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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1-2, 4-9, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Juan (US-20130057182-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Juan teaches an electric moving body (Paras. [0001]- [0002] teach a vehicle with an electric motorization system) that includes:
a vehicle body (Para. [0100] teaches a chassis); and
a drive source (Motor 9, Fig. 3) configured to output a driving force that enables the vehicle body to travel (Para. [0100]);
the electric moving body comprising:
a main body battery (Power Battery 5, Fig. 3) configured to be installed on the vehicle body (Para. [0100] teaches Case 1 being mounted to a chassis of a vehicle and Fig. 3 illustrates Power Battery 5 being disposed in Case 1); and
one or more processors (Converter 2 and Central Control Unit 7, Fig. 3) that execute computer-executable instructions stored in a memory (control units being understood to execute computer-executable instructions stored in a memory by those in the art; see also descriptions of its operation in at least Paras. [0073] & [0091]), wherein the one or more processors (2 & 7) execute the computer-executable instructions to cause the electric moving body to supply electrical power of a user battery (Para. [0083] and Fig. 3 teach an Energy Battery 4 that is removeable and rechargeable- the removing, charging, and replacing being understood to be carried out by a user of the system such that it is considered a user battery) provided by a user of the electric moving body to the main body battery (Para. [0073] teaches Energy Battery 4 charging Power Battery 5 through Central Control Unit 7, and Para. [0083] teaches Energy Battery 4 being removeable and replaceable such that it is understood that it would be replaced- i.e. provided- by a user).
Further, the examiner notes that the clause “provided by the user of the electric moving body” is considered to be intended use as it is a recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed and thus is given no patentable weight because recitations of intended use of the claimed invention do not result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. See MPEP 2114. In this case the electric moving body of Juan teaches all of the claimed structural limitations as discussed above and, the battery being removable, it is understood to be structurally capable of being provided by a user of the moving body.
Regarding Claim 2, Juan further teaches that:
the vehicle body is equipped with a holder (Base 3, Fig. 3) configured to detachably retain the user battery (Para. [0070] teaches the Base 3 removably holding Energy Battery 4); and
the holder (3) includes a step-up type DC/DC converter (Converter 2, Fig.; taught as step-up in Para. [0080]) configured to boost an input voltage that is input from a retained user battery (Para. [0083] teaches an Energy Battery 4 that is removeable and rechargeable- these removing, charging, and replacing being understood to be carried out by a user of the system such that it is considered a user battery; Para. [0080] teaches that the voltage of the Energy Battery 4 may be boosted to match the voltage of a Power Battery 5).
Regarding Claim 4, Juan further teaches that the one or more processors (2 & 7) cause the electric moving body to supply the electrical power of the user battery (4) to the drive source (9), in accordance with a state of the main body battery (5) and a state of the user battery (Para. [0073] teaches providing power from the Energy Battery 4 to the Motor 9 via Power Battery 5 based on a detected state of charge of the Power Battery).
Regarding Claim 5, Juan further teaches that:
in a case that a required electrical power for the drive source is greater than a predetermined value, the one or more processors (2 & 7) cause the electric moving body to simultaneously supply to the drive source (9) the electrical power of the main body battery (5) and the electrical power of the user battery (Para. [0073] teaches the output current of Energy Battery 4 being set to an average consumption level of the system over time, and Para. [0082] teaches that Power Battery 5 provides power when the demand of the system exceeds the instantaneous capacity of the Energy Battery 4, such that it is understood that the two batteries provide power simultaneously when the instantaneous demand of the system exceeds a predetermined capacity of the Energy Battery); and
in a case that the required electrical power is greater than zero and less than or equal to the predetermined value, the one or more processors (2 & 7) cause the electric moving body to stop supply of electrical power from the main body battery (5) to the drive source (9), and only supplies the electrical power of the user battery (4) to the drive source (Para. [0082] teaches that the energy supplied to the Motor 9 is taken from the Energy Battery 4, such that it is understood that when the required electrical power is within the predetermined capacity of the Energy Battery 4, power is supplied from it instead of Power Battery 5).
Regarding Claim 6, Juan further teaches that, in a case that the required electrical power is less than or equal to the predetermined value, the one or more processors (2 & 7) cause the electric moving body to supply the electrical power of the user battery (4) to the main body battery (5), and thereby charges the main body battery (Para. [0082] teaches that the Energy Battery 4 charges the Power Battery 5 when the required electrical power is within the predetermined capacity of the Energy Battery 4).
Regarding Claim 7, Juan further teaches that the one or more processors (2 & 7) cause the electric moving body to maintain the electrical power output from the user battery (4) at a constant output value (Para. [0073] teaches that the Energy Battery 4 outputs power at a level to match an average power consumption of the system, the level understood to be constant).
Regarding Claim 8, Juan further teaches that, in a case that the required electrical power is less than or equal to the output value, the one or more processors cause the electric moving body to supply from the user battery (4) to the main body battery (5) a differential electrical power obtained by subtracting the required electrical power from the output value (Para. [0073] teaches that the Energy Battery 4 outputs power at a level to match an average power consumption of the system, which is normally higher than the instantaneous power consumed by the Motor 9, the differential being used to charger the Power Battery 5).
Regarding Claim 9, Juan further teaches that the one or more processors cause the electric moving body to set the output value in accordance with a residual battery level of the main body battery (Para. [0075] teaches charging or not charging Power Battery 5 based on a detected state of charge of the Power Battery 5, such that the output of Energy Battery 4 is at least partially determined by the residual battery level of Power Battery 5).
Regarding Claim 17, Juan further teaches that:
the user battery (4) is either one of a battery of an electronic device possessed by the user or a mobile battery possessed by the user, or alternatively, a shared battery that is rented by the user (Para. [0083] and Fig. 3 teach an Energy Battery 4 that is removeable and rechargeable, and therefore considered mobile- the removing, charging, and replacing being understood to be carried out by a user of the system such that it is considered a user battery that is possessed by the user; the Energy Battery 4 is further considered an electronic device as Para. [0072] teaches that it comprises a battery and electronic protection functions such as short-circuit protection; see also the discussion of ‘intended use’ in the 102 rejection of claim 1).
Regarding Claim 18, Juan teaches an electric moving body with substantially the same features as that of claim 1 (see the 102 rejection of claim 1 above for the teachings of Juan) and further teaches that the one or more processors (2 & 7) execute the computer-executable instructions to cause the electric moving body to simultaneously supply to the drive source (9) both an electrical power of a user battery (4) provided by a user of the electric moving body, and an electrical power of the main body battery (5), and to thereby drive the drive source (Para. [0073] teaches the output current of Energy Battery 4 being set to an average consumption level of the system over time, and Para. [0082] teaches that Power Battery 5 provides power when the demand of the system exceeds the instantaneous capacity of the Energy Battery 4, such that it is understood that the two batteries provide power simultaneously when the instantaneous demand of the system exceeds a predetermined capacity of the Energy Battery).
Regarding Claim 19, Juan teaches a sharing system configured to enable an electric moving body to be shared by a plurality of users, wherein the electric moving body comprises substantially the same features as that of claim 1 (see the 102 rejection of claim 1 above for the teachings of Juan)
Further, the examiner notes that the clauses “A sharing system configured to enable an electric moving body to be shared by a plurality of users” and “provided by the user who has rented the electric moving body” are considered to be intended use as they are recitations with respect to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed and thus are given no patentable weight because recitations of intended use of the claimed invention do not result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. See MPEP 2114. In this case the electric moving body of Juan teaches all of the claimed structural limitations (see the 102 rejection of claim 1 above) and would be capable of being shared or rented to a plurality of users and, the battery being removable (see the 102 rejection of claim 1 above), it is understood to be structurally capable of being provided by a user who had rented the moving body.
Regarding Claim 20, Juan further teaches that:
the user battery is a battery of an electronic device possessed by each of the users (Para. [0083] and Fig. 3 teach an Energy Battery 4 that is removeable and rechargeable, the removing, charging, and replacing being understood to be carried out by a user of the system such that it is considered a user battery that is possessed by the user; the Energy Battery 4 is further considered an electronic device as Para. [0072] teaches that it comprises a battery and electronic protection functions such as short-circuit protection; see also the discussion of ‘intended use’ in the 102 rejections of claims 1 and 19); and
the vehicle body includes a holder (Base 3, Fig. 3) configured to detachably retain the electronic device (Para. [0070] teaches the Base 3 removably holding Energy Battery 4).
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.
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 3 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Juan in view of HAYSLETT (US-20160250937-A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Juan does not teach a data map configured to set an output voltage based on an input voltage of the user battery.
HAYSLETT teaches, in another electric bicycle (Abstract), acquiring an input voltage of a user battery (LV Battery SOC, in the table illustrated in Para. [0029] and associated with Secondary Battery 30 68, and 112, Para. [0028], where SOC (state of charge) is considered to correspond with a battery’s voltage), refer to a data map (the table illustrated in Para. [0029]) configured to associate an output (DC/DC State…, in the aforementioned table) with a plurality of the input voltages of the user battery (LV).
HAYSLETT further teaches that the control scheme discussed above advantageously ensures an efficient utilization of a primary and a secondary battery (Para. [0028]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Juan and HAYSLETT in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Juan’s electric moving body to include a data map configured to set an output voltage based on an input voltage of a user battery as suggested by HAYSLETT. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of efficient utilization of a primary and a secondary battery as taught by HAYSLETT and discussed above that would beneficially make a longer lasting device. It would have further been obvious to set a boost amount of the DC/DC convertor based on a detected voltage and/ or SOC of a battery in order to output a constant voltage which would beneficially make a better operating system.
Regarding Claim 10, Juan does not teach to stop supplying the electrical power of the user battery based on a stop threshold value.
HAYSLETT teaches that the one or more processors (154) cause an electric moving body to stop supplying electrical power of a secondary battery (Secondary Battery 136, Fig. 6), in a case that a residual battery level of the secondary battery (136) is less than or equal to a stop threshold value (Para. [0034] teaches a Forth Step 162 of comparing a state of charge of Secondary Battery 136 to a Predetermined Programmable Value ZZZ and, if the state of charge is lower than the Predetermined Programmable Value ZZZ, switching to using power from a Primary Battery 134).
The stop threshold value (ZZZ) of HAYSLETT is configured such that it can be set by the user (Predetermined Programmable Value ZZZ being described as programmable in Para. [0034]; note these teachings relate to claim 11 as discussed below).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Juan and HAYSLETT in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Juan’s electric moving body such that the delivery of electrical power from the user battery is stopped based on a stop threshold value as suggested by HAYSLETT. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of maintaining a charge of a user’s battery that would beneficially make a more user-friendly device.
Regarding Claim 11, Juan, as modified above by HAYSLETT, teaches all limitations (see the 103 rejection of claim 10 above for the teachings of HAYSLETT and motivation to combine them with Juan’s electric moving body).
Claims 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Juan in view of HINES (US-20180194421-A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Juan does not teach supplying the electrical power of the main body battery to the user battery.
HINES teaches, in another electric moving body (a bicycle with battery system being described in the Abstract), one or more processors (taught in the Abstract) which cause an electric moving body to charge a user battery by supplying electrical power from a main body battery to the user battery (a user’s smartphone being charged by an integral battery as taught in the Abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Juan and HINES in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Juan’s electric moving body such that the main body battery of supplies electrical power to the user battery as suggested by HINES. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of maintaining a charge of a user’s battery that would beneficially make a more user-friendly device.
Regarding Claim 13, Juan does not teach authenticating a user.
HINES teaches that the one or more processors cause the electric moving body to authenticate the user of the electric moving body, by acquiring battery identification information from the user battery that is installed on the vehicle body, and determining whether the acquired battery identification information coincides with registration identification information that is registered beforehand (Para. [0009] teaches checking the identity of a connected smartphone for unauthorized use; Paras. [0057]- [0058] teach registering a smartphone to the system).
HINES further teaches that authenticating a smartphone advantageously may deter theft of the device (Para. [0027]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Juan and HINES in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Juan’s electric moving body to include authenticating a user as suggested by HINES. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of deterring theft of the device as taught by HINES and discussed above that would beneficially make a more secure device.
Regarding Claim 14, Juan does not teach a vehicle lock mechanism.
HINES teaches a vehicle lock mechanism configured to switch between a locked state and an unlocked state and further teaches that the locking mechanism advantageously may deter theft (Para. [0018]);
in the locked state, in a case that the user is authenticated, the one or more processors cause the electric moving body to transition to the unlocked state (Para. [0020]), whereas, in a case that the user is not authenticated, the one or more processors cause the electric moving body to continue the locked state (Para. [0021]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Juan and HINES in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Juan’s electric moving body to include a vehicle lock mechanism as suggested by HINES. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of deterring theft of the device as taught by HINES and discussed above that would beneficially make a more secure device.
Regarding Claim 15, Juan does not teach supplying power to the drive source based on a user being authenticated.
HINES teaches authenticating a user and locking movement of the system (Paras. [0018]- [0021]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Juan and HINES in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Juan’s electric moving body such that power is supplied to the drive source based on a user being authenticated as suggested by HINES. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of deterring theft of the device as taught by HINES and discussed in the 103 rejection of claim 14 above that would beneficially make a more secure device.
Regarding Claim 16, Juan does not teach a detachment prevention mechanism.
HINES teaches a detachment prevention mechanism configured to prevent the user battery installed on the vehicle body from being detached in a case that the user has been authenticated (Para. [0506] teaches a docking station which would prevent an attached smartphone from being detached as it surrounds the smartphone, see Figs. 17 & 18).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Juan and HINES in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Juan’s electric moving body to include a detachment prevention mechanism as suggested by HINES. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of preventing a user’s device from falling of the vehicle that would beneficially make a more user-friendly device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYLER JAY STANLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-3329. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:30-5:30 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, Valentin Neacsu, Ph.D. can be reached at (571)272-6265. 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.
/TYLER JAY STANLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611