DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-4 are pending. Claims 1 and 2 are amended. Claims 3 and 4 are new.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Previous rejection under 35 USC 101, is withdrawn in view of Applicant' s reply filed 07/23/2025.
To note: Claims 1-4 are patent eligible with regards to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. The claims, taken as a whole amount to a practical application of the judicial exception see MPEP 2106.04(d) (a claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by LEE [US Patent Application Publication Number 2023/0216319 A1].
Regarding claim 1, LEE teaches a battery management system (figure 1, battery distributing apparatus - 0040) comprising an arithmetic processing unit that selects a replacement battery from among a plurality of candidate batteries (select a suitable battery - 0058, selection module may be configured to select a suitable battery among the plurality of batteries - 0060) to replace an installed battery that is installed in equipment (battery for an electric vehicle – 0080, in which the battery is installed - 0088), the arithmetic processing unit configured to:
calculate an assumed maximum current rate of each of the candidate batteries when used in the equipment (include a maximum charging SOC of the battery - 0104, 0105) (instantaneous discharge current, the lowest SOC, the charging C-rate, and the maximum charging SOC - 0112), from current rate history of the installed battery and capacity of the candidate battery taking into consideration an amount of deterioration of the candidate battery (adjust the degree of degradation among the plurality of batteries and to equalize the degradation for all of the plurality of batteries – 0079) (battery use history - 0080) (distributed by considering the degradation – 0094, 0095, 0097, 0098); and
select a battery of which the assumed maximum current rate of the candidate battery that is calculated is no greater than a predetermined current rate (when the lowest SOC is greater than 0% or less than 20% - 0116) (charging C-rate is 0.5 or less – 0117) (maximum charging SOC is 80% or less – 0118), from among the candidate batteries as the replacement battery (via selection module - 0130-0137); and
replace the installed battery in the vehicle with the replacement battery (driver wants to replace and use the battery for his/her vehicle. In this case, the driver of the electric vehicle may be the requester – 0058) (receive and use a battery by rental, purchase, or replacement of the battery - 0070).
Regarding claim 2, LEE teaches the arithmetic processing unit calculates the assumed maximum current rate of each of the candidate batteries when used in the equipment, from the current rate history of the installed battery, the capacity of the candidate battery taking into consideration an amount of deterioration of the candidate battery calculated based on usage history of the installed battery, and an assumed period of use of the candidate battery include a maximum charging SOC of the battery - 0104, 0105) (instantaneous discharge current, the lowest SOC, the charging C-rate, and the maximum charging SOC - 0112) (adjust the degree of degradation among the plurality of batteries and to equalize the degradation for all of the plurality of batteries – 0079) (battery use history - 0080) (distributed by considering the degradation – 0094, 0095, 0097, 0098).
Regarding claim 3, LEE teaches the amount of deterioration of the candidate battery is the amount of deterioration assumed when the candidate battery is installed in the equipment (adjust the degree of degradation among the plurality of batteries and to equalize the degradation for all of the plurality of batteries – 0079) (battery use history - 0080) (distributed by considering the degradation – 0094, 0095, 0097, 0098).
Regarding claim 4, LEE teaches the arithmetic processing unit is further configured to select the replacement battery based on capacities of the plurality of candidates batteries (via selection module - 0130-0137).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1 and 2, see page 5, section V, have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Relevant Prior Art / Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Stewart et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0305922 A1) discloses a system and method for battery module replacement.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICKY GO whose telephone number is (571)270-3340. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Arleen M. Vazquez can be reached on (571) 272-2619. 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.
/RICKY GO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857