MITTAL teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. SPORCK teaches:
[…] a plurality of temperatures of the outer surface of the computing device (SPORCK [0028] teaches multiple thermal sensors 750-754 may be arranged to sense the temperature of a case 701 at different locations (e.g., proximate to different heat producing ICs) and monitored to reduce system power, where battery charger 710 may iteratively sense a voltage from each thermal sensor by changing the select input of MUX 760).
SPORCK in view of MITTAL does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the present temperature is an average of a plurality of temperatures of the outer surface of the computing device.
However, SANTOS teaches the limitation (SANTOS [0034] teaches an average temperature from thermal sensors coupled to the memory device's case or outer packaging is collected).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of SPORCK, MITTAL, and SANTOS before them, to include SANTOS’s collecting the average temperature of the thermal sensors in SPORCK and MITTAL’s skin temperature controlling system. One would have been motivated to make such a combination to provide a more consistent temperature reading of the entire system.
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites similar limitation as corresponding claim 8 and is rejected for similar reasons as claim 8 using similar teachings and rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
YANG (US 20210313820 A1) – “Charging method and device, device to be charged, storage medium, and chip system” relates to reducing a charging current by ΔI if the temperature of the device to be charged is greater than a first threshold value.
FRIED (EP 3991788 A1) – “Estimating the temperature of a housing of a device” relates to estimating the temperature of an external portion of a medical device.
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 extension fee 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 ANDREW J JUNG whose telephone number is 571-270-3779. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9am to 5pm.
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, David Wiley can be reached on 571-272-4150. 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.
/ANDREW J JUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2175
Prosecution Insights