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
The following is in response to the applicant’s remarks filed 1/16/26.
The applicant submits that the previous rejection is improper as the proposed combination lacks motivation, the teachings of Wang are not applicable to Huggins, and that the combination relies on hindsight bias.
The examiner respectfully disagrees, and the previous rejection is maintained. The sensor of Wang is an accelerometer. The sensor of Huggins is an accelerometer. Then, while it is true that the inventions of Wang and Huggins are not from the exact same field of endeavor, the teachings of Wang directed at the structures of the accelerometer are relevant to the problem being solved in Huggins (ie. measuring acceleration). One of ordinary skill in the art tackling problems related to acceleration would look to the same problem solved and consider other’s solving the same problem. Then, Wang is considered reasonably pertinent to the problem of Huggins.
Regarding the asserted lack of motivation, Wang teaches that the accelerometer is configured to achieve accurate and comprehensive acceleration detection [pg. 3 para. 3][pg. 2 para. 7]. Then, the motivation that it would have been obvious to combine the structure of the acceleration sensor of Wang into the battery of Huggins to have accurate and comprehensive acceleration measurement is sufficient. In any technology relying on acceleration and accelerometers one would appreciate the desire for accurate measurement.
Regarding the assertion of hindsight bias, the rejection relies on the above motivation which is derived from the teachings of the prior art. Then, the motivation does not require hindsight reconstruction from the instant application. Moreover, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
More generally, the limitation for an accelerometer which is mounted pivotably about a point of rotation in relation to a battery is considered obvious for the following: an accelerometer which is mounted pivotably about a point of rotation such that it can receive acceleration data is known, and mounting an accelerometer in relation to a battery is also known. Then, the invention as claimed is directed at applying structures of a known accelerometer to a known configuration (measuring acceleration relative to a battery).
A new basis for rejection appears below to address the newly added claims.
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 8 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huggins, EP3609048A1, and Wang, CN201804122U (translation attached for citations).
Regarding claim 8, Huggins teaches a rechargeable battery (battery pack (100)) comprising:
an apparatus for detecting a critical fall (accelerometer (210) which detects fall and impact)[0026][fig. 4];
a controller (controller (200))[0026][fig. 4]] having a discharging device (discharge controller (225)[0025]; and
at least one energy storage (energy storage cells (220))[0023][fig. 4];
the apparatus including at least one sensor for detecting an acceleration value in a predetermined direction (accelerometer determines acceleration in a direction)[0026],
control electronics configured to control at least one function of the rechargeable battery (controls charging and discharging)[0026] and
Huggins does not teach a fastener for the at least one sensor, the fastener configured such that the at least one sensor is mounted pivotably about a point of rotation in relation to the rechargeable battery and is kept in a predetermined spatial position in relation to the rechargeable battery when the rechargeable battery rotates about at least one axis of rotation.
Wang teaches an apparatus for including at least one sensor for detecting an acceleration value in a predetermined direction (seismograph containing accelerometers (5))[pg. 1 para. 5][pg. 2 para. 5] wherein a fastener for the at least one sensor (connecting rod (4))[pg. 2 par. 2][fig. 1], the fastener configured such that the at least one sensor is mounted pivotably about a point of rotation (accelerometers being positioned on support platform (6) and are suspended by connecting rod (4) which pivots about point (10))[pg. 3 para. 2 – 3 and 7].
Wang does not teach the sensor mounted pivotably about a point of rotation in relation to the rechargeable battery and the senor is kept in a predetermined spatial position in relation to the rechargeable battery when the rechargeable battery rotates about at least one axis of rotation.
However, the sensor of Huggins is mounted in relation to the battery and not configured to move in a spatial direction relative to the battery when the battery rotates (tool rotates). Then, the accelerometer of Wang when combined into the battery of Huggins meets these limitations.
Further, Wang teaches the accelerometer to achieve accurate and comprehensive acceleration detection [pg. 3 para. 3][pg. 2 para. 7]. Then, it would have been obvious to combine the structure of the acceleration sensor of Wang into the battery of Huggins to have accurate and comprehensive acceleration measurement.
Regarding claim 9, combined Huggins teaches the rechargeable battery as recited in claim 8
Further, Huggins teaches wherein the at least one energy storage is at least partially discharged by the discharging device if a predetermined acceleration threshold value is detected by the at least one sensor (control discharging based on fall condition)[0026].
Regarding claim 10, combined Huggins teaches the rechargeable battery as recited in claim 8.
Further, Huggins teaches wherein the control electronics or the controller is configured such that charging of the at least one energy storage with electrical energy is prevented if a predetermined acceleration threshold value is detected by the at least one sensor (control charging based on fall condition)[0026].
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huggins, EP3609048A1, and Condne, US4831879A.
Regarding claim 8, Huggins teaches a rechargeable battery (battery pack (100)) comprising:
an apparatus for detecting a critical fall (accelerometer (210) which detects fall and impact)[0026][fig. 4];
a controller (controller (200))[0026][fig. 4]] having a discharging device (discharge controller (225)[0025]; and
at least one energy storage (energy storage cells (220))[0023][fig. 4];
the apparatus including at least one sensor for detecting an acceleration value in a predetermined direction (accelerometer determines acceleration in a direction)[0026],
control electronics configured to control at least one function of the rechargeable battery (controls charging and discharging)[0026] and
Huggins does not teach a fastener for the at least one sensor, the fastener configured such that the at least one sensor is mounted pivotably about a point of rotation in relation to the rechargeable battery and is kept in a predetermined spatial position in relation to the rechargeable battery when the rechargeable battery rotates about at least one axis of rotation.
Condne teaches an apparatus for detecting a critical fall (sensor for detecting accident conditions)[col. 1 lin. 1 – 12] comprising a fastener (mounting element (13)) for the at least one sensor (seismic mass (15))[fig. 1], the fastener configured such that the at least one sensor is mounted pivotably about a point of rotation (mounted as a pendulum) in relation to the target object (vehicle)[col. 1 lin. 10 – 30] and is kept in a predetermined spatial position in relation to the target object when the target object rotates about at least one axis of rotation (mounted such that it can determine rotational deviation)[col. 1 lin. 20 – 25]. Further, Condne teaches the apparatus (sensor) to be easily manufactured at a low cost [col. 4 lin. 12 – 17]. Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the sensor of Condne into the battery of Huggins to simplify manufacturing and reduce cost.
Regarding claim 16, combined Huggins teaches rechargeable battery as recited in claim 8
Further, Condne teaches wherein the apparatus includes a frame (housing (10)) with a frame interior space (chamber (12)), and the controller includes a printed circuit board (control circuit (36)) fastened on an underside [fig. 1]
Further, Huggins teaches in the frame interior space (controller (200) having circuits (130) within housing (105))[0012][fig. 3].
Claims 11 – 15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huggins, EP3609048A1, and Condne, US4831879A as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Chappell, US20100024550A1.
Regarding claim 11, combined Huggins teaches rechargeable battery as recited in claim 8
Further, Condne teaches wherein the apparatus includes a carrier (mass (15)) connected to the fastener (13)
Condne does not teach the carrier having an interior space wherein the sensor being securely fastened in the interior space.
Chappell teaches an apparatus for detecting a critical fall (inertial measurement unit)[0003] wherein the spherical carrier (upper and lower case (120)(130))[fig. 1] having an interior space [fig. 2] wherein the sensor (130) being securely fastened in the interior space [fig. 3][0034]. Further, Chappell teaches the configuration wherein the sensor is disposed within an internal space of a spherical carrier allows for reduced cost and high reliability [0020][0022]. Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the sensor placement of Chappell in to the carrier of Condne to improve reliability and cost.
Regarding claim 12, combined Huggins teaches rechargeable battery as recited in claim 11
Further, Condne teaches wherein the carrier is a sphere (mass (15) is spherically shaped)[fig. 1]
Regarding claim 13, combined Huggins teaches rechargeable battery as recited in claim 11
Condne does not teach wherein the apparatus includes a weight attached to an underside of the carrier.
However, Condne teaches the weight of the carrier (size of mass (15)) is designed in relationship with the forces being measured [col. 3 lin. 15 – 25]. Then, the addition of a weight to the underside of the carrier is considered to be an obvious change in size within the skill of an ordinary artisan.
Regarding claim 14, combined Huggins teaches rechargeable battery as recited in claim 11
Further, Condne teaches wherein the fastener (13) is a rod with a first end and a second end [fig. 1] the apparatus includes an elastic coupler (string (14)) between the second end and the carrier [fig. 1].
Regarding claim 15, combined Huggins teaches rechargeable battery as recited in claim 14
Further, Condne teaches wherein the carrier is a sphere (mass (15) is spherically shaped)[fig. 1]
Regarding claim 17, combined Huggins teaches rechargeable battery as recited in claim 11
Further, Condne teaches wherein the fastener (13) is a rod with a first end and a second end and the apparatus includes a frame (10) with a frame interior space (12) and the fastener is fastened to the first end, and the carrier (15) is fastened on the second end [fig. 1].
Regarding claim 18, combined Huggins teaches rechargeable battery as recited in claim 17
Further, Condne teaches wherein the first end is movably fastened to an upper side of the frame (10) so that the carrier is freely oscillatable in the frame interior space (fastened such that the mass (15) is oscillatable in the chamber (12))[fig. 1][col. 1 lin. 25 – 30].
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 PATRICK M GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-1340. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at (571)270-5256. 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.
/PATRICK MARSHALL GREENE/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724