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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant’s arguments are directed to unclaimed subject matter or do not actually disprove the Examiner’s interpretations.
The Examiner notes that the Applicant summarizes the Examiners assumptions (Remarks, page 10). These are interpretations based on the language used in the claims. None of these interpretations have been rebutted, thus they are presumed to be correct.
The Applicant’s remarks (starting with item “D” at the bottom of page 10) are treated in the order presented:
Yang is relied upon for its teaching of duplicating one APA battery to become two distinct batteries with the second having different power/energy properties than the first. In the combination, the APA’s component controller (16) maintains its disclosed connection between the batteries, motor and regenerative braking. The combination does not require a complete reworking of the APA vehicle to have all of the structure taught by Yang. APA already has a working vehicle (battery, motor, regenerative braking), it is being modified to have a third battery, not to change how the vehicle operates.
There are no limitations in the claim about a “separate charging system”. It is unclear to what the Applicant is referring.
It is unclear where the Applicant is quoting from (no citations to the Non-Final have been provided). Claim 1 recites “a secondary battery in electrical communication with said core battery and said battery controller”. There is no requirement in this language that the secondary battery receives energy/power from the core battery “through the battery controller”. Yang discloses the secondary battery (14) is “in electrical communication” with the core battery (16) and battery controller (18, 20; see fig 1).
Yang clearly discloses that each battery has its own thermal management loop. Each loop is a “system” and the one thermal management system for the secondary battery is “solely” for that battery (the other batteries can have their own loops/systems). The claim does not prohibit the existence of cooling systems in other parts of the vehicle, it just requires that the secondary battery’s system is solely for itself.
Claim 1 defines the tertiary battery as being “high-electrical power, low-electrical energy”. Then the claim recites what this battery is “for providing”. These are descriptions of intended uses and hypothetical events – none of them are further limiting to the structure of the tertiary battery itself. Therefore, if the Applicant’s claimed high-power, low-energy battery can be “for providing” electricity to the motor and undefined “other electrical requirements of the [] vehicle”, then so can any similarly disclosed battery (i.e. one with high-power and low-energy). APA discloses this very same type of battery, and that it is used in a vehicle; thus, it is interpreted as being “for providing” electricity to the same destinations.
The Applicant may consider amending the claims to use more explicit language to define actual connections and/or functionality instead of broadly reciting what the structural elements are “for”. The claim is an apparatus claim; not a method. The “for [functionality]” phrase can be interpreted as a statement describing the intended use of the structure – not explicit functionality that must be read into the claim.
Item E (Remarks, page 12). That APA and Yang have different battery-to-motor connections is irrelevant. The modification of APA relies on Yang’s battery duplication – not it’s motor connection. The skilled artisan would not have been so rigid as to mandate that all of Yang’s vehicle structure be incorporated into a combination that relies only on Yang’s battery splitting. “A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). MPEP §2141.04(I).
As noted above, there is no “separate charging system” in claim 1.
Item F (Remarks, page 13). Like in item E, the Applicant’s remarks rely on the interpretation that the combination of references must include the principle of operation of the Yang vehicle. This is not so. As discussed above, Yang is relied upon for its battery splitting and thermal management – not how power is routed to the motor.
Regarding Woodruff, the Applicants’ contention that “whereas the external transmitter/receiver of the present claimed invention controls the charge and discharge rates of the battery components [] as a function of the power consumption of the vehicle and aging of the battery system” is directed to unclaimed subject matter. No such language appears in claim 1. Dependent claim 5, for example, recites “said battery controller controllably distributes electrical energy” – the claim says nothing about doing so with information received from the onboard receiver/transmitter.
Woodruff’s controller (that communicates with the external device) would be combined with APA’s controller (that manages the batteries). The Applicant’s citation to the specification (par 7; see Remarks, top of page 14) is directed to unclaimed subject matter. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., using received drive cycle governance to actively control how/when the three batteries are charged/discharged) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Item G (Remarks, page 14). “Applicant believes that the combination of APA and Yang does not teach or render obvious the three-battery autonomous vehicle of the present invention” (Id). The Examiner notes that the remarks do not contain any rebuttal of the combination of APA and Yang to produce three batteries (the rebuttal is only about how the batteries are connected to the motor – not that the modification of references produces the claimed three batteries). Regarding the autonomous vehicle, this limitation is clearly taught by Woodruff. The autonomous-ness of the vehicle is irrelevant to its claimed structure. That a person pushes an accelerator pedal (to cause a battery to discharge into the motor to accelerate the vehicle) or a computer does so does not affect the structure of claim 1.
The Applicant’s other remarks under this heading have all been addressed above.
Item H (Remarks, page 15). Claims 1 and 18 are rejected over the prior art.
In future replies, the Applicant is requested to provide citations to the office actions (that they are quoting or paraphrasing). The Applicant should also supplement their arguments with quotations of the actual claim language to support their positions.
The art rejections are maintained. The §112(b) rejection is withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-8 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (“APA”; figures 1A-B; specification par 30-42) in view of Yang (US 2014/0265554) and Woodruff (US 2020/0249668)
With respect to claim 1, APA discloses an autonomous electric vehicle (the autonomous language is an intended use phrase – it does not breathe life into the claim) for generating, storing, and governing the distribution of electrical energy, (fig 1A-B; par 30-42), comprising:
at least one electric motor (19) for propelling the autonomous electric vehicle and for providing regenerative electrical energy (18);
a battery controller (16) for receiving electrical energy and regenerative electrical energy (see arrows between 16 and 18), for controlling said at least one electric motor (see arrows between 16 and 19), and implementing the drive cycle governance instructions in said vehicle (see arrows between 16 and 19), and for monitoring said vehicle (by controlling charge/discharge of the two batteries, the APA controller is “for monitoring” some unknown and undefined part(s) of the vehicle);
at least one high-electrical power, low-electrical energy density tertiary battery (12) in electrical connection with said battery controller for providing electrical energy to said at least one electric motor through said battery controller (see arrows in figure 1) for acceleration and other electrical requirements of said autonomous electric vehicle (“electrical requirements” are not defined – as the APA battery 12 has the same configuration as the claimed tertiary battery [i.e. high-power, low-energy], it is interpreted as being “for providing” electricity for the same hypothetical vehicle uses); and
at least one high-electrical energy core battery (14).
APA discloses a vehicular electrical system with a motor, controller, tertiary battery and core battery. The controller interacts with the motor to provide drive power (to 19) and receive regenerative power (from 18). The ability to known when and how to send/receive power to/from the motor is evidence of both: “implementing the drive cycle governance instructions” and “for monitoring said vehicle”. The Applicant does not dispute this interpretation; thus, it is presumed to be correct.
The APA controller would know which Fig 1B curve it is operating on (see also par 33). This appears to satisfy the limitation of “for receiving drive cycle governance instructions…”. To make the record complete, APA is interpreted as not expressly disclosing receiving (from an external device) the governance instructions. The Examiner notes that the claim does not recite how the controller is “for receiving” any information (there are no communication inputs, there is no mention of any wireless communication capability). Further, a controller’s structure to receive information is not dependent on the information itself – any input would satisfy the requirement that it is “for” specific information items.
APA does not expressly a secondary battery or thermal management system.
Yang discloses an autonomous electric vehicle for generating, storing, and governing the distribution of electric energy (fig 1, 4; par 14-32, 42) comprising:
an electric motor (24) for propelling the vehicle and for providing regenerative electrical energy (via 26),
a battery controller (par 15-16, 42; items 18, 20, 66 and the power lines within 10) for receiving electrical energy and regenerative electrical energy (via the power lines within 10 that connect to the charger and generator), for controlling said electric motor (par 16), for receiving drive cycle governance instructions for partitioning energy and power requirements of said vehicle (via the CAN disclosed in par 15), and implementing the drive cycle governance instructions in said vehicle (the CAN allows the two controllers to exchange information, thereby resulting in the “implementation” of battery commands), and for monitoring said vehicle (see fig 4, item 66; par 42),
a high-electrical-energy density core battery (16); and
a secondary battery (14) in electrical communication with said core battery and said battery controller (see fig 1), comprising electrical power and energy density characteristics between those of said (APA) tertiary battery (see par 20-21 and the comments below) and said core battery (see par 24-25);
wherein said secondary battery receives electrical energy from said core battery (par 19), and is electrically connected to said electric motor through said battery controller (see power lines in figure 1), and further wherein said secondary battery provides electrical energy to said electrical motor through said battery controller (redundant to the previous limitation) for propulsion (obviously the purpose of a vehicle motor) and other electrical requirements of said vehicle (undefined – no requirements are listed – taught by Yang at par 23, “main on-board storage energy source”); and
a thermal management system (par 55-58) for maintaining a chosen temperature of solely said at least one secondary battery (par 58).
Yang (par 58) discloses that each battery gets its own thermal management system. Thus, within the combination the APA secondary battery would get a Yang thermal management system “solely” for itself. The claim does not prohibit the two other batteries of the combination from also having their own Yang thermal management systems. The claim says that one system is “solely” for the secondary battery – this is taught by the combination.
APA and Yang are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely electrified vehicle batteries. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify APA to include the thermal management system, as taught by Yang. The motivation for doing so would have been to prevent damage to the battery by regulating its temperature.
Yang discloses that a “core” battery can be configured as two batteries (one for energy, a second for power). APA and Yang are analogous to the claimed invention, as discussed above. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the APA core battery to be a two-battery module, as taught by Yang. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase the power capability of the main “core” traction battery (see Yang par 3).
Yang discloses that its secondary battery (14) can have a wide variety of power/energy ratios (par 20-21). Thus, the skilled artisan could have used this teaching to arrive at a Yang secondary battery configuration that is between the power/energy ratings of the APA tertiary battery and the Yang core battery. This intermediate configuration can be purposeful or coincidental.
Woodruff discloses an autonomous vehicle (fig 3; associated text) comprising a battery controller for receiving remote drive cycle governance instructions for partitioning energy and power requirements of the vehicle (par 50-56). The combination and Woodruff are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely electrified vehicles. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the combination to have its controller receive governance instructions, as taught by Woodruff. The motivation for doing so would have been to give the user more control over the vehicle. Providing human control, override and/or intervention has predictable results.
With respect to claim 2, Woodruff discloses:
a transmitter/receiver (32) external to said autonomous electric vehicle for transmitting remote drive cycle governance instructions; and
an onboard receiver/transmitter (102/178; par 50-56) in electrical connection with said (combination’s) battery controller for receiving the drive cycle governance instructions and implementing the drive cycle governance instructions in said vehicle (see art rejection of claim 1 for how the combination’s controller receives and executes governance instructions – see also Woodruff par 48-56), said onboard receiver/transmitter transmitting monitoring information (no basis – no monitors are recited) from said vehicle to said external transmitter/receiver (par 63).
With respect to claim 4, Yang discloses said at least one secondary battery receives charging from said regenerative electrical energy capability (par 18) of said autonomous vehicle in addition to receiving electrical energy from said at least one core battery.
With respect to claim 5, APA and Yang combine to teach that said battery controller controllably distributes electrical energy of said autonomous vehicle to all three batteries. This is obviously done to satisfy both beginning-of-life and end-of-life requirements of said three batteries.
The broad language of the claim does not indicate how the controller functions, just that it does. The combination discloses the three batteries are interconnected through the controller. Thus, the controller controls the batteries “to satisfy” the needs of the user, including beginning- and end-of-life battery requirements.
The claim does not recite any sensors (to know when the battery is new/beginning or old/end). The claim does not recite how the controller operates differently upon these events (as opposed to mid-life situations). The combination teaches successful operation of its vehicle and batteries and, therefore, the controller distributes energy “to satisfy” the claimed situation.
Also, the satisfaction of beginning- and end-of- life battery control appears to be disclosed by APA in figure 1B.
With respect to claim 6, the references disclose the three batteries, but not the state-of-charge (SOC) range for each. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to set the electrical load distribution to said at least one core battery is achieved for a state-of-charge range between 10% and 95%, and the electrical load distribution to said at least one secondary battery is achieved at a minimum state-of-charge range between 5% and 20%, such that said at least one core battery provides electrical energy to said at least one secondary battery.
The SOC range of each battery is a result effective variable. MPEP §2144.05. The skilled artisan would have been aware of (or motivated to test) the efficiencies of teach type of battery at different SOCs. The various SOC ranges do not affect the structure of the apparatus.
Yang paragraph 22 discloses the ratio of power provided to the motor from the core and secondary batteries. This appears to satisfy the limitations of claim 6.
With respect to claim 7, the charge rate is a result effective variable. Id. The skilled artisan would have understood (or motivated to test) various charge rates for the secondary battery. Thus, selecting a charge rate of less than 3 C would have been obvious.
With respect to claim 8, the SOC range of the storage battery is a result effective variable as discussed above in the art rejection of claim 6. Id. Thus, the combination teaches the electrical energy distribution to said tertiary battery is achieved at a state-of-charge range between 30% and 100%.
With respect to claim 12, APA (par 32) discloses that acceptable battery chemistries, including for Yang’s secondary battery could comprise a low nickel concentration, nickel-manganese-cobalt oxide cathode.
With respect to claim 13, Yang discloses the core and secondary batteries are connected in parallel. APA is silent regarding how the tertiary battery is connected. Thus, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to consider both options (series, parallel). Thus, the combination obviously teaches that all three batteries are in parallel.
Claims 9-10 and 14, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over APA in view of Yang, Woodruff and Kejha (US 2006/0208692).
With respect to claim 9, APA and Yang teach the core battery, but does not expressly disclose its chemical composition. Kejha discloses a core battery can be chosen from lithium-ion batteries (par 34), lithium metal batteries, nickel-metal-hydride batteries, sodium- nickel-chloride batteries, and combinations thereof.
APA/Yang and Kejha are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely batteries. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to select one of the Kejha battery types for the APA/Yang core battery. The motivation for doing so would have been to use a known and proven chemistry with a reasonable expectation of success.
With respect to claim 10, Kejha discloses said lithium-ion batteries and said lithium metal batteries comprise solid-state batteries having chemistries chosen from sulfide, polymer (par 38-39), oxide (par 36), and combinations thereof.
With respect to claim 14, Yang discloses the secondary battery, but does not expressly disclose it is two parallel batteries. Kejha discloses how one battery can be several parallel batteries (fig 2, cells 11 are in parallel; cells 12 are in parallel; par 45).
Kejha discloses two types of cells (11, 12). Each cell makes up one battery. And figure 2 shows that each battery is really multiple parallel cells/batteries. Yang and Kejha are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely batteries. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the Yang secondary battery to be several in parallel. The motivation for doing so would have been the obviousness to duplicate parts MPEP §2144.04(VI)(B) or the obviousness to separate MPEP §2144.04(V)(C).
A circuit with one battery with storage X is electrically identical to a circuit with two parallel batteries with storage X/2. This can be done by duplicating the first or splitting the first into two equal halves. The Applicant has not addressed or rebutted this interpretation; thus, it is presumed to be correct.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over APA in view of Yang, Woodruff and Bhatt et al (“Lithium-ion Batteries”, published online at the Australian Academy of Science. Available at https://www.science.org.au/curious/technology-future/lithium-ion-batteries. Publication date 3/15/16).
APA discloses said at least one high-power, low-energy density storage battery is a lithium-ion battery (par 32), but does not expressly disclose its internal construction. Bhatt discloses that lithium-ion batteries comprise: a lithium ferrophosphate cathode (see the first three paragraphs after the heading “Lithium Iron Phosphate (LiFePO4)” , a graphite anode (same three paragraphs), and a thermally stable liquid electrolyte (the page describes the electrolyte as a “solution” with dissolved salts – this makes it a liquid).
APA and Bhatt are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely lithium-ion batteries. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to construct the APA tertiary battery according to the materials taught by Bhatt. The motivation for doing so would have been to build the battery using a known and proven design, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 18, 31-32 and 36-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over APA in view of Yang.
With respect to claim 28, APA and Yang combine to teach the recited limitations, and the references are analogous, as discussed above in the art rejection of claim 1. Claim 28 recites fewer limitations than claim 1, namely it omits reciting the battery controller and its reception of governance instructions (thus negating the need to cite to Woodruff in this art rejection). The “high-power and high-energy applications” and the “apparatus for generating regenerative electrical energy” in the preamble are both intended use limitations that do not breathe life into the claim. MPEP §2111.02(II).
With respect to claims 31-32 and 36-37, APA and/or Yang disclose the recited limitations, as discussed above in the art rejections of claims 4-5 and 12-13, respectively.
Claims 33-34 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over APA in view of Yang and Kejha.
APA, Yang and Kejha combine to disclose the recited limitations, and the references are analogous, as discussed above in the art rejections of claims 9-10 and 14, respectively.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over APA in view of Yang and Bhatt et al (“Lithium-ion Batteries”).
The combination teaches the limitations of claim 35, and the references are analogous, as discussed above in the art rejection of claim 11.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADI AMRANY whose telephone number is (571)272-0415. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8am-7pm.
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, Rex Barnie can be reached at 5712722800 x36. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ADI AMRANY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights