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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1 Applicant argues that Ohkawa fails to teach "the control unit is arranged to obtain data indicative of a current drawn by the battery charger as function of time" because Ohkawa allegedly measures current flowing into and out of battery pack 110 rather than current drawn by the battery charger from an external power source.
This argument is not persuasive. Claim 1 broadly recites obtaining "data indicative of a current drawn by the battery charger as function of time." Claim 1 does not recite an electrical power sensor, measurement at an external power source, measurement through a cable connection, measurement upstream of the battery charger, or any particular sensor placement. Ohkawa teaches current detection unit 130 configured to detect current flowing through battery system 100 and provide the detected current to battery pack control unit 150. Ohkawa further teaches average current monitoring unit 152 configured to receive the detected current and perform average current monitoring for use in charging-current control. See, e.g., Fig. 1, Fig. 3, and paragraphs 0024-0026 and 0040. Thus, Ohkawa teaches obtaining current data as a function of time and processing that data for charging-current control.
Applicant further argues that claim 1 should be interpreted as requiring measurement of current drawn through a cable from an external power source because the present Specification describes embodiments employing an electrical power sensor positioned on the external-power-source side of the charger.
This argument is likewise not persuasive. Although the Specification describes embodiments employing electrical power sensor 115 and cable 160, claim 1 does not recite electrical power sensor 115, cable 160, an external-power-source measurement location, or any requirement that current be measured upstream of the battery charger. Limitations disclosed in particular embodiments may not be imported into the claims. Furthermore, dependent claim 3 expressly recites "a current sensor arranged to measure a current drawn via the cable connection." The inclusion of this additional limitation in dependent claim 3 indicates that cable-side current measurement is not required by independent claim 1. Therefore, Applicant's proposed interpretation is narrower than the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1.
More specifically, Applicant's arguments rely on interpreting claim 1 as requiring current measurement at the external-power-source side of the battery charger. However, neither the phrase "current drawn by the battery charger" nor any other limitation of claim 1 specifies where the current must be measured. Such a requirement first appears in dependent claim 3. Accordingly, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1 encompasses obtaining data indicative of charger current without requiring a particular sensor location.
Applicant additionally argues that Ohkawa's average current calculations differ from the claimed first and second averaging functions because Ohkawa allegedly evaluates battery current history rather than charger-side electrical quantities.
This argument is not persuasive. Claim 1 does not require charger-side electrical quantities, mains-current measurements, or any particular sensor location. Rather, claim 1 recites processing obtained data using at least a first averaging function and a second averaging function, wherein the first averaging function is associated with a shorter averaging time window than the second averaging function. Ohkawa expressly teaches average current monitoring unit 152, allowable average current table 183, and multiple time window widths associated with corresponding allowable average current values. See paragraphs 0007, 0015-0017, 0040 and Figures 3 and 7-8. Ohkawa therefore teaches processing current data using multiple averaging functions associated with different averaging time windows and controlling charging current based on the resulting averaged values.
Applicant further argues that Ohkawa is directed to battery protection whereas the present invention is directed to optimizing charger power consumption.
This argument is also not persuasive. Anticipation does not require that a reference disclose the same objective, purpose, or motivation as the claimed invention. Rather, the relevant inquiry is whether the reference discloses the claimed subject matter. As discussed above, Ohkawa teaches obtaining current data as a function of time, processing the obtained data using multiple averaging windows, associating the outputs with respective criteria, and controlling charging current based on the processed results. The differences asserted by Applicant relate primarily to the intended purpose of the disclosed system rather than to the claimed limitations themselves.
Applicant presents substantially the same arguments with respect to independent claim 16.
Claim 16 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1 in method form, including obtaining data indicative of a current drawn by the battery charger as a function of time, processing the obtained data using first and second averaging functions associated with different averaging time windows, and controlling power consumption based on the outputs of those functions. For the reasons discussed above regarding claim 1, Applicant's arguments with respect to claim 16 are likewise not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Ohkawa et al. (US2014/0184166 A1).
Re Claim 1: Ohkawa teaches a control unit for controlling power consumption of a battery charger powered at least partly from an external power source, such as electrical mains, via a cable connection (see 150, 420 fig.1 para 0024-0027, 0034-0036) external power source reads on household power supply or charging station) , wherein the control unit is arranged to obtain data indicative of a current drawn by the battery charger as function of time (see 100, 130, 150 Fig.1 para 0024-0026, 0052-0053, 0059); as taught by current detection unit 130 configured to detect current flowing through battery system 100 and provide the detect current to battery pack control unit 150; wherein the control unit is arranged to process the obtained data using at least a first and a second averaging function (see fig.3 para 0040, 0052-0054, 0059, figs 7-9) wherein the first averaging function is associated with a shorter averaging time window compared to the second averaging function (see fig.3 para 0040) which is associated with a longer averaging time window (see 183, fig, 7 para 0015-0017, 0040 0052-0054), and wherein the outputs of the at least two functions are associated with respective function acceptance criteria (see fig.7-11 para 0052-0054, 0060-0061), wherein the control unit is arranged to control power consumption by at least the battery charger based on outputs of the first and the second averaging functions, and on the respective function acceptance criteria (see fig.9-11 para 0054-0056, 0061).
Re Claim 16: Ohkawa teaches method for controlling power consumption of a battery charger powered at least partly from an external power source, such as electrical mains, via a cable connection (see 150, 420 fig.1 para 0024-0027, 0034-0036) external power source reads on household power supply or charging station; the method comprising obtaining data indicative of a current drawn by the battery charger as function of time (see 100, 130, 150 Fig.1 para 0024-0026, 0052-0053, 0059); as taught by current detection unit 130 configured to detect current flowing through battery system 100 and provide the detect current to battery pack control unit 150; processing the obtained data using at least a first and a second averaging function (see fig.3 para 0040, 0052-0054, 0059, figs 7-9); wherein the first averaging function is associated with a shorter averaging time window compared to the second averaging function (see fig.7 para, 0015-0017. 0052-0054, 0060-0061); and wherein the outputs of the at least two functions are associated with respective function acceptance criteria (see fig.7-8 para 0052-0054, 0060-0061); and controlling power consumption by the battery charger based on outputs of the first and the second averaging functions, and on the respective function acceptance criteria (see fig.9-11 para 0054-0056, 0061-0063).
Re Claim 2: Ohkawa teaches invention set forth above, Okhawa further teaches wherein the control unit is arranged to limit a current drawn by the battery charger in case any of the outputs of the averaging functions does not satisfy its acceptance criterion (see 152, table 183, 150fig.9-11 para 0054-0056, 0061-0063).
Re Claim 3: Ohkawa teaches invention set forth above, Okhawa further teaches comprising a current sensor arranged to measure a current drawn via the cable connection (see 130 fig.1 para 0024-0026, 0059), wherein the data indicative of the current drawn by the battery charger is obtained at least in part from the current sensor (see 130, 150 para 0052-0053, 0059).
Re Claim 12: Ohkawa teaches invention set forth above, Okhawa further teaches a battery charger comprising the control unit according to claim 1 (see 150, 420 fig.1 para 0024-0027, 0034-0036) and at least one battery receptacle arranged to receive and to temporarily hold a rechargeable battery (see 110, 111 fig.1 para 0024-0029).
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(s) 4-5, 8 and 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohkawa et al. (US2014/0184166 A1) in view of Matsumoto (US2016/0254661 A1).
Re Claim 4: Ohkawa teaches invention set forth above, Okhawa doesn’t expressly teach wherein at least one of the first and the second averaging function is a moving average filter and wherein the acceptance criterion comprises a threshold value, wherein the threshold value is preferably determined in dependence of a construction site fuse setting.
In an analogous art Matsumoto teaches wherein at least one of the first and the second averaging function is a moving average filter (see para 0053, 0059 fig.8) and wherein the acceptance criterion comprises a threshold value, wherein the threshold value (see para 0007, 0053-0054, 0061) is preferably determined in dependence of a construction site fuse setting (see para 0005,0007, 0052).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention was claimed to use component-constraint-based allowable average current threshold of Matsumoto in invention of Ohkawa to define acceptance thresholds for multi window averaged charged current based on upstream protection limits thereby preventing overload and external protection devices e.g fuses.
Re Claim 5: Ohkawa teaches invention set forth above, Okhawa doesn’t expressly teach wherein at least one of the first and the second averaging function has a low-pass filter characteristic, and wherein the acceptance criterion comprises a threshold value, and wherein the threshold value is preferably determined in dependence of a construction site fuse setting.
In an analogous art Matsumoto teaches wherein at least one of the first and the second averaging function has a low-pass filter characteristic (see para 0053, 0059 fig.7-8), and wherein the acceptance criterion comprises a threshold value, and wherein the threshold value (see para 0007, 0053-0054, 0061) is preferably determined in dependence of a construction site fuse setting (see para 0005,0007, 0052).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention was claimed to use component-constraint-based allowable average current threshold of Matsumoto in invention of Ohkawa to define acceptance thresholds for multi window averaged charged current based on upstream protection limits thereby preventing overload and external protection devices e.g fuses.
Re Claim 8: Ohkawa teaches invention set forth above, Okhawa doesn’t expressly teach arranged to store recent averaging function outputs in the event of a power outage in a storage medium of the control unit.
In an analogous art Matsumoto teaches arranged to store recent averaging function outputs in the event of a power outage in a storage medium of the control unit (para 0113-0115 0122-0123, 0127-0132 fig.19; power interruption/aux machine clearing, store difference d in nonvolatile memory, read stored D after restart).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention was claimed to use the power outage state storage and restart-based control adjustment of Matsumoto in the averaging based charger control system of Ohkawa to preserve a reuse recent averaged control outputs after a power interruption there by ensuring safe and predictable resumption of charger power control.
Re Claim 9: Ohkawa teaches invention set forth above, Okhawa doest expressly teach arranged to re-configure one or more of the acceptance criteria based on the stored recent averaging function outputs in response to a power outage.
In an analogous art Matsumoto teaches arranged to re-configure one or more of the acceptance criteria based on the stored recent averaging function outputs in response to a power outage (para 0118-0120, 0122-0125, 0127-132 fig.16-19; store difference d in nonvolatile memory, read stored D after restart).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention was claimed to use the power outage state storage and restart-based control adjustment of Matsumoto in the averaging based charger control system of Ohkawa to preserve a reuse recent averaged control outputs after a power interruption there by ensuring safe and predictable resumption of charger power control.
Claim(s) 6, 7,10 and 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohkawa et al. (US2014/0184166 A1) in view of Conroy et al. (US 2014/0351621 A1.)
Re Claim 6: Ohkawa teaches invention set forth above, Okhawa doesn’t expressly teach arranged to gradually limit the current drawn according to a pre-determined function in case any of the averaging function outputs does not meet the respective function acceptance criterion.
In an analogous art Conroy teaches arranged to gradually limit the current drawn (see fig. 6 control module para 0065-0068, 0104-0112) according to a pre-determined function in case any of the averaging function outputs does not meet the respective function acceptance criterion (see para 0067-0068, 0139-0142).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention was claimed to use the gradual power throttling and recovery functions of Conroy in the charger current limiting system of Ohkawa to smoothly enforce averaged current acceptance criteria and adjust charger power based on the other loads sharing same power to improve stability and avoid abrupt transition.
Re Claim 7: Ohkawa teaches invention set forth above, Okhawa doesn’t expressly teach arranged to gradually remove an imposed limitation on the current drawn according to a pre-determined function in case all of the averaging function outputs meet the respective function acceptance criterion.
In an analogous art Conroy teaches arranged to gradually remove an imposed limitation on the current drawn (see fig. 6 para 0139-0142) according to a pre-determined function in case all of the averaging function outputs meet the respective function acceptance criterion (see para 0104-0112).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention was claimed to use the gradual power throttling and recovery functions of Conroy in the charger current limiting system of Ohkawa to smoothly enforce averaged current acceptance criteria and adjust charger power based on the other loads sharing same power to improve stability and avoid abrupt transition.
Re Claim 10: Ohkawa teaches invention set forth above, Okhawa further teaches arranged to control the power consumption by the battery charger (see 420 para 0034-0036-0053-0057)
Okhawa doesn’t expressly teach at least in part by controlling an amount of electrical power provided via a power outlet of the battery charger.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention was claimed to use shared power course monitoring and coordinated load control of Conroy in the battery charger control system of Ohkawa to control the amount of electrical power delivered by the charger and adjust the power base don consumption to prevent overloading and improve power source stability.
In an analogous art Conroy teaches at least in part by controlling an amount of electrical power provided via a power outlet of the battery charger (see para 0084-0086; power interface)
Re Claim 11: Ohkawa teaches invention set forth above, Okhawa further teaches arranged to control the power consumption by the battery charger (see para 0063-0067, 0104-0112).
Okhawa doesn’t expressly teach at least in part based on data related to a power consumption by an external power consumer connected to the same power source as the battery charger.
In an analogous art Conroy teaches at least in part based on data related to a power consumption by an external power consumer (see fig.5 para 0096-0095, 0100-0111) connected to the same power source as the battery charger (see para 0080-0085, 05151-0163).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention was claimed to use shared power course monitoring and coordinated load control of Conroy in the battery charger control system of Ohkawa to control the amount of electrical power delivered by the charger and adjust the power base don consumption to prevent overloading and improve power source stability.
Claim(s) 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohkawa et al. (US2014/0184166 A1) in view of Manor et al. (US 2011/0148344 A1).
Re Claim 13: Ohkawa teaches invention set forth above, Okhawa doesn’t expressly teach comprising an on-board energy storage device configured to temporarily store electrical energy drawn from the external power source over the cable connection, wherein the onboard energy storage device is a capacitor or a rechargeable battery.
In an analogous art Manor teaches comprising an on-board energy storage device (see 15, 16 fig.1, 2 para 0011, 0013); configured to temporarily store electrical energy drawn from the external power source over the cable connection (see fig.1-4 para 0009, 0011, 0014); wherein the onboard energy storage device is a capacitor or a rechargeable battery (see para 0010, 0013, 0016).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention was claimed to incorporate the on board rechargeable energy storage device of Manor in the battery charger of Okhawa to temporary store electrical energy drawn from external power source thereby improving operational flexibility.
Claim(s) 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohkawa et al. (US2014/0184166 A1) in view of Dai et al. (US 2004/0036361 A1).
Re Claim 14: Ohkawa teaches invention set forth above, Okhawa doesn’t expressly teach comprising an electrical power sensor, wherein the power sensor is arranged to monitor an alternating current, AC, from the external power source, and to determine frequency and/or amplitude characteristics of the AC, wherein the control unit is arranged to detect a time variation in frequency and/or amplitude of the AC in relation to a nominal frequency and/or amplitude based on the determined characteristics, and wherein the control unit is configured to stabilize a frequency and/or amplitude of the AC over the power interface by transferring electrical power between the cable and the on-board energy storage device and/or between the cable and a battery received in a battery receptacle, in case of a detected variation in the AC over the power interface.
In an analogous art Dai teaches comprising an electrical power sensor, wherein the power sensor (see para 0015, 0042-0047) is arranged to monitor an alternating current, AC, from the external power source (see para 0015, 0052) and to determine frequency and/or amplitude characteristics of the AC (see para 00042-0046, 0055-0056), wherein the control unit is arranged to detect a time variation in frequency and/or amplitude of the AC in relation to a nominal frequency and/or amplitude (see para 0015, 0053) based on the determined characteristics, and wherein the control unit is configured to stabilize a frequency and/or amplitude of the AC over the power interface (see fig.2-3 para 0014, 0020) by transferring electrical power between the cable and the on-board energy storage device and/or between the cable and a battery received in a battery receptacle (see fig.14-16 para 0054, 0064-0066) , in case of a detected variation in the AC over the power interface (see para 0015, 0053).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention was claimed to incorporate the AC sensing and voltage stabilization technique of Dai in the battery charger of Okhawa to improve power quality and ensuring realizable operation.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohkawa et al. (US2014/0184166 A1) in view of Bang et al. (US 2023/0253811 A1).
Re Claim 15: Ohkawa teaches invention set forth above, Okhawa doesn’t expressly teach comprising a communications module configured to communicate with one or more external power consumers connected to the same external power source as the battery charger.
In an analogous art Bang teaches comprising a communications module configured to communicate with one or more external power consumers (see para 0005-0007, 0032-0034 fig.1-2) connected to the same external power source as the battery charger (see 100, 200, 300 para 0029-0034 fig.1-2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention was claimed to incorporate power line communication module of Bang in the battery charger and control unit of Okhawa to enable communication with external consumer power vis same external power source interface.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Aqeel H Bukhari whose telephone number is (571)272-4382. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (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, Menna Youssef can be reached at (571) 270-3684. 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.
/AQEEL H BUKHARI/Examiner, Art Unit 2836
/Menatoallah Youssef/SPE, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights