PTAB

IPR2025-00885

ADC Solutions Auto LLC v. NOCO Co

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Portable Vehicle Battery Jump Start Apparatus with Safety Protection
  • Brief Description: The ’203 patent discloses a portable, battery-powered vehicle jump starter that incorporates safety features to ensure proper connection. The apparatus includes a USB input port and an internal DC-DC "boost" converter designed to increase the voltage from a standard USB source to charge the jump starter's higher-voltage internal batteries.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Richardson and Zhao - Claims 1 and 3-5, 9 are obvious over Richardson in view of Zhao.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Richardson (Application # 2013/0154543) and Zhao (Patent 9,391,467).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Richardson taught a portable jump starter with all the core safety features of claim 1, including a vehicle battery isolation sensor (voltage sensor 30) and a separate reverse polarity sensor (reverse voltage sensor 24) that control a power switch (contact relay 34). Petitioner contended that Zhao taught the one element missing from Richardson and that the Examiner mistakenly believed was novel: a charging system using a 5V USB input and a DC-DC "step-up" converter to charge higher-voltage, multi-cell battery packs, such as those used in a jump starter.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Zhao’s well-known USB boost charging technology with Richardson’s jump starter to add a convenient and ubiquitous charging method. This modification would predictably improve the device by allowing it to be charged from any standard USB port, not just a vehicle's electrical system, increasing its utility and flexibility.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because implementing a standardized USB charging circuit using a common DC-DC converter was a well-understood and routine design choice. Zhao provided sufficient technical detail for a POSITA to integrate its charging circuit into Richardson's system.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Yu and Paparrizos - Claims 1 and 3-5, 9 are obvious over Yu in view of Paparrizos.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Yu (Chinese Utility Model # CN 203211234) and Paparrizos (Patent 9,219,372).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner presented this as an alternative ground for the independent claim and related dependent claims. Petitioner asserted that Yu disclosed a complete automotive jump starter with an internal battery, a power switch (relay 2), an external battery voltage detection circuit (45) for presence sensing, and a separate external battery reverse connection detection circuit (44) for polarity sensing. Paparrizos taught a battery charging circuit that operates in a "forward boost mode" to step up a lower input voltage (e.g., 5V USB) to charge higher-voltage batteries, including 12V multi-cell lithium-ion packs suitable for jump starting.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to modify Yu's jump starter by incorporating the USB boost charging circuit from Paparrizos. The motivation was to achieve the predictable result of effectively charging the device through a widely available power source (USB), thereby enhancing its consumer appeal and convenience.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have expected success because Paparrizos employed well-known concepts of using a 5V USB input and a DC-DC boost converter. Integrating this standard functionality into the charging portion of Yu's jump starter would have been a straightforward application of known engineering principles.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges for the remaining dependent claims. These grounds relied on the primary combinations of Richardson/Zhao and Yu/Paparrizos with additional tertiary references. Specifically, Krieger (Application # 2004/0130298) was added to teach using a FET switch (for claim 6) and optically coupled isolator phototransistors for the sensors (for claims 7-8). Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) or Epower-20/Epower-21 product brochures were added to teach making the device "hand-held" (for claim 2) and including a USB output port for charging external devices (for claims 10-11).

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §325(d) would be inappropriate. The petition relied on new prior art references—specifically Zhao and Paparrizos—that were not before the Examiner during prosecution. Petitioner contended these references taught the very DC-DC boost converter feature the Examiner mistakenly believed was novel and formed the basis for allowance, representing a material error by the Patent Office.
  • Petitioner also asserted that denial under 35 U.S.C. §314(a) based on Fintiv factors was not warranted. It was stated that no parallel proceeding had been asserted against the Petitioner by the Patent Owner, making most factors neutral or inapplicable. Petitioner further argued its unpatentability challenges were compelling, as evidenced by the Board's decision to institute a related IPR on nearly identical grounds.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-11 of the ’203 patent as unpatentable.