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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/24/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
In the communication filed on 02/24/2026 claims 1-16 are pending. Claim 1 have been amended by adding “electronic” in front of the “information” limitation. Claims 9, 11, and 14 have been amended into independent form and by respectively adding previously presented limitations. Claim 14 has the newly presented limitation “wirelessly”. Claim 12 is amended for formatting purposes.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The applicant argues in pages 13-14 of the Remarks dated 02/24/2026 that a Reversal of Parts is improper, however, the examiner does not rely upon a Reversal of Parts in the rejections below.
The remaining arguments are moot as the applicant’s arguments for the remaining claims were based on dependency of the independent claims.
The drawing objections are withdrawn in part. The applicant added the “ampere meter” to Fig. 2, however, the applicant uses blank boxes and numbers to illustrate structural components and single words to describe the steps of a process. The applicant argues in page 9 of the Remarks that the figures comply with the PCT Rule 11.11 found in MPEP 1825, however, the examiner respectfully disagrees. PCT Rule 11.11 states “(a) [t]he drawings shall not contain text matter, except a single word or words, when absolutely indispensable, such as "water," "steam," "open," "closed," "section on AB," and, in the case of electric circuits and block schematic or flow sheet diagrams, a few short catchwords indispensable for understanding. (b) Any words used shall be so placed that, if translated, they may be pasted over without interfering with any lines of the drawings” (emphasis added). In order to understand the drawings, “a few short catchwords indispensable for understanding” should be added to the boxes and flow sheet diagrams.
The specification objections are withdrawn due to the amendments made by the applicant. The objection to the missing paragraph numbers is withdrawn.
The claim objections are withdrawn due to the amendments made by the applicant.
With respect to the 101 rejection, applicant argues in pages 11-12 of the Remarks that the 101 rejection is improper because “processing circuitry” was given the broadest possible interpretation instead of the broadest reasonable interpretation and, furthermore, that by adding “electronic” to “information” would emphasize the electrical/electronic aspects of the claimed invention. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The limitation “processing circuitry” is a generic computer structure as outlined in MPEP 2106.05(f) and the limitation “receiving electronic information” is data gathering and an insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP 2106.05(g). These limitations do not cure the 101 rejection.
From Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016), limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed towards a method, claims 9 and 11 are directed towards apparatuses, and claim 14 is directed towards a system as identified in Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test outlined in MPEP 2106.
The claims recite receiving information, determination, and estimation steps which are considered exceptions because the limitations fall under the mathematical concepts, the methods of organizing human activity, and the mental processes groupings of the abstract ideas which may be performed mentally by an individual, as identified in Step 2A Prong One.
The limitations from claim 1 that are considered exceptions are the following:
“receiving, with processing circuitry, electronic information from an ampere meter of the electrically powered mobility device, the electronic information indicating consumed ampere hours of the battery”;
“determining, with the processing circuitry, a state of charge of the battery based on a measured battery-related parameter that is distinct from the consumed ampere hours”;
“determining, with the processing circuitry, a state of health of the battery based on the state of charge and the consumed ampere hours of the battery”; and
“estimating, with the processing circuitry, the remaining driving distance that the electrically powered mobility device can travel with the current charge based on the state of charge and the state of health”.
These limitations are considered mathematical concepts, methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes because an individual may make calculations and determinations on SOC, SOH, and estimating driving distance based on data obtained from the ampere meter. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) Abstract Idea Groupings.
These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application because the combination of the abstract ideas with a processing circuitry [generic] with insignificant, extra-solution activities (a) receiving data, (b) determining data, and (c) estimating data does not make it practical, as identified in Step 2A Prong Two. The limitation “processing circuitry” is a generic computer structure as outlined in MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the processing circuitry is only used to receive, determine, or estimate the abstract ideas with no additional practical use added as a limitation, as identified in Step 2B. The limitation “receiving electronic information” is data gathering and an insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claims 2-16 are rejected because they only further the abstract idea without additional practical use or significant structure.
Claims 2-8 and 15-16 add more “determination”, “estimation”, and “calculation” steps which are considered mental processes.
Claims 9-14 add structural limitations however these are generic and there are no additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 6-7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu (USPGPN 20120256599; identified by the applicant in the IDS), in view of Jung (Korean Patent KR-101936077-B1), further in view of Shi et al. (Chinese Patent CN-106427579-A; identified by the applicant in the IDS).
With respect to independent claims 1 and 9, Gu teaches a battery monitoring device comprising processing circuitry, and storage medium (Fig. 1; BMS 1 comprising MCU 20 and storage 50, see ¶’s [47-48]).
Gu teaches wherein the storage medium comprises a computer program which when executed by the processing circuitry, causes the battery monitoring device to perform the method (Fig. 1; storage 50 stores software executed by MCU 20 to perform the steps of the method, see ¶’s [68, 71]).
Gu teaches method of estimating a remaining driving distance available from a current charge of a battery of an electrically powered transportation device (Fig. 4; a method for estimating the distance to empty [i.e., the driving distance available] of an electric vehicle, see ¶’s [3, 19, 67]. The method for calculating the distance to empty takes into consideration the battery’s actual charge, see ¶’s [26-27]).
Gu teaches receiving, with processing circuitry, electronic information from an ampere meter of the electrically powered transportation device, the electronic information indicating transferred ampere hours of the battery (¶ [41, 47, 57]; a current sensor 3 outputs an analog current signal corresponding to the measured current which is transmitted to the MCU 20 for use in calculating AhActual_Input transferred to the battery 2).
Gu teaches determining, with the processing circuitry a state of charge of the battery based on a measured battery-related parameter that is distinct from the transferred ampere hours (¶ [47]; the MCU 20 calculates the SOC of the battery 2 based on battery-related parameters such as the battery pack voltage and the battery cell voltage which are distinct from the AhActual_Input transferred).
Gu teaches determining, with the processing circuitry, a state of health of the battery based on the state of charge and the transferred ampere hours of the battery (¶ [57]; the SOH calculation unit 23 calculates the SOH of the battery 2 taking into consideration the SOC of the battery and the actual ampere-hour transferred by the battery as seen in equation 1).
Gu teaches estimating, with the processing circuitry, the remaining driving distance that the electrically powered transportation device can travel with the current charge based on the state of charge and the state of health (¶’s [47, 57]; the distance to empty of the vehicle with the current charge is calculated based on the SOH and the SOC of the battery).
However, Gu fails to explicitly teach an electrically powered mobility device and consumed ampere hours.
Jung teaches an electrically powered mobility device (Fig. 1; electric wheelchair 100).
An electric mobility device functions exactly like an electric vehicle because it uses a motor to move people, requires steering, and obeys the same basic rules of motion. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply Gu’s method of estimating a driving distance available from a current charge of a battery to Jung’s electric powered mobility device, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious.
However, Gu fails to explicitly teach the consumed ampere hours.
Shi teaches consumed ampere hours (¶[02]; driving distance estimation is derived from consumed energy kWh. One of ordinary skill understands consumed energy is derived from consumed ampere hours using the formula kWh = V x Ah).
Shi is directed towards estimating driving range based on the energy consumption of the vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to have adapted Shi’s consideration of the energy consumed to Gu’s method of estimating a driving distance. The advantage of this improving the accurate vehicle information provided to the driver (see ¶[07] of Shi) thus increasing efficiency, safety outcomes, and increased decision making.
With respect to claim 3, Gu teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Gu teaches wherein the state of health is determined further based on nominal ampere hours of the battery (¶’s [57-58]; the calculation of the SOH of battery 2 considers the AhExpected_Input = AhBOL which is the nominal/expected ampere-hours to be drawn).
With respect to claim 6, Gu teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Gu teaches wherein the measured battery-related parameter is a battery voltage (¶ [47]; the battery-related parameters used include the battery pack voltage and the battery cell voltage).
With respect to claim 7, Gu teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Gu teaches wherein the measured battery-related parameter is a number of hours that the battery has been charged to obtain the current charge (abstract; the charge time is accounted for from a first time point to a second time point and evident as hours in the ampere-hour factor of equation 1 of the actual charge).
With respect to claim 10, Gu teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 9. Further, Gu teaches the battery monitoring device comprising an input device configured to obtain the measured battery-related parameter from an electrically powered transportation device, and an output device configured to send the remaining driving distance to the electrically powered transportation device (Fig. 1; BMS 1 comprises sensing unit 10 which obtains an input from the battery-related parameters of the vehicle’s battery and communication unit 60 outputs the SOC and SOH [i.e., the distance to empty] to the ECU 7 for driving the electric vehicle, see ¶’s [47-48]).
However, Gu fails to explicitly teach the electrically powered mobility device.
Jung teaches the electrically powered mobility device (Fig. 1; electric wheelchair 100).
An electric mobility device functions exactly like an electric vehicle because it uses a motor to move people, requires steering, and obeys the same basic rules of motion. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply Gu’s method of estimating a driving distance available from a current charge of a battery to Jung’s electric powered mobility device, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu, Jung and Shi, and further in view of Ozaki (USPGPN 20130341109).
With respect to claim 2, Gu teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Gu teaches determining actual transferred ampere hours based on the transferred ampere hours (¶ [47, 57]; sensing unit 10 passes the measured current to MCU 20 for calculating the SOH based on the actual charged amount [i.e., AhActual_Input in equation 1]. One of ordinary skill understands the calculated/measured current using current sensor 3 and sensing unit 10 correlates to the actual transferred ampere hours/current).
Gu teaches wherein determining the state of health of the battery based on the state of charge and the transferred ampere hours of the battery further includes determining the state of health of the battery based on the state of charge and the actual transferred ampere hours of the battery (¶ [57]; equation 1 shows the SOH [i.e., aging] is calculated based on the actual ampere-hour transferred by the battery 2).
However, Gu fails to explicitly teach the electrically powered mobility device; the consumed ampere hours; and determining a power-on time which is a first amount of time the electrically powered transportation device has been powered on since the current charge, and a motor active time which is a second amount of time motors of the electrically powered transportation device have been active since the current charge.
Jung teaches the electrically powered mobility device (Fig. 1; electric wheelchair 100).
An electric mobility device functions exactly like an electric vehicle because it uses a motor to move people, requires steering, and obeys the same basic rules of motion. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply Gu’s method of estimating a driving distance available from a current charge of a battery to Jung’s electric powered mobility device, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious.
However, Gu fails to explicitly teach the consumed ampere hours; and determining a power-on time which is a first amount of time the electrically powered transportation device has been powered on since the current charge, and a motor active time which is a second amount of time motors of the electrically powered transportation device have been active since the current charge.
Shi teaches consumed ampere hours (¶[02]; driving distance estimation is derived from consumed energy kWh. One of ordinary skill understands consumed energy is derived from consumed ampere hours using the formula kWh = V x Ah).
Shi is directed towards estimating driving range based on the energy consumption of the vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to have adapted Shi’s consideration of the energy consumed to Gu’s method of estimating a driving distance. The advantage of this improving the accurate vehicle information provided to the driver (see ¶[07] of Shi) thus increasing efficiency, safety outcomes, and increased decision making.
However, Gu fails to explicitly teach determining a power-on time which is a first amount of time the electrically powered transportation device has been powered on since the current charge, and a motor active time which is a second amount of time motors of the electrically powered transportation device have been active since the current charge.
Ozaki teaches determining a power-on time which is a first amount of time the electrically powered transportation device has been powered on since the current charge (¶ [11]; teaches a non-traveling time of the vehicle in which the electric power supply of the vehicle is applied during start up. One of ordinary skill understands this to be a first time).
Ozaki teaches a motor active time which is a second amount of time motors of the electrically powered transportation device have been active since the current charge (¶ [16]; the traveling time is the time when current flows to the drive motor. One of ordinary skill understands this to be a second time).
Estimating driving distance based on motor running time is critical because the battery uses energy even when the vehicle is stopped but turned on. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply Ozaki’s time vehicle start time and motor run time determination method to Gu’s method of estimating a driving distance, in order to account for when the vehicle is stopped however consuming battery energy via auxiliary devices and when the vehicle is actively moving. The advantage of this being reliability of the electric vehicle is increased by accounting for non-traveling time and travel time of the vehicle (see ¶[23] of Ozaki).
With respect to claim 4, Gu teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 2. Further, Gu teaches wherein the state of health is determined based on a ratio between the actual transferred ampere hours and a second state of charge at full charge minus the state of charge that is determined and multiplied by nominal ampere hours of the battery (¶’s [57-59]; equation 1 may be expressed as Ahaged = AhActual_Input / (ΔSOCref1->ref2 * AhBOL) meaning the ampere-hours corresponding to the SOH of battery 2 is determined based on a ratio between the actual ampere-hours divided by the difference between a full SOC and the SOC calculated times the nominal/expected ampere hours).
However, Gu fails to explicitly teach the consumed ampere hours.
Shi teaches consumed ampere hours (¶[02]; driving distance estimation is derived from consumed energy kWh. One of ordinary skill understands consumed energy is derived from consumed ampere hours using the formula kWh = V x Ah).
Shi is directed towards estimating driving range based on the energy consumption of the vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to have adapted Shi’s consideration of the energy consumed to Gu’s method of estimating a driving distance. The advantage of this improving the accurate vehicle information provided to the driver (see ¶[07] of Shi) thus increasing efficiency, safety outcomes, and increased decision making.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu, Jung and Shi, and further in view of Yang (Chinese Patent CN-110406427-A, identified by the applicant in the IDS).
With respect to claim 5, Gu teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 3.
First, the examiner notes that the applicant on page 13 defines the “average power consumption” limitation with Ah/m units and not watts so that remaining distance is defined by the following equation D=(SOC*SOH*Cap_rated)/(Cap_average/average_distance).
However, Gu fails to explicitly teach estimating the remaining driving distance that the electrically powered mobility device can travel with the current charge based on the state of charge and the state of health further includes by multiplying the state of charge with the state of health and with the nominal ampere hours of the battery to obtain a product which is divided by an average power consumption of the battery.
Yang teaches estimating the remaining driving distance that the electrically powered mobility device can travel with the current charge based on the state of charge and the state of health further includes by multiplying the state of charge with the state of health and with the nominal ampere hours of the battery to obtain a product which is divided by an average power consumption of the battery (Distance is defined using the formula D = (SOC * SOH * average_distance / SOC_average), see ¶’s [23, 65]. One of ordinary skill in the art understands the distance formula of Yang is equivalent to the distance formula claimed by the applicant without the extra step of including the capacity).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Gu by adding the features disclosed by Yang. The advantage of this modification being the differences in driving range caused by driving conditions and driving habits have good adaptability and robustness so that the current remaining mileage of the vehicle can be more accurately estimated (in ¶ [71] of Yang).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu, Jung and Shi, and further in view of Szubbocsev (USPGPN 20190294173; identified by the applicant in the IDS).
With respect to claim 8, Gu teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1.
However, Gu fails to explicitly teach generating a filtered state of health by filtering the state of health, wherein estimating the remaining driving distance that the electrically powered mobility device can travel with the current charge based on the state of charge and the state of health further includes estimating the remaining driving distance that the electrically powered mobility device can travel with the current charge based on the state of charge and the filtered state of health.
Szubbocsev teaches generating a filtered state of health by filtering the state of health, wherein estimating the remaining driving distance that the electrically powered transportation device can travel with the current charge based on the state of charge and the state of health further includes estimating the remaining driving distance that the electrically powered transportation device can travel with the current charge based on the state of charge and the filtered state of health (¶ [63]; abstract; teach the SOC and the historical SOH values are accounted for when estimating the remaining distance of the electric vehicle).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Gu by adding the features disclosed by Szubbocsev. The advantage of this modification being the electrically powered mobility device may be operated in a more efficient and power saving mode to increase the distance of operation based on occupant desires to travel to a predetermined destination (in ¶ [28] of Szubbocsev).
However, Gu fails to explicitly teach the electrically powered mobility device.
Jung teaches an electrically powered mobility device (Fig. 1; electric wheelchair 100).
An electric mobility device functions exactly like an electric vehicle because it uses a motor to move people, requires steering, and obeys the same basic rules of motion. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply Gu’s method of estimating a driving distance available from a current charge of a battery to Jung’s electric powered mobility device, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious.
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu (USPGPN 20120256599; identified by the applicant in the IDS), in view of Jung (Korean Patent KR-101936077-B1), further in view of Shi et al. (Chinese Patent CN-106427579-A; identified by the applicant in the IDS), and further in view of Kim et al. (Korean Patent KR-20190087231-A).
With respect to independent claims 11 and 14, Gu teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 9. Further, Gu teaches an electrically powered transportation device comprising a battery (Fig 1; battery 2 of an electric vehicle, see ¶’s [03, 38]).
Gu teaches a battery parameter measurement unit configured to measure a battery-related parameter of the battery (Fig. 1; current sensor 3 measures a battery-related parameter of the battery, see ¶ [41]).
Gu teaches a battery monitoring device comprising processing circuitry, and storage medium (Fig. 1; BMS 1 comprising MCU 20 and storage 50, see ¶’s [47-48]).
Gu teaches wherein the storage medium comprises a computer program which when executed by the processing circuitry, causes the battery monitoring device to perform the method (Fig. 1; storage 50 stores software executed by MCU 20 to perform the steps of the method, see ¶’s [68, 71]).
Gu teaches method of estimating a remaining driving distance available from a current charge of a battery of an electrically powered transportation device (Fig. 4; a method for estimating the distance to empty [i.e., the driving distance available] of an electric vehicle, see ¶’s [3, 19, 67]. The method for calculating the distance to empty takes into consideration the battery’s actual charge, see ¶’s [26-27]).
Gu teaches receiving, with processing circuitry, electronic information from an ampere meter of the electrically powered transportation device, the electronic information indicating transferred ampere hours of the battery (¶ [41, 47, 57]; a current sensor 3 outputs an analog current signal corresponding to the measured current which is transmitted to the MCU 20 for use in calculating AhActual_Input transferred to the battery 2).
Gu teaches determining, with the processing circuitry a state of charge of the battery based on a measured battery-related parameter that is distinct from the transferred ampere hours (¶ [47]; the MCU 20 calculates the SOC of the battery 2 based on battery-related parameters such as the battery pack voltage and the battery cell voltage which are distinct from the AhActual_Input transferred).
Gu teaches determining, with the processing circuitry, a state of health of the battery based on the state of charge and the transferred ampere hours of the battery (¶ [57]; the SOH calculation unit 23 calculates the SOH of the battery 2 taking into consideration the SOC of the battery and the actual ampere-hour transferred by the battery as seen in equation 1).
Gu teaches estimating, with the processing circuitry, the remaining driving distance that the electrically powered transportation device can travel with the current charge based on the state of charge and the state of health (¶’s [47, 57]; the distance to empty of the vehicle with the current charge is calculated based on the SOH and the SOC of the battery).
Gu teaches an input device configured to obtain the measured battery-related parameter from the electrically powered transportation device, and an output device configured to send the remaining driving distance to the electrically powered transportation device (Fig. 1; BMS 1 comprises sensing unit 10 which obtains an input from the battery-related parameters of the vehicle’s battery and communication unit 60 outputs the SOC and SOH [i.e., the distance to empty] to the ECU 7 for driving the electric vehicle, see ¶’s [47-48]).
However, Gu fails to explicitly teach an electrically powered mobility device; consumed ampere hours; and a communications unit configured to send the measured battery-related parameter wirelessly to the battery monitoring device, and to receive the remaining driving distance from the battery monitoring device.
Jung teaches an electrically powered mobility device (Fig. 1; electric wheelchair 100).
An electric mobility device functions exactly like an electric vehicle because it uses a motor to move people, requires steering, and obeys the same basic rules of motion. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply Gu’s method of estimating a driving distance available from a current charge of a battery to Jung’s electric powered mobility device, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious.
However, Gu fails to explicitly teach the consumed ampere hours; and a communications unit configured to send the measured battery-related parameter wirelessly to the battery monitoring device, and to receive the remaining driving distance from the battery monitoring device.
Shi teaches consumed ampere hours (¶[02]; driving distance estimation is derived from consumed energy kWh. One of ordinary skill understands consumed energy is derived from consumed ampere hours using the formula kWh = V x Ah).
Shi is directed towards estimating driving range based on the energy consumption of the vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to have adapted Shi’s consideration of the energy consumed to Gu’s method of estimating a driving distance. The advantage of this improving the accurate vehicle information provided to the driver (see ¶[07] of Shi) thus increasing efficiency, safety outcomes, and increased decision making.
However, Gu fails to explicitly teach a communications unit configured to send the measured battery-related parameter wirelessly to the battery monitoring device, and to receive the remaining driving distance from the battery monitoring device.
Kim teaches a communications unit configured to send the measured battery-related parameter wirelessly to the battery monitoring device, and to receive the remaining driving distance from the battery monitoring device (¶ [21]; the communication unit of the electric wheelchair can transmit the remaining battery level and the driving distance wirelessly to a smartphone).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Gu and Jung by adding the features disclosed by Kim. The advantage of this modification being the communication unit is synchronized with a cellular phone and an operation unit is displayed on the screen through an application executed in the mobile phone. Further, the maximum travelable distance may be calculated according to travel conditions such as the travel speed, by calculating the remaining amount of the wheelchair battery and knowing the travelable distance in advance (in ¶’s [46 and 49] of Kim).
With respect to claim 12, Gu teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 11. However, Gu fails to explicitly teach comprising a display configured to display the remaining driving distance.
Jung teaches comprising a display configured to display the remaining driving distance (Figs. 1-2; display device 150 displays the calculated movable distance of the electric wheelchair 100, see ¶ [24]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Gu by replacing the features disclosed by Jung. The advantage of this modification being the safety and convenience of the user is increased by warning the user when the remaining power is not enough to drive the minimum possible distance (in ¶ [66] of Jung).
With respect to claim 13, Gu teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 11. However, Gu fails to explicitly teach wherein the electrically powered mobility device is a wheelchair.
Jung teaches wherein the electrically powered mobility device is a wheelchair (Fig. 1; electric wheelchair 100).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Gu by replacing the features disclosed by Jung. The advantage of this modification being the safety and convenience of the user is increased by warning the user when the remaining power is not enough to drive the minimum possible distance (in ¶ [66] of Jung).
Claims 15-16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu, Jung, Shi, and Yang and further in view of Chrisvw (“Miles per Amp Hour.” Chrisvw. Endless Sphere DIY EV Forum, Endless Sphere DIY EV Forum, 1 July 2010, endless-sphere.com/sphere/threads/miles-per-amp-hour.19488/#:~:text=The%20most%20common%20measures%20are%20watt%20hours,accurately%20representative%20of%20your%20system%27s%20power%20usage).
With respect to claim 15, Gu teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 5. However, Gu fails to explicitly teach wherein the average power consumption is expressed in a ratio of ampere hours divided by a distance unit.
Chrisvw teaches wherein the average power consumption is expressed in a ratio of ampere hours divided by a distance unit (The forum discusses expressing power consumption as a ratio of ampere hours divided by a distance unit, see entry # 4 in page 2 for example wherein the values discussed appear to be average in nature).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply Chrisvw manner of measuring using ampere hours divided by distance to Gu’s method, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to employ/use a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, products) in the same way is obvious.
With respect to claim 16, Gu teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 15. However, Gu fails to explicitly teach wherein the distance unit is meters.
Chrisvw teaches wherein the distance unit is meters (The forum includes discussions which account for the metric system distance measurement such as kilometer, see entry # 9 in page 3 and entry # 11 in page 5 for example).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply Chrisvw manner of measuring using ampere hours divided by distance to Gu’s method, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to employ/use a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, products) in the same way is obvious.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Frank A Silva whose telephone number is (703)756-1698. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 09:30 am -06:30 pm ET.
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, Drew Dunn can be reached at 571-272-2312. 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.
/FRANK ALEXIS SILVA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/NATHANIEL R PELTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights