DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to Applicant’s Reply submitted 19 December 2025.
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 .
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.
Claims 1-11 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01.
Regarding Claims 1 and 18, the omitted elements are: the structure used to achieve the first discharge profile and the second discharge profile recited in Claims 1 and 18.
Regarding Claims 2-11, they depend from Claim 1 and are also rejected for the reason stated above.
Regarding Claims 19 and 20, they depend from Claim 18 and are also rejected for the reason stated above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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 1-2, 4-5, 7, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodrigues Mansano et al. US 2021/0408821, in view of Ilhan et al. US 20190320210.
Regarding Claim 1, Rodrigues Mansano teaches a device comprising:
a primary power source (first power source 12, fig. 1 and refer to [0081]); and
a controller (power source switching unit 11, fig. 1, That unit 11 which may be present in the system 10 as an integrated circuit or embedded system or software alternative thereof, is also arranged to control the switching of the load between the power sources 12, 13. To this end, the unit 11 of the system 10 functions as a power source switching unit, and refer to [0081]) selectively coupled to the primary power source and a secondary power source (second power source 13, fig. 1 and refer to [0081]),
the controller configured to: receive power from the primary power source; determine a voltage of the primary power source; determine whether the voltage of the primary power source is less than or equal to a voltage threshold; and connect, in response to the voltage of the primary power source being less than or equal to the voltage threshold, the secondary power source to the controller (the power source switching unit is arranged to determine a voltage level of the first power source and further being arranged to switch from the first to the second power sources upon the determined voltage level of the first power source to drop below a predetermined threshold value., refer to [0054]).
Rodrigues Mansano is silent wherein the secondary power source is a hybrid supercapacitor.
Ilhan teaches wherein the secondary power source is a hybrid supercapacitor (The battery may be a lithium ion battery, a metal-air battery, such as a zinc-air battery, an aluminum-air battery, a lithium-air battery, a hybrid super-capacitor, refer to [0055]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the hybrid supercapacitor as taught by Ilhan with the device of Rodrigues Mansano in order to provide an additional option for another power source.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Rodrigues Mansano and Ilhan teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further teaches comprising: a recharge circuit configured to charge the hybrid supercapacitor using the primary power source (current controller 17, fig. 1 and refer to [0082] of Rodrigues Mansano).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Rodrigues Mansano and Ilhan teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further teaches wherein the controller is further configured to: disconnect, in response to the voltage of the primary power source being less than or equal to the voltage threshold, the primary power source from the controller (refer to [0054] of Rodrigues Mansan).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Rodrigues Mansano and Ilhan teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further teaches wherein the controller is further configured to: determine whether the voltage of the primary power source is greater than or equal to a second voltage threshold; and disconnect, in response to the voltage of the primary power source being greater than or equal to the second voltage threshold, the hybrid supercapacitor (refer to [0084] of Rodrigues Mansano).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Rodrigues Mansano and Ilhan teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further teaches wherein the controller is further configured to: determine whether a low-power operating mode is initiated; connect, in response to the low-power operating mode being initiated, the hybrid supercapacitor to the controller; and disconnect, in response to the low-power operating mode being initiated, the primary power source from the controller (refer to [0029], [0030], and [0081] of Rodrigues Mansano).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Rodrigues Mansano and Ilhan teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 above, and further teaches wherein the primary power source at least one battery cell (refer to [0081] of Rodrigues Mansano).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Rodrigues Mansano and Ilhan teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 above, and further teaches wherein the primary power source is a power supply battery core (refer to [0081] of Rodrigues Mansano).
Claims 3, 8-9, 14, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodrigues Mansano et al. US 2021/0408821, in view of Ilhan et al. US 2019/0320210, in view of Hoossainy et al. US 2019/0043292.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Rodrigues Mansano and Ilhan teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 however is silent wherein the controller is further configured to: provide power from the hybrid supercapacitor to an insertable wireless communication device connected to the controller.
Hoossainy teaches wherein the controller (controller 226, fig. 14) is further configured to: provide power (power input 224, fig. 14) from the hybrid supercapacitor to an insertable wireless communication device (insertable wireless communication device 300, fig. 14) connected to the controller.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the insertable wireless communication device as taught by Hoossainy with the device of the combination of Rodrigues Mansano and Ilhan in order to provide power to the device’s additional load.
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Rodrigues Mansano and Ilhan teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 above however is silent wherein the device is one selected from a group consisting of a power tool, a power tool battery pack, a battery pack charger, a power inverter, and a portable power supply device.
Hoossainy teaches wherein the device is one selected from a group consisting of a power tool, a power tool battery pack, a battery pack charger, a power inverter, and a portable power supply device (fig. 3 and refer to [0002]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the device as taught by Hoossainy with the device of the combination of Rodrigues Mansano and Ilhan in order to use on additional loads.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Rodrigues Mansano and Ilhan teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 above however is silent wherein the device is one selected from a group consisting of a light device, a heating device, an outdoor power equipment device, and vacuum.
Hoossainy teaches wherein the device is one selected from a group consisting of a light device, a heating device, an outdoor power equipment device, and vacuum (fig. 3 and refer to [0002] and [0059]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the device as taught by Hoossainy with the device of the combination of Rodrigues Mansano and Ilhan in order to use on additional loads.
Regarding Claim 18, Rodrigues Mansano teaches a device comprising:
a primary power source (first power source 12, fig. 1 and refer to [0081]); and
a controller (power source switching unit 11, fig. 1, That unit 11 which may be present in the system 10 as an integrated circuit or embedded system or software alternative thereof, is also arranged to control the switching of the load between the power sources 12, 13. To this end, the unit 11 of the system 10 functions as a power source switching unit, and refer to [0081]) selectively coupled to the primary power source and a secondary power source (second power source 13, fig. 1 and refer to [0081]),
the controller configured to: receive power from the primary power source; determine a voltage of the primary power source; determine whether the voltage of the primary power source is less than or equal to a voltage threshold; and connect, in response to the voltage of the primary power source being less than or equal to the voltage threshold, the secondary power source to the controller (the power source switching unit is arranged to determine a voltage level of the first power source and further being arranged to switch from the first to the second power sources upon the determined voltage level of the first power source to drop below a predetermined threshold value., refer to [0054]).
Rodrigues Mansano is silent wherein the secondary power source is a hybrid supercapacitor.
Ilhan teaches wherein the secondary power source is a hybrid supercapacitor (The battery may be a lithium ion battery, a metal-air battery, such as a zinc-air battery, an aluminum-air battery, a lithium-air battery, a hybrid super-capacitor, refer to [0055]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the hybrid supercapacitor as taught by Ilhan with the device of Rodrigues Mansano in order to provide an additional option for another power source.
The combination of Rodrigues Mansano and Ilhan however is silent wherein the controller is further configured to: provide power from the hybrid supercapacitor to an insertable wireless communication device connected to the controller.
Hoossainy teaches wherein the controller (controller 226, fig. 14) is further configured to: provide power (power input 224, fig. 14) from the hybrid supercapacitor to an insertable wireless communication device (insertable wireless communication device 300, fig. 14) connected to the controller.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the insertable wireless communication device as taught by Hoossainy with the device of the combination of Rodrigues Mansano and Ilhan in order to provide power to the device’s additional load.
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Rodrigues Mansano, Ilhan, and Hoossainy teaches all of the limitations of Claim 18 above and further teaches wherein the controller is further configured to: determine whether the voltage of the primary power source is greater than or equal to a second voltage threshold; and provide, in response to the voltage of the primary power source being greater than or equal to the second voltage threshold, power from the primary power source to the insertable wireless communication device (refer to [0081] of Rodrigues Mansano).
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Rodrigues Mansano, Ilhan, and Hoossainy teaches all of the limitations of Claim 18 above and further teaches wherein the controller is further configured to: determine whether a low-power operating mode is initiated; and provide, in response to the low-power operating mode being initiated, power from the hybrid supercapacitor to the insertable wireless communication device (refer to [0029], [0030], and [0081] of Rodrigues Mansano).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodrigues Mansano et al. US 2021/0408821, in view of Ilhan et al. US 2019/0320210, in view of Smith et al. US 2008/0129219.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Rodrigues Mansano and Ilhan teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 above however is silent wherein the hybrid supercapacitor includes a plurality of hybrid supercapacitors connected in series.
Smith teaches wherein the hybrid supercapacitor includes a plurality of hybrid supercapacitors connected in series (For example, a hybrid supercapacitor/battery typically includes a single package in which are included elements for storing energy in one or more electric fields and in one or more electrochemical cells; In some instances, a supercapacitive device includes a plurality of supercapacitive cells that are connected in series or parallel, or a combination of both, refer to [0008]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the arrangement as taught by Smith with the device of the combination of Rodrigues Mansano and Ilhan in order to provide the required power level for the loads.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-17 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding Claim 12, the prior arts of record, taken alone or in combination, do not teach or fairly suggest a method for selecting a discharging power source, the method comprising: receiving, with a discharge load, power from a primary power source configured to discharge according to a first discharge profile; determining, with the controller, a voltage of the primary power source; determining, with the controller, whether the voltage of the primary power source is less than or equal to a voltage threshold; and connecting, with the controller and in response to the voltage of the primary power source being less than or equal to the voltage threshold, a hybrid supercapacitor configured to discharge according to a second discharge profile to the discharge load, wherein, when implementing the second discharge profile, the hybrid supercapacitor discharges from a first voltage to a second voltage linearly over time, wherein the second voltage is greater than zero..
Regarding Claims 13-17, they depend from Claim 12 above.
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 BRIAN K BAXTER whose telephone number is (571)270-0258. The examiner can normally be reached 10-7:00 PM Monday-Thursday.
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, Rexford N Barnie can be reached on 571-272-7492. 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.
/BRIAN K BAXTER/Examiner, Art Unit 2836
8 January 2026
/DANIEL CAVALLARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836