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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-9, 11-14, 16-21 are pending in this application.
Claims 2, 7, 10, 15 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 5, 9, 13, 17, and 20 are amended.
Claims 1-21 are presented for examination.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 8-9 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amarasekara et al. (US Publication 2017/0110901 A1) in view of Takeda et al. (US Publication 2011/0136398 A1) and in further view of Yoshikawa (US Publication 2016/0207604 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Amarasekara teaches a system for deterring theft of a component of a marine propulsion device including an electric motor (Amarasekara: Para. 17, 26; types of autonomous or semi-autonomous systems or robots; marine class battery), the system comprising: a marine battery pack operable to provide power to the electric motor to drive the electric motor, the marine battery pack including one or more battery cells contained in an outer housing (Amarasekara: Para. 20, 26, 37; a physical container or housing that forms and outer enclosure of the BPT and its components; BPT can house the energy source; each cell in a multi-cell battery e.g., the energy source), an internal communication system contained within the outer housing (Amarasekara: Para. 37; the BPT can also have a device interface (“DI”) coupled to the controller and the VCT), and an internal battery management system contained within the outer housing of the marine battery pack (Amarasekara: Para. 27; controller can direct or command various functions of the BPT); ………. , wherein the marine battery pack communicates with the authentication device to authenticate the marine battery pack (Amarasekara: Para. 55; BPT can provide a user name and account number to the RCS; a credential token can be returned to the BPT from the RCS, via the wireless connection).
Amarasekara doesn’t explicitly teach an authentication device located within the marine propulsion device, wherein the authentication device is in communication with the internal communication system of the marine battery pack when the marine battery pack is connected to the marine propulsion device.
However Takeda, in the same field of the endeavor, teaches an authentication device located within the marine propulsion device (Takeda: Para. 7; an authenticator that is installed in each of the outboard motors), wherein the authentication device is in communication with the internal communication system of the marine battery pack when the marine battery pack is connected to the marine propulsion device (Takeda: Para. 23; engine ECUs and authentication ECUs are activated upon the supply of power from a battery disposed in the first and second outboard motors).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to modify the battery power translator for electric vehicles (Amarasekara: Para. 7) where the authenticator is installed in the outboard motor (Takeda: Para. 7) with a reasonable expectation of success because the authenticator is installed in the outboard motor so that each outboard motor has its own antitheft apparatus (Takeda: Para. 5, 7).
Amarasekara and Takeda don’t explicitly teach wherein the operation of the marine battery pack is modified by the internal battery management system upon a failure to authenticate the marine battery pack.
However Amarasekara in view of Yoshikawa, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the operation of the marine battery pack is modified by the internal battery management system upon a failure to authenticate the marine battery pack.
Amarasekara teaches a battery pack translator that has a power source, controller, communication means, and a device interface within a housing (Amarasekara: Para. 37). Amarasekara’s example is of an unmanned aerial vehicle, but devices can also be other types of autonomous or semi-autonomous systems or robots (Amarasekara: Para. 17) with taught automotive or marine class batteries (Amarasekara: Para. 26). The BPT controls the power supply’s maximum voltage by a configuration based on the answer for an authentication response (Amarasekara: Para. 22). Yoshikawa’s anti-theft security system that creates an off power relay between the motor and the battery based on a failed authentication (Yoshikawa: Para. 36, 38, 40). Yoshikawa’s determination of preventing power from a battery to a motor when the authentication fails would be Amarasekara configuration option where the maximum voltage is zero and implemented by the BPT controller.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to modify the battery power translator for electric vehicles (Amarasekara: Para. 7) where the authenticator is installed in the outboard motor (Takeda: Para. 7) with the anti-theft boat security system (Yoshikawa: Para. 36) with a reasonable expectation of success because when the authentication step fails, the power is cut off from the battery taught in Yoshikawa (Yoshikawa: Para. 36, 38, 40).
Regarding claim 8, Amarasekara teaches the system of claim 1 wherein the authentication device is capable of authenticating more than one marine battery pack (Amarasekara: Para. 18; BPT can use an energy source to power the device; the energy source may not even be compatible with the device without the use of the BPT).
Regarding claim 9, Amarasekara teaches a marine battery pack for use in providing power to drive an electric motor of a marine propulsion device, comprising: an outer housing one or more battery cells contained in the outer housing (Amarasekara: Para. 20, 26, 37; a physical container or housing that forms and outer enclosure of the BPT and its components; BPT can house the energy source; each cell in a multi-cell battery e.g., the energy source); an internal communication system contained within the outer housing (Amarasekara: Para. 37; the BPT can also have a device interface (“DI”) coupled to the controller and the VCT) and operable to communicate an authentication request (Amarasekara: Para. 55; RCS can compare the whitelist containing the identification of authorized BPTs to the configurations or other identifying information provided by the device) and …………… ; and an internal battery management system contained within the outer housing (Amarasekara: Para. 27; controller can direct or command various functions of the BPT).
Amarasekara doesn’t explicitly teach receive a confirmation in response to the authentication request from an authentication device located within the marine propulsion device, wherein the authentication device communicates with the internal communication system of the marine battery pack when the marine battery pack is connected to the marine propulsion device.
However Takeda, in the same field of the endeavor, teaches receive a confirmation in response to the authentication request from an authentication device located within the marine propulsion device (Takeda: Para. 7; an authenticator that is installed in each of the outboard motors and that acquires ID information from an electronic key when the key is brought close thereto by an operator, compares the acquired ID information with authentication ID information, and gives permission to the engine controller to start the engine when it is determined that the acquired ID information corresponds with the authentication ID information), wherein the authentication device communicates with the internal communication system of the marine battery pack when the marine battery pack is connected to the marine propulsion device (Takeda: Para. 23; engine ECUs and authentication ECUs are activated upon the supply of power from a battery disposed in the first and second outboard motors).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to modify the battery power translator for electric vehicles (Amarasekara: Para. 7) where the authenticator is installed in the outboard motor (Takeda: Para. 7) with a reasonable expectation of success because the authenticator is installed in the outboard motor so that each outboard motor has its own antitheft apparatus (Takeda: Para. 5, 7).
Amarasekara doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the internal battery management system modifies the operation of the marine battery pack upon a failure to receive the confirmation from the authentication device.
However Amarasekara in view of Yoshikawa, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the internal battery management system modifies the operation of the marine battery pack upon a failure to receive the confirmation from the authentication device.
Amarasekara teaches a battery pack translator that has a power source, controller, communication means, and a device interface within a housing (Amarasekara: Para. 37). Amarasekara’s example is of an unmanned aerial vehicle, but devices can also be other types of autonomous or semi-autonomous systems or robots (Amarasekara: Para. 17) with taught automotive or marine class batteries (Amarasekara: Para. 26). The BPT controls the power supply’s maximum voltage by a configuration based on the answer for an authentication response (Amarasekara: Para. 22). Yoshikawa’s anti-theft security system that creates an off power relay between the motor and the battery based on a failed authentication (Yoshikawa: Para. 36, 38, 40). Yoshikawa’s determination of preventing power from a battery to a motor when the authentication fails would be Amarasekara configuration option where the maximum voltage is zero and implemented by the BPT controller.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to modify the battery power translator for electric vehicles (Amarasekara: Para. 7) where the authenticator is installed in the outboard motor (Takeda: Para. 7) with the anti-theft boat security system (Yoshikawa: Para. 36) with a reasonable expectation of success because when the authentication step fails, the power is cut off from the battery taught in Yoshikawa (Yoshikawa: Para. 36, 38, 40).
Regarding claim 16, Amarasekara teaches the marine battery pack of claim 9 wherein the internal communication system is capable of being authenticated by a plurality of different authentication devices (Amarasekara: Para. 18; BPT can use an energy source to power the device; the energy source may not even be compatible with the device without the use of the BPT).
Regarding claim 17, Amarasekara teaches a method of deterring theft of a marine battery pack having an outer housing contained one or more battery cells, the marine battery pack being configured to provide power to drive an electric motor a marine propulsion device, comprising: providing an internal communication system within the outer housing of the marine battery pack (Amarasekara: Para. 37; the BPT can also have a device interface (“DI”) coupled to the controller and the VCT); communicating an authentication request from internal communication system of the marine battery pack (Amarasekara: Para. 55; RCS can compare the whitelist containing the identification of authorized BPTs to the configurations or other identifying information provided by the device); ………. ; transmitting a confirmation from the authentication device to the marine battery pack upon authentication of the authentication request received from the marine battery pack (Amarasekara: Para. 55; BPT can then provide a password, encrypted with the credential token as the public key, transmitted along with the public key back to the RCS; RCS can then decrypt the password using the public key as an index authenticated along with the user name and account); providing an internal battery management system within the outer housing of the marine battery pack (Amarasekara: Para. 27; controller can direct or command various functions of the BPT); utilizing the internal battery management system to allow for normal operation of the marine battery pack to provide power to the electric motor to drive the electric motor upon receipt of the confirmation (Amarasekara: Para. 27; controller can direct or command various functions of the BPT and have overall control over the performance of various tasks, such as powering the device at the designed power level; controller can receive and store the configuration (via the programming interface) that defines or governs the behavior of the BPT).
Amarasekara doesn’t explicitly teach receiving the authentication request at an authentication device located within the marine propulsion device when the marine battery pack is connected to the marine propulsion device.
However Takeda, in the same field of the endeavor, teaches receiving the authentication request at an authentication device located within the marine propulsion device (Takeda: Para. 7; an authenticator that is installed in each of the outboard motors) when the marine battery pack is connected to the marine propulsion device (Takeda: Para. 23; engine ECUs and authentication ECUs are activated upon the supply of power from a battery disposed in the first and second outboard motors).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to modify the battery power translator for electric vehicles (Amarasekara: Para. 7) where the authenticator is installed in the outboard motor (Takeda: Para. 7) with a reasonable expectation of success because the authenticator is installed in the outboard motor so that each outboard motor has its own antitheft apparatus (Takeda: Para. 5, 7).
Amarasekara doesn’t explicitly teach utilizing the internal battery management system to modify the operation of the marine battery pack upon failure to receive the confirmation from the authentication device.
However Amarasekara in view of Yoshikawa, in the same field of endeavor, teaches modifying the operation of the marine battery pack upon failure to receive the confirmation from the authentication device.
Amarasekara teaches a battery pack translator that has a power source, controller, communication means, and a device interface within a housing (Amarasekara: Para. 37). Amarasekara’s example is of an unmanned aerial vehicle, but devices can also be other types of autonomous or semi-autonomous systems or robots (Amarasekara: Para. 17) with taught automotive or marine class batteries (Amarasekara: Para. 26). The BPT controls the power supply’s maximum voltage by a configuration based on the answer for an authentication response (Amarasekara: Para. 22). Yoshikawa’s anti-theft security system that creates an off power relay between the motor and the battery based on a failed authentication (Yoshikawa: Para. 36, 38, 40). Yoshikawa’s determination of preventing power from a battery to a motor when the authentication fails would be Amarasekara configuration option where the maximum voltage is zero and implemented by the BPT controller.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to modify the battery power translator for electric vehicles (Amarasekara: Para. 7) where the authenticator is installed in the outboard motor (Takeda: Para. 7) with the anti-theft boat security system (Yoshikawa: Para. 36) with a reasonable expectation of success because when the authentication step fails, the power is cut off from the battery taught in Yoshikawa (Yoshikawa: Para. 36, 38, 40).
Claims 3-6, 11-14, and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amarasekara et al. (US Publication 2017/0110901 A1) in view of Takeda et al. (US Publication 2011/0136398 A1), Yoshikawa (US Publication 2016/0207604 A1), and in further view of Han et al. (Foreign Reference CN204915915U).
Regarding claim 3, Amarasekara, Takeda, and Yoshikawa don’t explicitly teach wherein the operation of the marine battery pack is modified by the internal battery management system by limiting the rate of current discharge such that the marine propulsion device operates at less than full speed.
However Han, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the operation of the marine battery pack is modified by the internal battery management system by limiting the rate of current discharge such that the marine propulsion device operates at less than full speed (Han: Pg. 2 Lines 9, 17-20; new microcontrollers built-in lithium battery protection board lithium battery power through the use of locked phones equipped APP locking function key to practical, lithium battery discharge circuit coming off, cut off the external power supply lithium battery, so as to achieve built-in lithium battery circuit system locked effect; the function keys, including key lock, unlock key, intelligent key and lock code key).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to modify the battery power translator for electric vehicles (Amarasekara: Para. 7) where the authenticator is installed in the outboard motor (Takeda: Para. 7) with the anti-theft boat security system in Yoshikawa (Yoshikawa: Para. 36) and the ability to remotely lock the battery’s discharge circuit taught in Han (Han: Pg. 9 Lines 9, 17-20) with a reasonable expectation of success because a built-in lithium battery circuit system locked effect through a phone’s APP locking function key as taught by Han (Han: Pg. 2 Lines 9, 17-20).
Regarding claim 4, Amarasekara, Takeda, and Yoshikawa don’t explicitly teach wherein the operation of the marine battery pack is modified by the internal battery management system by limiting the duration of power output to less than a duration of a full discharge of the marine battery pack.
However Han, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the operation of the marine battery pack is modified by the internal battery management system by limiting the duration of power output to less than a duration of a full discharge of the marine battery pack (Han: Pg. 2 Lines 9, 17-20; new microcontrollers built-in lithium battery protection board lithium battery power through the use of locked phones equipped APP locking function key to practical, lithium battery discharge circuit coming off, cut off the external power supply lithium battery, so as to achieve built-in lithium battery circuit system locked effect; the function keys, including key lock, unlock key, intelligent key and lock code key).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to modify the battery power translator for electric vehicles (Amarasekara: Para. 7) where the authenticator is installed in the outboard motor (Takeda: Para. 7) with the anti-theft boat security system in Yoshikawa (Yoshikawa: Para. 36) and the ability to remotely lock the battery’s discharge circuit taught in Han (Han: Pg. 9 Lines 9, 17-20) with a reasonable expectation of success because a built-in lithium battery circuit system locked effect through a phone’s APP locking function key as taught by Han (Han: Pg. 2 Lines 9, 17-20).
Regarding claim 5, Amarasekara teaches the method of claim 1 further comprising a remote authentication device (Amarasekara: Para. 20, Fig. 1; RCS can also communicate with the device and the BPT via a secondary connection and another network) …….. from the remote authentication device (Amarasekara: Para. 20, Fig. 1; RCS can also communicate with the device and the BPT via a secondary connection and another network).
Amarasekara, Takeda, and Yoshikawa don’t explicitly teach located within battery charger and operation of the marine battery pack is modified by the internal battery management system to prevent the battery charger from recharging the marine battery pack without authentication.
However Han, in the same field of endeavor, teaches located within battery charger and operation of the marine battery pack is modified by the internal battery management system to prevent the battery charger from recharging the marine battery pack without authentication.
Han teaches an electric vehicle lithium battery intelligent remote anti-theft system. This anti-theft system has a control unit to communicates with a phone APP function intelligent key and lock key code. The system includes a voltage detection and charge equalization detection connected to the battery pack circuit detection (Han: Pg. 3 Lines 1-10). When an unauthorized current transaction of greater than 2Amps occur, the batter is immediately locked through the discharge circuit coming off (Han: Pg. 2 Lines 20-24). Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to prevent an unauthorized recharging a marine battery, where marine vehicle is a vehicle with a battery.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to modify the battery power translator for electric vehicles (Amarasekara: Para. 7) where the authenticator is installed in the outboard motor (Takeda: Para. 7) with the anti-theft boat security system in Yoshikawa (Yoshikawa: Para. 36) and the ability to remotely lock the battery’s discharge circuit taught in Han (Han: Pg. 9 Lines 9, 17-20) with a reasonable expectation of success because a built-in lithium battery circuit system locked effect through a phone’s APP locking function key as taught by Han (Han: Pg. 2 Lines 9, 17-20).
Regarding claim 6, Amarasekara, Takeda, and Yoshikawa don’t explicitly teach wherein the operation of the marine battery pack is modified by the internal battery management system by preventing the discharge of current from the marine battery pack.
However Han, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the operation of the marine battery pack is modified by the internal battery management system by preventing the discharge of current from the marine battery pack (Han: Pg. 2 Lines 9, 17-20; new microcontrollers built-in lithium battery protection board lithium battery power through the use of locked phones equipped APP locking function key to practical, lithium battery discharge circuit coming off, cut off the external power supply lithium battery, so as to achieve built-in lithium battery circuit system locked effect; the function keys, including key lock, unlock key, intelligent key and lock code key).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to modify the battery power translator for electric vehicles (Amarasekara: Para. 7) where the authenticator is installed in the outboard motor (Takeda: Para. 7) with the anti-theft boat security system in Yoshikawa (Yoshikawa: Para. 36) and the ability to remotely lock the battery’s discharge circuit taught in Han (Han: Pg. 9 Lines 9, 17-20) with a reasonable expectation of success because a built-in lithium battery circuit system locked effect through a phone’s APP locking function key as taught by Han (Han: Pg. 2 Lines 9, 17-20).
Regarding claim 11, Amarasekara, Takeda, and Yoshikawa don’t explicitly teach wherein the operation of the marine battery pack is modified by the internal battery management system by limiting the rate of current discharge such that the marine propulsion device operates at less than full speed.
However Han, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the operation of the marine battery pack is modified by the internal battery management system by limiting the rate of current discharge such that the marine propulsion device operates at less than full speed (Han: Pg. 2 Lines 9, 17-20; new microcontrollers built-in lithium battery protection board lithium battery power through the use of locked phones equipped APP locking function key to practical, lithium battery discharge circuit coming off, cut off the external power supply lithium battery, so as to achieve built-in lithium battery circuit system locked effect; the function keys, including key lock, unlock key, intelligent key and lock code key).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to modify the battery power translator for electric vehicles (Amarasekara: Para. 7) where the authenticator is installed in the outboard motor (Takeda: Para. 7) with the anti-theft boat security system in Yoshikawa (Yoshikawa: Para. 36) and the ability to remotely lock the battery’s discharge circuit taught in Han (Han: Pg. 9 Lines 9, 17-20) with a reasonable expectation of success because a built-in lithium battery circuit system locked effect through a phone’s APP locking function key as taught by Han (Han: Pg. 2 Lines 9, 17-20).
Regarding claim 12, Amarasekara, Takeda, and Yoshikawa don’t explicitly teach wherein the operation of the marine battery pack is modified by the internal battery management system by limiting the duration of power output from the marine battery pack to less than a full discharge duration of the marine battery pack.
However Han, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the operation of the marine battery pack is modified by the internal battery management system by limiting the duration of power output from the marine battery pack to less than a full discharge duration of the marine battery pack (Han: Pg. 2 Lines 9, 17-20; new microcontrollers built-in lithium battery protection board lithium battery power through the use of locked phones equipped APP locking function key to practical, lithium battery discharge circuit coming off, cut off the external power supply lithium battery, so as to achieve built-in lithium battery circuit system locked effect; the function keys, including key lock, unlock key, intelligent key and lock code key).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to modify the battery power translator for electric vehicles (Amarasekara: Para. 7) where the authenticator is installed in the outboard motor (Takeda: Para. 7) with the anti-theft boat security system in Yoshikawa (Yoshikawa: Para. 36) and the ability to remotely lock the battery’s discharge circuit taught in Han (Han: Pg. 9 Lines 9, 17-20) with a reasonable expectation of success because a built-in lithium battery circuit system locked effect through a phone’s APP locking function key as taught by Han (Han: Pg. 2 Lines 9, 17-20).
Regarding claim 13, Amarasekara teaches the method of claim 9 further comprising a remote authentication system (Amarasekara: Para. 20, Fig. 1; RCS can also communicate with the device and the BPT via a secondary connection and another network) …….. from the remote authentication device (Amarasekara: Para. 20, Fig. 1; RCS can also communicate with the device and the BPT via a secondary connection and another network).
Amarasekara, Takeda, and Yoshikawa don’t explicitly teach wherein the authentication device located within a battery charger and the internal battery management system modifies operation of the marine battery pack to prevent recharging of the marine battery pack without authentication.
However Han, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the authentication device located within a battery charger and the internal battery management system modifies operation of the marine battery pack to prevent recharging of the marine battery pack without authentication.
Han teaches an electric vehicle lithium battery intelligent remote anti-theft system. This anti-theft system has a control unit to communicates with a phone APP function intelligent key and lock key code. The system includes a voltage detection and charge equalization detection connected to the battery pack circuit detection (Han: Pg. 3 Lines 1-10). When an unauthorized current transaction of greater than 2Amps occur, the batter is immediately locked through the discharge circuit coming off (Han: Pg. 2 Lines 20-24). Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to prevent an unauthorized recharging a marine battery, where marine vehicle is a vehicle with a battery.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to modify the battery power translator for electric vehicles (Amarasekara: Para. 7) where the authenticator is installed in the outboard motor (Takeda: Para. 7) with the anti-theft boat security system in Yoshikawa (Yoshikawa: Para. 36) and the ability to remotely lock the battery’s discharge circuit taught in Han (Han: Pg. 9 Lines 9, 17-20) with a reasonable expectation of success because a built-in lithium battery circuit system locked effect through a phone’s APP locking function key as taught by Han (Han: Pg. 2 Lines 9, 17-20).
Regarding claim 14, Amarasekara, Takeda, and Yoshikawa don’t explicitly teach wherein the operation of the marine battery pack is modified by the internal battery management system by preventing the discharge of current from the marine battery pack.
However Han, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the operation of the marine battery pack is modified by the internal battery management system by preventing the discharge of current from the marine battery pack (Han: Pg. 2 Lines 9, 17-20; new microcontrollers built-in lithium battery protection board lithium battery power through the use of locked phones equipped APP locking function key to practical, lithium battery discharge circuit coming off, cut off the external power supply lithium battery, so as to achieve built-in lithium battery circuit system locked effect; the function keys, including key lock, unlock key, intelligent key and lock code key).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to modify the battery power translator for electric vehicles (Amarasekara: Para. 7) where the authenticator is installed in the outboard motor (Takeda: Para. 7) with the anti-theft boat security system in Yoshikawa (Yoshikawa: Para. 36) and the ability to remotely lock the battery’s discharge circuit taught in Han (Han: Pg. 9 Lines 9, 17-20) with a reasonable expectation of success because a built-in lithium battery circuit system locked effect through a phone’s APP locking function key as taught by Han (Han: Pg. 2 Lines 9, 17-20).
Regarding claim 18, Amarasekara, Takeda, and Yoshikawa don’t explicitly teach wherein the operation of the marine battery pack is modified by the internal battery management system by limiting the rate of current discharge such that the marine propulsion device operates at less than full speed.
However Han, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the operation of the marine battery pack is modified by the internal battery management system by limiting the rate of current discharge such that the marine propulsion device operates at less than full speed (Han: Pg. 2 Lines 9, 17-20; new microcontrollers built-in lithium battery protection board lithium battery power through the use of locked phones equipped APP locking function key to practical, lithium battery discharge circuit coming off, cut off the external power supply lithium battery, so as to achieve built-in lithium battery circuit system locked effect; the function keys, including key lock, unlock key, intelligent key and lock code key).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to modify the battery power translator for electric vehicles (Amarasekara: Para. 7) where the authenticator is installed in the outboard motor (Takeda: Para. 7) with the anti-theft boat security system in Yoshikawa (Yoshikawa: Para. 36) and the ability to remotely lock the battery’s discharge circuit taught in Han (Han: Pg. 9 Lines 9, 17-20) with a reasonable expectation of success because a built-in lithium battery circuit system locked effect through a phone’s APP locking function key as taught by Han (Han: Pg. 2 Lines 9, 17-20).
Regarding claim 19, Amarasekara, Takeda, and Yoshikawa don’t explicitly teach wherein the operation of the marine battery pack is modified by the internal battery management system by limiting the duration of power output from the marine battery pack to less than a full discharge duration of the marine battery pack.
However Han, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the operation of the marine battery pack is modified by the internal battery management system by limiting the duration of power output from the marine battery pack to less than a full discharge duration of the marine battery pack (Han: Pg. 2 Lines 9, 17-20; new microcontrollers built-in lithium battery protection board lithium battery power through the use of locked phones equipped APP locking function key to practical, lithium battery discharge circuit coming off, cut off the external power supply lithium battery, so as to achieve built-in lithium battery circuit system locked effect; the function keys, including key lock, unlock key, intelligent key and lock code key).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to modify the battery power translator for electric vehicles (Amarasekara: Para. 7) where the authenticator is installed in the outboard motor (Takeda: Para. 7) with the anti-theft boat security system in Yoshikawa (Yoshikawa: Para. 36) and the ability to remotely lock the battery’s discharge circuit taught in Han (Han: Pg. 9 Lines 9, 17-20) with a reasonable expectation of success because a built-in lithium battery circuit system locked effect through a phone’s APP locking function key as taught by Han (Han: Pg. 2 Lines 9, 17-20).
Regarding claim 20, Amarasekara teaches the method of claim 17 further comprising a remote authentication system (Amarasekara: Para. 20, Fig. 1; RCS can also communicate with the device and the BPT via a secondary connection and another network) …….. from the remote authentication device (Amarasekara: Para. 20, Fig. 1; RCS can also communicate with the device and the BPT via a secondary connection and another network).
Amarasekara, Takeda, and Yoshikawa don’t explicitly teach located within a battery charger and operation of the marine battery pack is modified by the internal battery management system to prevent recharging of the marine battery pack without authentication.
However Han, in the same field of endeavor, teaches located within a battery charger and operation of the marine battery pack is modified by the internal battery management system to prevent recharging of the marine battery pack without authentication.
Han teaches an electric vehicle lithium battery intelligent remote anti-theft system. This anti-theft system has a control unit to communicates with a phone APP function intelligent key and lock key code. The system includes a voltage detection and charge equalization detection connected to the battery pack circuit detection (Han: Pg. 3 Lines 1-10). When an unauthorized current transaction of greater than 2Amps occur, the batter is immediately locked through the discharge circuit coming off (Han: Pg. 2 Lines 20-24). Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to prevent an unauthorized recharging a marine battery, where marine vehicle is a vehicle with a battery.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to modify the battery power translator for electric vehicles (Amarasekara: Para. 7) where the authenticator is installed in the outboard motor (Takeda: Para. 7) with the anti-theft boat security system in Yoshikawa (Yoshikawa: Para. 36) and the ability to remotely lock the battery’s discharge circuit taught in Han (Han: Pg. 9 Lines 9, 17-20) with a reasonable expectation of success because a built-in lithium battery circuit system locked effect through a phone’s APP locking function key as taught by Han (Han: Pg. 2 Lines 9, 17-20).
Regarding claim 21, Amarasekara, Takeda, and Yoshikawa don’t explicitly teach wherein the operation of the marine battery pack is modified by the internal battery management system by preventing the discharge of current from the marine battery pack.
However Han, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the operation of the marine battery pack is modified by the internal battery management system by preventing the discharge of current from the marine battery pack (Han: Pg. 2 Lines 9, 17-20; new microcontrollers built-in lithium battery protection board lithium battery power through the use of locked phones equipped APP locking function key to practical, lithium battery discharge circuit coming off, cut off the external power supply lithium battery, so as to achieve built-in lithium battery circuit system locked effect; the function keys, including key lock, unlock key, intelligent key and lock code key).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to modify the battery power translator for electric vehicles (Amarasekara: Para. 7) where the authenticator is installed in the outboard motor (Takeda: Para. 7) with the anti-theft boat security system in Yoshikawa (Yoshikawa: Para. 36) and the ability to remotely lock the battery’s discharge circuit taught in Han (Han: Pg. 9 Lines 9, 17-20) with a reasonable expectation of success because a built-in lithium battery circuit system locked effect through a phone’s APP locking function key as taught by Han (Han: Pg. 2 Lines 9, 17-20).
Response to Amendments and Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 5 November 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s attorney argues that Amarasekara is not at all related to theft deterrence of a marine battery back or any other type of battery pack for that matter.
When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “a system for deterring theft of a component of a marine propulsion device” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
In response to applicant's argument that Amarasekara is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Amarasekara teaches a marine class multi-cell battery that provides power to a type of autonomous, semi-autonomous, or robotic system (Amarasekara: Para. 17, 20, 26). It would be obvious to use a marine class battery to power a marine system. Amarasekara teaches the marine class battery that houses a device interface inside the housing with the battery in order to control the battery (Amarasekara: Para. 27, 37). The initial part of claim 1 is directed to a marine battery pack able to provide power to an electric motor with a communication system contained within the outer housing which Amarasekara teaches.
Applicant next argues that Yoshikawa is not directed to any system or method of deterring theft of the battery.
In response to applicant's argument that Amarasekara is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Yoshikawa teaches an anti-theft security system for a ship, where the authentication system determines a lock or an unlock state. The lock state is when the ECM power relay is turned off and the engine start is disable (Yoshikawa: Para. 36, 38). The lack of authentication turns the battery switch off (Yoshikawa: Para. 40).
Applicant next argues that the combination of Amarasekara and Yoshikawa references would not result in or render obvious amended claim 1.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Yoshikawa teaches a ship with an anti-theft system based on authentication number (Yoshikawa: Para. 36, 38). Amarasekara teaches an authentication system communicating with the device interface coupled to the controller inside the same housing as the marine battery. If in Yoshikawa’s ship with an authentication system communicates with the device interface of Amarasekara’s marine multi-cell battery to authenticate the battery allowing for an unlocked state that can use the marine battery to power the ships outboard motor.
Applicant next argues that Amarasekara nor Yoshikawa teach or disclose a system to deter theft of a marine battery back.
In response to the applicant’s argument above, Yoshikawa teaches a ship with an anti-theft system based on authentication number (Yoshikawa: Para. 36, 38). Amarasekara teaches an authentication system communicating with the device interface coupled to the controller inside the same housing as the marine battery. If in Yoshikawa’s ship with an authentication system communicates with the device interface of Amarasekara’s marine multi-cell battery to authenticate the battery allowing for an unlocked state that can use the marine battery to power the ships outboard motor.
Applicant next argues that dependent claims 3-7 and 8 are allowable at least based on their dependencies.
In response to the applicant’s argument above, claim 1 is rejected. Dependent claims 3-7 and 8 are rejected at least based on their dependencies.
Applicant next argues that claims 9 and 17 has been amended generally along the same lines as claim 1.
In response to the applicant’s argument above, the applicant’s arguments for claim 1 would apply to claims 9 and 17. The examiner’s answers to claim 1’s arguments above would similarly apply to claims 9 and 17. All dependent claims are rejected based on their dependencies of the independent claims.
The applicant’s arguments have failed to point out the distinguishing characteristics of the amended claim language over the prior art. For the above reasons, Amarasekara’s battery pack translator with Takeda’s authenticator installed in each motor with Yoshikawa’s boat anti-theft security system reads on applicant’s marine battery with internal digital security. The rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA E LINHARDT whose telephone number is (571)272-8325. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TR, M-F: 8am-4pm.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached on (571) 272-1206. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/L.E.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663