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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/06/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 01/06/2025 has been entered. Claims 11-24 were withdrawn. Claim 2 has been newly added. Claims 25-27 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 3-27 remain pending in this application. Applicant’s amendment to the drawings and claims have overcome the drawing objections and 35 USC § 112(a) rejections, as previously set forth in the Final Office action mailed on 10/06/2025.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/16/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6-10, 25-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ying (US Pub 2019/0143820) in view of Heichal et al. US Pub 2011/0297470 (hereinafter Heichal).
Regarding claim 1, Ying teaches a power storage device comprising:
a battery including a plurality of cells (¶ 0030; cells of the battery pack 26 of fig. 1); and
PNG
media_image1.png
900
1374
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a power storage control unit configured to control the battery (¶ 0019; the controller 50 is able to determine a maximum charging or discharging current and associated power capability of the battery pack 26),
wherein the power storage control unit includes an upper limit power acquisition unit configured to acquire, based on a state of the battery, an upper limit power value that indicates an upper limit of a power output from the battery or a power input to the battery (¶¶ 0025-0027, 0035; Calculation of the maximum current can be performed by the controller 50 at various states of charge and temperature of the battery pack 26),
wherein the power storage control unit is implemented via at least one processor (¶ 0019; the controller 50 can be programmed with computer-readable instructions embodying a method for determining a maximum charging or discharging current and associated power capability of the battery pack 26).
Ying fails to teach the power storage device comprising: a connector configured to be connected to a communication line provided in a power apparatus; wherein the power storage device is attachable to and detachable from the power apparatus to be electrically connectable to the power apparatus, wherein the power storage device further comprises an upper limit notification unit configured to transmit the upper limit power value acquired by the upper limit power acquisition unit to the power apparatus, wherein the upper limit notification unit is implemented via at least one processor.
However, Heichal discloses an electric vehicle includes a power storage device (fig. 4-7 and ¶¶ 0061-0065; battery pack 104) configured to be connected to a communication line provided in a power apparatus (¶ 0076; the BMS of the battery pack communicates with the vehicle onboard computer);
wherein the power storage device is attachable to and detachable from the power apparatus to be electrically connectable to the power apparatus (¶¶ 0008, 0127; the battery pack can be swapped or replaced);
wherein the power storage device further comprises an upper limit notification unit configured to transmit the upper limit power value acquired by the upper limit power acquisition unit to the power apparatus (¶ 0076; the BMS of the battery pack communicates with the vehicle onboard computer to report on the battery’s state of charge and to alert of any hazardous operating conditions [including excessive/in-excessive power limits in ¶ 0120]),
wherein the upper limit notification unit is implemented via at least one processor (¶0076; BMS is able to obtain data and communicate with the vehicle onboard computer to report on the battery’s SOC).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ying to incorporate with the teaching of Heichal by including battery swapping feature and having a battery management system (BMS) in the system, because it would be advantageous to reduce charging time and range anxiety, further the BMS alerts the vehicle of hazardous conditions in order to over-discharging the battery pack.
Regarding claim 3, Ying teaches the power storage device wherein: the power storage control unit further includes a required power acquisition unit configured to acquire a required power correlated with a power requirement of the power apparatus to the power storage device (claim 17; control an operating state of vehicle via control of the electric traction motor using the calculated power capability), and wherein the required power acquisition unit is implemented via at least one processor (¶ 0019).
Regarding claim 4, Ying teaches the power storage device further comprising: a power comparison unit configured to compare the required power acquired by the required power acquisition unit with the upper limit power value acquired by the upper limit power acquisition unit (¶¶ 0036, 0042); and
a power storage device protection unit that protects the battery from outputting a power exceeding the upper limit power value or from inputting a power exceeding the upper limit power value when the required power exceeds or is predicted to exceed the upper limit power value (¶¶ 0044, 0046-0048),
wherein the power comparison unit and the power storage device protection unit are each implemented via at least one processor (¶ 0019).
Regarding claim 6, Ying teaches the power storage device further comprising:
a power comparison unit configured to compare the required power acquired by the required power acquisition unit with the upper limit power value acquired by the upper limit power acquisition unit (¶¶ 0036, 0042; the predetermined maximum current can be pre-recorded in memory); and
a response unit that responds to the power apparatus to reduce the required power when the required power exceeds or is predicted to exceed the upper limit power value, wherein the power comparison unit and the response unit are each implemented via at least one processor (¶¶ 0048-0049).
Regarding claim 7, Ying teaches the power storage device wherein the required power acquisition unit is configured to acquire the required power based on a signal generated by an operation input unit that detects a user of the operation (¶¶ 0044-0045).
Regarding claim 8, Ying teaches the power storage device wherein the upper limit power acquisition unit is configured to acquire the upper limit power value based on a predetermined upper limit power map including a relationship between the state of the power storage unit battery and the upper limit power value (¶ 0035).
Regarding claim 9, Ying teaches the power storage device wherein the state of the battery includes a capacity state or a temperature state (¶ 0035).
Regarding claim 10, Ying teaches the power storage device further comprising: a housing, wherein the battery and the power storage control unit are accommodated in the housing (see fig. 1; inside a vehicle).
Regarding claim 25, Ying in view of Heichal teaches the power storage device further comprising: a housing, wherein the connector is accommodated in the housing (Heichal, fig. 1-6; the battery pack has a housing).
Regarding claim 26, Ying in view of Heichal teaches wherein the upper limit value is transmitted to an outside of the housing (¶ 0076 of Heichal; the BMS communicates with the vehicle onboard computer to report on the battery’s state of charge and to alert of any hazardous operating conditions).
Regarding claim 27, Ying in view of Heichal fails to teach wherein the power storage control unit and the upper limit notification unit are accommodated in the housing. Changing the location of the power storage control unit from the location shown by Ying in view of Heichal to a location in the same housing with the upper limit notification unit of Heichal, absent any criticality, is only considered to be an obvious modification of the Ying in view of Heichal device that a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be able to provide using routine experimentation since the courts have held that there is no invention in shifting the position if the operation of the device would not be thereby modified. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and MPEP 2144.04 VI.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ying in view of Heichal as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Kitanaka (US 2010/0076638).
Regarding claim 5, Ying in view of Heichal does not teach the power storage device further comprising: a switchgear disposed on a power transmission path between the battery and the power apparatus and being capable of blocking and connecting the power transmission path, wherein the power storage device protection unit blocks the power transmission path by the switchgear when the required power exceeds or is predicted to exceed the upper limit power value.
However, Kitanaka further discloses the power storage device further comprising: a switchgear disposed on a power transmission path between the battery and the motor and being capable of blocking and connecting the power transmission path, wherein the power storage device protection unit blocks the power transmission path by the switchgear when the required power exceeds or is predicted to exceed the upper limit power (Abstract and claim 13; an AC motor detected by a voltage detector is in an unbalanced state where the voltage exceeds a predetermined value, and turns an opening/closing unit OFF).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ying in view of Heichal to incorporate with the teaching of Kitanaka by including an opening/closing unit in the system, because it would be advantageous to prevent damage generated in the AC motor from becoming worse.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 13-16, filed 01/06/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 3, 4 and 6-10 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Heichal et al. US Pub 2011/0297470.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZIXUAN ZHOU whose telephone number is (571)272-6739. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am to 5:00 pm.
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, Taelor Kim can be reached at 571-270-7166. 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.
/ZIXUAN ZHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859 01/30/2026