DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The following is a FINAL OFFICE ACTION in response to applicant’s amendments to and response for Application #18/043,364, filed on 06/08/2026.
Claims 4-6, 10-12, and 18-25 are now pending and have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 4-5, 10-11, and 18-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sohmshetty, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2020/0164760 A1 (hereby “Sohm”) in view of Reeves, Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0031645 A1 and in further view of Nakajima, et al., WIPO Publication WO 2019/181702 A1 (PDF’s of original document and machine translation included with this Office Action).
Regarding Claims 4, 10, 18, and 19, Sohm teaches:
An exchange device that is configured to house mobile batteries and that, when one of the mobile batteries is returned, lends out another one of the mobile batteries that are housed therein (see Figures 10 and 12 and at least [0071] and [0131]-[0135] in which the charging stations also house multiple charged batteries, and the renter can return their depleted battery to a charging station and acquire a new battery, the exchange device comprising:
a return processing section configured to acquire a deterioration degree of the one of the returned mobile batteries that is returned at a time of lending (see [0131]-[0135] in which the stored data regarding the deterioration degree at the time of rental is compared to the current deterioration degree)
a lending processing section configured to determine at a time when the one of the mobile batteries is returned, a deterioration degree of the one of the mobile batteries at the time of lending, that is acquired by the return processing section (see [0130]-[0131] and [0133]-[0136] in which a vehicle returns a rental battery and the system identifies another battery to be lent out from among the available batteries; see also [0133]-[0136] in which a battery is returned and the degree of deterioration is compared to the degree at the time of lending and the system determines whether the battery is still available for further rental) and whether or not a mobile battery available to be lent out exists among the plurality of mobile batteries housed in the exchange device (see [0130]-[0131] and [0133]-[0136] in which a vehicle returns a rental battery and the system identifies another battery to be lent out from among the available batteries)
Sohm, however, does not appear to specify:
each of the mobile batteries includes a storage section configured to store a deterioration degree of the mobile battery at a time of lending (claim 10 only)
a lending processing section configured to determine based on the deterioration degree of the one of the mobile batteries, that is acquired by the return processing section, whether or not a mobile battery available to be lent out exists among the plurality of mobile batteries housed in the exchange device
Reeves teaches:
each of the mobile batteries includes a storage section configured to store a deterioration degree of the mobile battery at a time of lending (see at least [0038]-[0040] in which the battery pack stores and shares data regarding battery wear, usage, and other data)
a lending processing section configured to determine based on the deterioration degree of the one of the mobile batteries, that is acquired by the return processing section, whether or not a mobile battery available to be lent out exists among the plurality of mobile batteries housed in the exchange device (see [0057]-[0059] and [0062]-[0063] in which returned rented batteries are analyzed for wear/deterioration to know how much charge is left and what rentals the battery is suitable for at that point based on the amount of wear)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing of the application to combine Reeves with Sohm because Sohm already teaches determining power usage and deterioration of the battery as well as storage of such data in the user account, and the battery storing the data would allow for instant access to the data by any replacement device even if the network is unavailable or if the device has limited or no access or association with the system database. It would also be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing of the application to combine Reeves with Sohm because Sohm already teaches determining deterioration and selecting of replacement rental batteries from among multiple options based on deterioration, and analyzing the current returned battery as a basis for further decisions would ensure that the person swapping batteries gets an adequate battery and the returned battery is also used for appropriate purposes relative to their remaining charge.
**The examiner notes that the steps performed by the device are the same as those recited being performed by the method claim and by the program stored in the medium, and therefore the reference is determined to read upon claims 18 and 19 as well)
Sohm and Reeves, however, does not appear to specify:
a lending processing section configured to determine at a time when the one of the mobile batteries is returned, based on the deterioration degree of the one of the mobile batteries at the time of lending, whether or not a mobile battery available to be lent out exists among the mobile batteries housed in the exchange device
Sohm, however, teaches a lending processing section configured to determine at a time when the one of the mobile batteries is returned, a deterioration degree of the one of the mobile batteries at the time of lending, that is acquired by the return processing section (see [0130]-[0131] and [0133]-[0136] in which a vehicle returns a rental battery and the system identifies another battery to be lent out from among the available batteries; see also [0133]-[0136] in which a battery is returned and the degree of deterioration is compared to the degree at the time of lending and the system determines whether the battery is still available for further rental) and whether or not a mobile battery available to be lent out exists among the plurality of mobile batteries housed in the exchange device (see [0130]-[0131] and [0133]-[0136] in which a vehicle returns a rental battery and the system identifies another battery to be lent out from among the available batteries). Reeves teaches a lending processing section configured to determine based on the deterioration degree of the one of the mobile batteries…, whether or not a mobile battery available to be lent out exists among the plurality of mobile batteries housed in the exchange device (see [0057]-[0059] and [0062]-[0063] in which returned rented batteries are analyzed for wear/deterioration to know how much charge is left and what rentals the battery is suitable for at that point based on the amount of wear). But, Reeves determines this not right on the spot when it is returned, but re-classifies if needed the returned batteries and then lends them out according to the degree of deterioration at the time of returning and the prior time of lending as well as the classification. Both Sohm and Reeves teach multiple available batteries when a vehicle returns one battery and wants to rent another.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing of the application to combine a lending processing section configured to determine at a time when the one of the mobile batteries is returned, based on the deterioration degree of the one of the mobile batteries at the time of lending,…, whether or not a mobile battery available to be lent out exists among the mobile batteries housed in the exchange device with Sohm and Reeves because Sohm and Reeves already teach these elements in combination, and the combination would allow for fast service based on an instant analysis of the returned battery as Sohm teaches and the classification of deterioration degree at the time of lending and return as Reeves teaches.
Sohm and Reeves, however, does not appear to specify:
wherein the lending processing section is configured to write, at the time of lending of one of the mobile batteries, current deterioration degree information of the one of the mobile batteries, to a storage section of the one of the mobile batteries
the return processing section is configured to acquire the deterioration degree information from the storage section of the one of the mobile batteries that is returned
Nakajima teaches:
wherein the lending processing section is configured to write, at the time of lending of one of the mobile batteries, current deterioration degree information of the one of the mobile batteries, to a storage section of the one of the mobile batteries and the return processing section is configured to acquire the deterioration degree information from the storage section of the one of the mobile batteries that is returned (see Figure 19 and the accompanying paragraphs of the translation which describe writing of deterioration degree of the battery when battery is mounted into vehicle at time of lending and then read again upon return, and based on the reading the customer is given a reward since they can tell the deterioration degree of the battery at the time of return relative to the original deterioration degree at the time of lending:
“FIG. 19 is a flowchart of the operation of the fourth embodiment. In the operation of FIG. 19, the battery 800 calculates its own deterioration level.
When the use history information is written from the vehicle 100 while the battery 800 is attached to the vehicle 100 of the user 60 (S101), the use history information is stored (S103). The battery 800 calculates the deterioration level based on the stored cumulative use history information, and determines the deterioration grade from the deterioration level (S105).
Battery 800 determines a battery price based on the determined deterioration grade (S107), and displays the determined deterioration grade and battery price so as to be visible from the outside (S109).
When the battery 800 is returned to the station 300, the management apparatus 900 reads use history information, deterioration degree information, deterioration grade information, and the like written in the battery 800 via the station 300 together with the battery ID. From, the information of the place where the battery 800 is accommodated is acquired (S111).
The management apparatus 900 stores the read usage history information and battery ID (S113). The management apparatus 900 determines whether or not the deterioration degree indicated in the read deterioration degree information satisfies the excellent use condition (S115).
If the condition is satisfied (S115: YES), the reward information is output to the station 300 (S117), and the station 300 displays the reward information (S119). When the calculated degree of deterioration does not satisfy the excellent use condition (S115: NO), the management device 900 does not output reward information to the station 300.
According to the above operation, the deterioration degree, deterioration grade, and price are determined by the battery 200 itself, so that the user 60 can grasp the deterioration degree while the battery 200 is being used. Furthermore, since the deterioration degree of the battery 200 is updated to the latest state when returning to the station 300, it is not necessary to determine the deterioration degree again on the station 300 side, and to speed up the processing at the time of return.”
Also Figure 3 and the accompanying paragraphs below from the translation regarding Figure 3:
“The usage history information may include the temperature history of the battery 200 during the battery 200 installation period. Further, the usage status history information is caused not only by information when the vehicle 100 travels during the installation period of the battery 200 but also by information other than when the vehicle 100 travels during the period, for example, natural discharge of the battery 200 or deterioration over time. Information may be included. In addition, the usage history information includes, for example, a deterioration degree (SOH [States of Health]) indicating a degree of deterioration of the battery 200, a deterioration grade indicating the deterioration degree in stages, a change in deterioration grade, and the like. Information may be included, and the information is determined and written by the management device 400. Alternatively, the information on the degree of deterioration may be calculated by the vehicle 100 while the vehicle 100 is traveling. Here, the degree of deterioration (SOH) of the battery 200 is represented by a capacity maintenance ratio that is a percentage of the ratio of the capacity of the battery 200 in the current state of the battery 200 to the capacity of the battery 200 in the state where the battery 200 is not used. . The degree of deterioration (SOH) can also be defined as a value indicating a percentage of the current capacity with respect to the nominal capacity of the battery 200.
Also, the usage status history information may include information indicating whether or not the deterioration level of the battery 200 during the battery 200 installation period is within an appropriate range, and the information is determined by the management device 400 and written.
Battery information stored in the battery information storage unit 217 includes a battery ID for identifying the individual battery 200. In addition, the SOC information of the battery 200 and the information on the current deterioration level of the battery 200 stored in the usage history storage unit 215 are also used as battery information.”
And Figure 9 and the accompanying paragraphs of the translation which also describe writing of deterioration degree of the battery when battery is mounted into vehicle at time of lending and then read again upon return, and based on the reading the customer is given a reward since they can tell the deterioration degree of the battery at the time of return relative to the original deterioration degree at the time of lending:
“FIG. 9 is a flowchart of the operation of the first embodiment. In the operation of FIG. 9, the management device 400 calculates the degree of deterioration of the battery 200.
While the battery 200 is mounted on the vehicle 100 of the user 60, usage history information is written from the vehicle 100 to the battery 200 (S101). When the battery 200 is returned to the station 300, the management device 400 reads the use history information and the battery ID written in the battery 200 via the station 300, and the station 300 stores the location where the battery 200 is accommodated. Information is acquired (S103).
Management device 400 stores the read usage history information and battery ID (step S105). The management device 400 extracts the cumulative usage history information associated with the read battery ID, calculates the degree of deterioration of the battery 200 based on the extracted cumulative usage history information, and determines the degradation grade (S107).
The management apparatus 400 determines whether or not the calculated deterioration degree satisfies the excellent use condition (S109). If the condition is satisfied (S109: YES), the reward information is output to the station 300 (S111), and the station 300 displays the reward information (S113). When the calculated deterioration degree does not satisfy the excellent use condition (S109: NO), the management device 400 does not output the reward information to the station 300.
The management apparatus 400 determines an appropriate storage location of the battery 200, a display mode of the deterioration grade, and a battery price based on the determined deterioration grade (S115). The management apparatus 400 determines whether or not the actual storage location of the returned battery 200 is an appropriate storage location of the battery 200 determined from the degradation grade (S117). If the battery 200 has been returned to an appropriate accommodation location (S117: YES), reward information is output to the station 300 (S119), and the station 300 displays the reward information (S121). When the calculated deterioration degree does not satisfy the excellent use condition (S117: NO), the management device 400 does not output the reward information to the station 300.
The management apparatus 400 outputs the information indicating the display mode of the deterioration grade in the battery 200 and the battery price determined from the deterioration grade to the station 300 together with the battery ID, and writes the information in the battery 200 (S123). Ends. The station 300 may display the battery price indicated in the information in accordance with an instruction from the management device 400.
According to the above operation, since the management apparatus 400 accumulates and stores use history information, the use history information of the battery 200 so far can be utilized even when the battery 200 is in use. For example, it is possible to predict the excess or deficiency of the battery 200 or use the information for a plan such as loading a new battery 200 or collecting an old battery 200. Further, if the management device 400 accumulates the usage history information in association with the user ID, the usage history information can be accumulated for each user 60 using the plurality of batteries 200.
Furthermore, when the degree of deterioration of the returned battery 200 satisfies the excellent use condition, a reward is given to the user 60, so that the user 60 can be encouraged to use the battery 200 favorably. Furthermore, since reward is given to the user 60 even when the battery 200 is returned to the designated return place at the station 300, the user 60 can be urged to return to the designated return place, and the battery 200 is managed well. can do.”
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing of the application to combine Nakajima with Sohm and Reeves because Sohm teaches a lending processing section configured to determine at a time when the one of the mobile batteries is returned, a deterioration degree of the one of the mobile batteries at the time of lending in [0130]-[0131] and [0133]-[0136] in which a vehicle returns a rental battery and the system identifies another battery to be lent out from among the available batteries and in which a battery is returned and the degree of deterioration is compared to the degree at the time of lending and the system determines whether the battery is still available for further rental and Reeves teaches a lending processing section configured to determine based on the deterioration degree of the one of the mobile batteries…, whether or not a mobile battery available to be lent out exists among the plurality of mobile batteries housed in the exchange device in [0057]-[0059] and [0062]-[0063] in which returned rented batteries are analyzed for wear/deterioration to know how much charge is left and what rentals the battery is suitable for at that point based on the amount of wear, and writing the deterioration degree at the time of lending to the actual battery would allow for a quick and easy determination of deterioration and availability upon return and would allow for an accurate measure of battery-specific deterioration from lending time until return without the need for further calculations.
Regarding Claims 5 and 11, the combination of Sohm, Reeves, and Nakajima teaches:
the exchange device according to claim 4…
Reeves teaches:
the deterioration degree is divided into a plurality of prescribed ranges, and a plurality of classifications are set corresponding respectively to the divided ranges of the deterioration degree (see at least [0063] in which batteries are divided into classifications, such as premium or economy, based on their degree of deterioration/wear, and they are selected to be rented out based on the classifications)
the return processing section determines a classification of the one of the mobile batteries based on the deterioration degree of the one of the mobile batteries at a time of lending (see [0063] in which batteries are classified based on deterioration degree and the classification data is stored after each time of lending and return of the battery and any changes in capacity are also noted and batteries are re-classified if needed)
the lending processing section determines whether the mobile battery available to be lent out exists among the mobile batteries housed in the exchange device and having the classification determined by the return processing section as corresponding to the deterioration degree of the one of the mobile batteries at the time of lending (see at least [0063] in which batteries are divided into classifications, such as premium or economy, based on their degree of deterioration/wear, and they are selected to be rented out based on the classifications and the classification data is stored after each time of lending and return of the battery and any changes in capacity are also noted and batteries are re-classified if needed)
It would also be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing of the application to combine Reeves with Sohm because Sohm already teaches determining deterioration and selecting of replacement rental batteries from among multiple options based on deterioration, and using a classification system based on amount of deterioration would more easily allow users to understand the level of deterioration they are getting and allow for a more standardized objective based on ranges.
Regarding Claims 20 and 23, the combination of Sohm, Reeves, and Nakajima teaches:
the exchange device according to claim 5…
Sohm further teaches:
wherein the return processing section acquires a usage state of the one of the mobile batteries in addition to the deterioration degree of the one of the mobile batteries at a time of lending (see [0130]-[0131], and [0133]-[0135] in which a batter renter returns a battery and the deterioration state and the usage state [amount of charge] is determined)
the lending processing section determines the mobile battery to be lent out based on the usage state acquired by the return processing section, from among the mobile batteries housed in the exchange device (see [0130]-[0135] and especially [0084]-[0085] in which a battery from among multiple available batteries at the charging station device is selected based on the power usage data and power needs of the vehicle; [0084] specifically states that the battery swapping includes a replacement battery to be loaded into the vehicle being selected from among “available charged batteries” based on “data from the charging hub”)
Reeves further teaches:
and having the classification determined by the return processing section as corresponding to the deterioration degree of the one of the mobile batteries at the time of lending (see [0057]-[0059] and [0062]-[0063] in which returned rented batteries are analyzed for wear/deterioration to know how much charge is left and what rentals the battery is suitable for at that point based on the amount of wear; see also Figure 5 and [0063] in which returned batteries are re-classified into economy, premium, or discard based on the amount of deterioration, and if they still classify into their former classification then they remain in that classification; inherently, if the user returns a premium battery for exchange, when the system seeks another battery for replacement from among the available batteries at the time of lending, all the available premium batteries that have been returned and still qualify as premium batteries would have kept their qualification as premium batteries based on their status upon return being the same as their status at the time of lending, and the user exchanging their battery would be given another premium battery to match the premium battery they had at the time of the original lending, as it is clear from [0063]-[0066] that the user/renters pay for the service and level of quality, and so giving them an economy or discardable battery in exchange for the premium battery they returned would not make sense with the teachings of Reeves)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing of the application to combine Reeves with Sohm because Sohm already teaches determining deterioration and selecting of replacement rental batteries from among multiple options based on deterioration, and analyzing the available previously returned batteries to match a deterioration and quality level of the battery that was returned would allow for the renter to be confident they are receiving the same quality battery they did previously.
Regarding Claims 21 and 24, the combination of Sohm, Reeves, and Nakajima teaches:
the exchange device according to claim 20…
Sohm further teaches:
wherein the usage state includes a power usage amount used by the one of the mobile batteries (see [0130]-[0131], and [0133]-[0135] in which a batter renter returns a battery and the deterioration state and the usage state [amount of charge/power used] is determined)
the lending processing section determines the mobile battery to be lent out based on the power usage amount acquired by the return processing section, from among the mobile batteries housed in the exchange device (see [0130]-[0135])
Reeves further teaches:
the lending processing section determines the mobile battery to be lent out from among the mobile batteries housed in the exchange device and having the classification determined by the return processing section as corresponding to the deterioration degree of the one of the mobile batteries at a time of lending (see [0057]-[0059] and [0062]-[0063] in which returned rented batteries are analyzed for wear/deterioration to know how much charge is left and what rentals the battery is suitable for at that point based on the amount of wear; see also Figure 5 and [0063] in which returned batteries are re-classified into economy, premium, or discard based on the amount of deterioration, and if they still classify into their former classification then they remain in that classification; inherently, if the user returns a premium battery for exchange, when the system seeks another battery for replacement from among the available batteries at the time of lending, all the available premium batteries that have been returned and still qualify as premium batteries would have kept their qualification as premium batteries based on their status upon return being the same as their status at the time of lending, and the user exchanging their battery would be given another premium battery to match the premium battery they had at the time of the original lending, as it is clear from [0063]-[0066] that the user/renters pay for the service and level of quality, and so giving them an economy or discardable battery in exchange for the premium battery they returned would not make sense with the teachings of Reeves)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing of the application to combine Reeves with Sohm because Sohm already teaches determining deterioration and selecting of replacement rental batteries from among multiple options based on deterioration, and analyzing the available previously returned batteries to match a deterioration and quality level of the battery that was returned would allow for the renter to be confident they are receiving the same quality battery they did previously.
Regarding Claims 22 and 25, the combination of Sohm, Reeves, and Nakajima teaches:
the exchange device according to claim 21…
Reeves further teaches:
wherein a case where the power usage amount that is acquired by the return processing section is less than fully charged, the lending processing section determines, from among the mobile batteries housed in the exchange device and having the classification determined by the return processing section as corresponding to the deterioration degree of one of the mobile batteries at the time of lending, the mobile battery other than the mobile battery with a lowest deterioration degree to be the mobile battery to be lent out (see [0062] in which batteries with some but not all remaining power are selected for rental replacement based on the amount of remaining power; see also [0057]-[0059] and [0062]-[0063] in which returned rented batteries are analyzed for wear/deterioration to know how much charge is left and what rentals the battery is suitable for at that point based on the amount of wear; see also Figure 5 and [0063] in which returned batteries are re-classified into economy, premium, or discard based on the amount of deterioration, and if they still classify into their former classification then they remain in that classification; inherently, if the user returns a premium battery for exchange, when the system seeks another battery for replacement from among the available batteries at the time of lending, all the available premium batteries that have been returned and still qualify as premium batteries would have kept their qualification as premium batteries based on their status upon return being the same as their status at the time of lending, and the user exchanging their battery would be given another premium battery to match the premium battery they had at the time of the original lending, as it is clear from [0063]-[0066] that the user/renters pay for the service and level of quality, and so giving them an economy or discardable battery in exchange for the premium battery they returned would not make sense with the teachings of Reeves)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing of the application to combine Reeves with Sohm because Sohm already teaches determining deterioration and selecting of replacement rental batteries from among multiple options based on deterioration, and analyzing the available previously returned batteries to match a deterioration and quality level of the battery that was returned would allow for the renter to be confident they are receiving the same quality battery they did previously.
Sohm, Reeves, and Nakajima, however, does not appear to specify:
when the power usage amount… is less than or equal to a threshold value
The examiner, however, takes Official Notice that it is old and well known in the commerce arts to set threshold values above or below which specific actions are taken. Industries ranging from advertising and commerce use thresholds and have for at least a couple of decades prior to the effective filing date of the invention. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing of the application to combine when the power usage amount is less than or equal to a threshold value with Sohm and Reeves because Sohm already teaches determining power usage and selecting of replacement rental batteries from among multiple options based on power usage needs, and Reeves teaches using partially spent batteries for rentals, and using thresholds would allow for a set value for decision making, especially when using remote and geographically scattered terminals and devices.
Claims 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sohmshetty, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2020/0164760 A1 (hereby “Sohm”) in view of Reeves, Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0031645 A1 and in further view of Nakajima, et al., WIPO Publication WO 2019/181702 A1 and in further view of Yau, Patent No. 9,870,670 B2.
Regarding Claims 6 and 12, the combination of Sohm, Reeves, and Nakajima teaches:
the exchange device according to claim 4…
Sohm, Reeves, and Nakajima, however, does not appear to specify:
wherein if the deterioration degree of the one of the mobile batteries at the time of lending fails to be acquired, the return processing section stops return processing of the one of the mobile batteries
Yau teaches:
wherein if the deterioration degree of the one of the mobile batteries at the time of lending is not acceptable, the return processing section stops return processing of the one of the mobile batteries (see Column 6, line 56-Column 7, line 8 and Column 16, lines 43-67 in which a battery is returned at a device and the battery is analyzed for both physical and operation conditions, including deterioration, to see if it is in acceptable condition; see also Column 7, lines 13-31 and Column 17, lines 1-20 in which if the battery is not acceptable the return is rejected)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing of the application to combine Yau with Sohm, Makajima, and Reeves because Sohm and Reeves already teach return and replacement of rental batteries, and Nakajima teaches deterioration degree being written to battery at the time of lending and read at the time of return, and stopping a rental under certain conditions of battery condition such as deterioration would ensure that returned batteries are in acceptable condition and reusable, therefore maximizing profit and minimizing loss.
Sohm, Reeves, Nakajima, and Yau, however, does not appear to specify:
wherein if the deterioration degree of the one of the mobile batteries at the time of lending fails to be acquired, the return processing section stops return processing of the one of the mobile batteries
Yau does however teach if the deterioration degree of the one of the mobile batteries at the time of lending is not acceptable, the return processing section stops return processing of the one of the mobile batteries in Column 6, line 56-Column 7, line 8 and Column 16, lines 43-67 in which a battery is returned at a device and the battery is analyzed for both physical and operation conditions, including deterioration, to see if it is in acceptable condition and also Column 7, lines 13-31 and Column 17, lines 1-20 in which if the battery is not acceptable the return is rejected. Further, in Column 7, lines 20-31, it states that “a received battery can be rejected if the operable condition of the battery is inadequate…or based on any other desired criteria.” We know from the other citations that the “operable condition” can include “the ability of the received battery to be recharged” in Column 7, lines 5-7, “voltage, internal resistance/impedance, or any other desired battery parameter” in Column 16, lines 36-38, and “this information can include, for example, battery characteristics such as charging and discharging characteristics, such as for example voltage, internal resistance/impedance, or any other charging/discharging characteristic.”
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the application to combine wherein if the deterioration degree of the one of the mobile batteries at the time of lending fails to be acquired, the return processing section stops return processing of the one of the mobile batteries with Sohm, Reeves, Nakajima, and Yau because Yau already teaches stopping the return based on other deterioration conditions, as in Column 6, line 56-Column 7, line 8 and Column 16, lines 43-67 in which a battery is returned at a device and the battery is analyzed for both physical and operation conditions, including deterioration, to see if it is in acceptable condition and also Column 7, lines 13-31 and Column 17, lines 1-20 in which if the battery is not acceptable the return is rejected. And, Yau can also be modified to stop the return based on other conditions associated with incoming operable condition information such as deterioration, as it states in Column 7, lines 20-31, that “a received battery can be rejected if the operable condition of the battery is inadequate…or based on any other desired criteria,” in Column 7, lines 5-7, “voltage, internal resistance/impedance, or any other desired battery parameter” and in Column 16, lines 36-38 “this information can include, for example, battery characteristics such as charging and discharging characteristics, such as for example voltage, internal resistance/impedance, or any other charging/discharging characteristic.” Modifying Yau to include one of the other operable condition based rejection criteria to be not able to read the deterioration level would be easily combinable with the above teachings since Yau already sets other similar criteria for rejecting a return based on deterioration and similar conditions, and one of the ordinary skill in the art would find a motivation to combine these references and elements in order to address when a deterioration condition cannot be read, and this would allow Yau to not have to take back batteries which could be completely deteriorated or unusable, therefore maximizing profit and minimizing loss.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejections based on 35 USC 103
The arguments have been considered in light of the applicant’s amendments to the claims, but are MOOT in light of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Conclusion
Applicant amendment(s) necessitated the new grounds of rejection set forth in this Office Action. Therefore, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Luis A. Brown whose telephone number is 571.270.1394. The Examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-4:30pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, JESSICA LEMIEUX can be reached at 571.270.3445.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair . Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
Washington, D.C. 20231
or faxed to 571-273-8300.
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314.
/LUIS A BROWN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
FIG. 7 is a block diagram of the management apparatus 400. The management device 400 includes a reading unit 401 that reads information on the battery 200 from the battery 200 stocked in the station 300, and a storage unit 420 that stores a plurality of pieces of information. The reading unit 401 outputs an instruction to read information on the battery 200 returned from the user 60 to the station 300.
The management apparatus 400 further includes a deterioration degree calculation unit 411 that calculates the deterioration degree of the battery 200 returned to the station 300, and a display mode of the deterioration grade in the battery 200 based on the deterioration grade input from the deterioration degree calculation unit 411. A display determination unit 413 for determining the price of the battery 200 and a price determination unit 415 for determining the price of the battery 200.
When the battery ID read by the reading unit 401 is input, the deterioration degree calculating unit 411 extracts the accumulated usage history information stored in the history storage unit 427 by the battery ID, and extracts the accumulated usage history information. Based on this, a degree of deterioration indicating the degree of deterioration of the battery 200 is calculated and output. It should be noted that calculating the degree of deterioration of the battery 200 based on the accumulated usage history information includes calculating the degree of deterioration based on the accumulated operation history information or degrading based on the accumulated usage history information of the battery 200. It also includes calculating the degree.
The deterioration degree calculation unit 411 refers to the deterioration grade condition stored in the condition storage unit 425 to determine the deterioration degree of the battery 200 from the calculated deterioration degree of the battery 200, and the display determination unit 413 and the price determination unit 415. And output to the writing unit 417. The deterioration degree calculation unit 411 further determines a change in the deterioration grade of the battery 200 and outputs the change to the writing unit 417. The deterioration degree calculation unit 411 further refers to the condition storage unit 425 to determine whether or not the deterioration degree of the battery 200 during the attachment period of the battery 200 is within an appropriate range, and outputs the determination result to the writing unit 417.
The management device 400 further includes a lending processing unit 407 that performs lending processing on a specific battery 200 stocked in the station 300. The lending processing unit 407 is managed by the management unit 419, the related information stored in the related information storage unit 219, and the related information of the battery 200 used in the vehicle 100 read by the reading unit 401. Based on the above, it is determined whether or not the battery 200 stocked in the station 300 may be lent. When the lending processing unit 407 determines that the battery 200 can be lent, the lending processing unit 407 outputs an instruction to rent the battery 200 to the station 300.
If the lending processing unit 407 determines that the battery 200 stocked in the station 300 may be lent, the lending processing unit 407 outputs a message to that effect to the writing unit 417, and the writing unit 417 replaces the lending processing unit 407. An instruction to lend the battery 200 may be output to the station 300. When the management device 400 does not communicate with the server 500 and does not include the communication unit 403 and the management unit 419, the lending processing unit 407 relates to the battery 200 used in the vehicle 100 read by the reading unit 401. Based on the information, it may be determined whether or not the battery 200 stocked in the station 300 may be lent. In this case, the lending processing unit 407 may determine whether or not the battery 200 can be lent based on each information stored in the storage unit 420.
When the vehicle ID read by the reading unit 401 matches the vehicle ID included in the vehicle ID list stored in the ID list storage unit 429, the lending processing unit 407 stores the battery stored in the station 300. It may be determined that 200 may be lent. Similarly, the lending processing unit 407 lends the battery 200 when the user ID read by the reading unit 401 matches the user ID included in the user ID list stored in the ID list storage unit 429. You may judge it good. Similarly, the lending processing unit 407 lends the battery 200 when the battery ID read by the reading unit 401 matches the battery ID included in the battery ID list stored in the ID list storage unit 429. You may judge it good.
Prosecution Insights