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. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 03/06/2023 . The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following FILLIN "Enter features that must be shown" \* MERGEFORMAT must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. “ external charger ” (claim s 8-13 and 19-20 ) The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference characters not mentioned in the description: S416 (Fig. 4) Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) and/or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Objections Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim s 1-20 use the terms “electric vehicle” and “vehicle” interchangeably. The claims should be revise d to consistently use the same term for the same feature. Claim 10 uses the terms “preset second reference value” and “second reference value”. The claim should be revised to consistently use the same term for the same feature. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.— The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim s 1 and 14 are indefinite as which limitation(s) is/are intended to be modified by “according to whether the vehicle is started, based on maximum charge and discharge powers of each of the main battery and swap battery”. For examination purposes, this language is interpreted to modify each of “discharging of the main battery to be performed after charging the main battery” and “charging of the swap battery to be performed after charging the main battery”. Alternatively, one could interpret this to only modify only the latter limitation “charging of the swap battery to be performed after charging the main battery”. For each of the possible “controlling actions”, listed below, c laim s 1 and 14 are indefinite as to which action(s) is /are required to based on which parameter(s). “ discharging of the main battery to be performed after discharging the swap battery” (interpreted to be supported by S400 of Figs. 3-4) “ charging of the swap battery to be performed after charging the main battery ” (interpreted to be supported by S500 of Figs. 3 & 5) One possible, most narrow interpretation of the claim language is that each of these actions is based on all four of the following parameters. This interpretation is not supported by the disclosure ( e.g. S400 does not appear to be based on max. discharge power of main battery or max. charge power of swap battery ) and is thus not used for examination purposes in this action. maximum charge power of the main battery maximum discharge power of the main battery maximum charge power of the swap battery maximum discharge power of the swap battery For examination purposes, it is interpreted that each of these actions is based on a plurality of the four maximum charge/discharge parameters. To resolve the indefiniteness, it is suggested to revise claim 1 to separate each of these two possible “controlling actions” into separate elements, with clearly identified modifiers (“according to…”, “based on …”) for each separate action. It is further suggested to separate ly introduce each of the four maximum charge/discharge parameters . In alignment with the interpretation used for examination purposes herein, o ne possible revision of the claim 1 language is as follows: “ controlling , by the charge and discharge management controller, discharging of the main battery to be performed after discharging the swap battery, according to whether the vehicle is started, based on a plurality of a maximum charge power of the main battery, a maximum discharge power of the main battery, a maximum charge power of the swap battery, and a maximum discharge power of the swap battery, or controlling, by the charge and discharge management controller, charging of the swap battery to be performed after charging the main battery, according to whether the vehicle is started, based on a plurality of the maximum charge power of the main battery, the maximum discharge power of the main battery, the maximum charge power of the swap battery, and the maximum discharge power of the swap battery.” In alignment with the interpretation used for examination purposes herein, one possible revision of the claim 14 language is as follows: “ and which is configured to control discharging of the main battery to be performed after discharging the swap battery, according to whether the vehicle is started, based on a plurality of a maximum charge power of the main battery, a maximum discharge power of the main battery, a maximum charge power of the swap battery, and a maximum discharge power of the swap battery, or is configured to control charging of the swap battery to be performed after charging the main battery according to whether the vehicle is started, based on a plurality of the maximum charge power of the main battery, the maximum discharge power of the main battery, the maximum charge power of the swap battery, and the maximum discharge power of the swap battery.” Claim 3 is indefinite as to whether the condition “ when the driver demand power is greater than the maximum discharge power of the swap battery when the vehicle is started and the driver demand power requires battery discharge ” is intended modify both or only the latter of the following limitations : “ controlling the discharging of the swap battery to be performed by the maximum discharge power of the swap battery ” “ controlling the discharging of the main battery to be performed by a difference between the driver demand power and the maximum discharge power of the swap battery ” For examination purposes, it is interpreted that this condition is in t ended to modify both of these limitations. Claim 5 is indefinite as to whether the condition “ when the main battery is capable of being charged or discharged ” is intended modify both or only the latter of the following limitations: “ controlling the discharging of the swap battery to be performed by the maximum discharge power of the swap battery ” “ controlling the charging of the main battery to be performed by a difference between the maximum discharge power of the swap battery and the driver demand ” For examination purposes, it is interpreted that this condition is intended to modify both of these limitations. Claim 7 is indefinite as to whether the condition “ when the driver demand power is greater than the maximum charge power of the main battery ” is intended modify both or only the latter of the following limitations: “ controlling the charging of the main battery to be performed by the maximum charge power of the main battery ” “ controlling the charging of the swap battery to be performed by a difference between the driver demand power and the maximum charge power of the main battery ” For examination purposes, it is interpreted that this condition is intended to modify both of these limitations. Claim 12 is indefinite as to whether the condition “ when the maximum charge power of the main battery is greater than the discharge power of the external charger ” is intended modify both or only the latter of the following limitations: “ controlling the charging of the main battery to be performed by the discharge power of the external charger ” “ controlling the swap battery so that the swap battery charges the main battery by a difference between the maximum charge power of the main battery and the discharge power of the external charger ” For examination purposes, it is interpreted that this condition is intended to modify both of these limitations. Claim 13 is indefinite as to which two values are used for the computation of the “difference”. For examination purposes, it is assumed the language is revised as “a difference between the discharge power of the external charger and the maximum charge power of the main battery and the maximum charge power of the swap battery.” Claim 15 is indefinite as to whether the condition “when the driver demand is greater than the maximum discharge power of the swap battery when the vehicle is started and the driver demand power requires battery discharge” is intended modify both or only the latter of the following limitations: “ configured to control the discharging of the swap battery to be performed by the maximum discharge power of the swap battery” “ configured to control the discharging of the main battery to be performed by a difference between a driver demand power and the maximum discharge power of the swap battery” For examination purposes, it is interpreted that this condition is intended to modify both of these limitations. Claim 16 , line 4 recites “or less than the maximum discharge power”. This language is indefinite as to whether the maximum discharge power is in reference to the swap battery (interpretation for examination) or the main battery. Claim 18 is indefinite as to whether the condition “ when the driver demand power is greater than the maximum charge power of the main battery ” is intended modify both or only the latter of the following limitations: “ configured to control the charging of the main battery to be performed by the maximum charge power of the main battery ” “ configured to control the charging of the swap battery to be performed by a difference between the drive demand power and the maximum charge power of the main battery ” For examination purposes, it is interpreted that this condition is intended to modify both of these limitations. Claims 2, 4, 6, 8-11, and 1 7 -20 are further rejected for their dependency on other rejected indefinite claims. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . Claim s 1 - 7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1 - 6 of the prior U.S. Patent granted to Lee et al. (US 12,365,262 B2) in view of Zenner et al. (US 2017/0043670 A1; hereinafter "Zen") . The following table compares the instant application and Lee ’s claims. The patentably indistinct claim language is identified with bold text. Instant Application (18/117,893) Lee et al. (US 12, 365,262 B2) Claim 1 A power control method of an electric vehicle including a main battery and a swap battery, the power control method comprising: determining, by a charge and discharge management controller, whether the vehicle is started; and controlling, by the charge and discharge management controller, discharging of the main battery to be performed after discharging the swap battery, or charging of the swap battery to be performed after charging the main battery according to whether the vehicle is started, (NOTE: This limitation is optional due to the term “or”.) based on maximum charge and discharge powers of each of the main battery and the swap battery. Claim 1 col. 10 , lines 20-21 : A method for power management of an electrified vehicle including: col. 10 , line 22 : a main battery and a swappable battery electrically connected to the power electric unit, col. 10 , lines 23-24 : the method comprising: (no equivalent limitation) (no equivalent limitation) col. 10 , lines 26-27 : satisfying the driver demand power first with an output of the swappable battery col. 10, lines 30-31 : charging the main battery first in response to the driver demand power (NOTE: “in response to the driver demand power” inherently means charging is “according to whether the vehicle is started”.) Partially claimed by col. 10 lines 28-29 : based on an upper limit of discharging of the swappable battery col. 10 lines 32-33 : based on an upper limit of charging of the main battery Claim 2 The power control method of claim 1, wherein the controlling includes determining a driver demand power when the vehicle is started. Claim 1 col. 10 , line 25 : determining a driver demand power; ( NOTE: “when the vehicle is started” is an inherent condition for the existence of the “driver demand power”. Thus, “when the vehicle is started” is not patentably distinct. ) Claim 3 The power control method of claim 2, wherein the controlling further includes: controlling the discharging of the swap battery to be performed by the maximum discharge power of the swap battery, and controlling the discharging of the main battery to be performed by a difference between the driver demand power and the maximum discharge power of the swap battery when the driver demand power is greater than the maximum discharge power of the swap battery when the vehicle is started and the driver demand power requires battery discharge. Claim 2 col. 10, lines 38-39: discharging the swappable battery by the upper limit of discharging; col. 10, lines 39-42 : and discharging the main battery by a value obtained by subtracting the upper limit of discharging of the swappable battery from the driver demand power. col. 10, lines 35-37 : when the driver demand power exceeds the discharging upper limit of the swappable battery and the power electric unit outputs the driving force ( NOTE: “when the vehicle is started” is inherent for the existence of the “driver demand power”. ) Claim 4 The power control method of claim 3, wherein the controlling further includes: controlling the discharging of the swap battery to be performed by the driver demand power when the main battery is not capable of being charged or discharged after checking whether the main battery is capable of being charged or discharged when the driver demand power is the maximum discharge power of the swap battery or less than the maximum discharge power of the swap battery. Claim s 3- 4 col. 10, lines 49-5 0 : discharging the swappable battery in response to the driver demand power col. 10, lines 50-51: when determined that the main battery cannot be charged or discharged col. 10, lines 44-45: determining whether the main battery is in a state of charging col. 10, lines 45-47: discharging when the driver demand power is less than the discharge upper limit of the swappable battery Claim 5 The power control method of claim 4, wherein the controlling further includes: controlling the discharging of the swap battery to be performed by the maximum discharge power of the swap battery, and controlling the charging of the main battery to be performed by a difference between the maximum discharge power of the swap battery and the driver demand power when the main battery is capable of being charged or discharged. Claim 5 col. 10, lines 55-56: discharging the swappable battery to the upper limit of discharging col. 10, lines 57-59: charging the main battery by a value obtained by subtracting the driver demand power from the upper limit of discharging of the swappable battery col. 10, lines 52-54: when determined that the main battery is in a state of chargeable and not chargeable Claim 6 The power control method of claim 2, wherein the controlling further includes controlling the charging of the main battery to be performed by the driver demand power when the driver demand power is the maximum charge power of the main battery or less than the maximum charge power of the main battery when the vehicle is started, and the driver demand power requires battery charge. Claim s 6- 7 col. 11, lines 2-3: charging the main battery in response to the driver demand power col. 11, lines 3-4: when the upper charge limit of the main battery is less (see note) than the driver demand power (NOTE: It is interpreted that Lee’s claim 7 intends to recite “greater than” in col. 11, line 4, in light of Lee’s Fig. 2.) (NOTE: “when the vehicle is started” is inherent for the existence of the “driver demand power”. ) col. 10, lines 66-67: when the power electric unit is generated. Claim 7 The power control method of claim 6, wherein the controlling further includes: controlling the charging of the main battery to be performed by the maximum charge power of the main battery, and controlling the charging of the swap battery to be performed by a difference between the driver demand power and the maximum charge power of the main battery when the driver demand power is greater than the maximum charge power of the main battery. Claim 6 col. 10, line 61: charging the main battery by the upper limit of charging col . 10, lines 62-64: and charging the main battery (see note) by a value obtained by subtracting the upper limit of charging of the main battery from the driver demand power, ( NOTE: It is interpreted that Lee’s claim 6 intends to refer to “charging the swap battery” in col. 10, line 62, in light of Lee’s Fig. 2. ) col . 10, lines 64-67: when the driver demand power exceeds the upper limit of charging of the main battery when the power electric unit is generated. Regarding independent Claim 1 , Lee does not claim “ determining, by a charge and discharge management controller, whether the vehicle is started; and controlling, by the charge and discharge management controller ”. Lee further does not claim the charging or discharging is “ based on maximum charge and discharge powers of each of the main battery and the swap battery ”. Though, Lee does claim the charging or discharging is based on the main battery’s maximum charge power and the swap battery’s maximum discharge power . Zen teaches determining, by a charge and discharge management controller (“control system 58”; Figs. 1-2) , whether the vehicle (“vehicle 12”; Figs. 1-2) is started (“58” determines whether “12” is started because “58” is responsible to control “selectively provide power to the motor 22” per ¶ [56] ) . Zen further teaches controlling, by the charge and discharge management controller (58; ¶ [56]: “58 is configured to … selectively provide power to the motor 22 from the modular battery 56, the vehicle-mounted battery 24, or a combination of the two”) , the discharging of the main battery (“vehicle-mounted battery 24”; Figs. 1-2) to be performed after the discharging the swap battery (“modular battery 56”; Figs. 1-2, 3A-3B; discharging of “56” is performed first in Fig. 8, step 318, until its SOC falls below “minimum threshold” of step 312, after which discharging of “24” is performed in step 314). Zen teaches discharging based on maximum charge and discharge powers (“threshold” of Fig. 8, step 316 is the “predetermined power threshold of the modular battery 56”, per ¶ [72]; “aggregate threshold (modular + VEH)” of Fig. 8, step 324 is the sum of the maximum powers of each battery per ¶ [73]: “24, 56 can collectively provide”) of each of the main battery (24) and the swap battery (56). Zen further teaches basing the discharging on the maximum charge and discharge powers to determine whether only the swap battery or both the swap and main batteries are needed to meet the vehicle’s demand (¶ [72-73]). This helps to avoid unnecessary depletion of the main battery, which extends the vehicle’s range (¶ [39, 77]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method claimed by Lee to incorporate a charge and discharge management controller to that determined whether the vehicle is started and to control charging/discharging based on each of the main and swap batteries’ maximum charge and discharge powers, as taught by Zen, to extend the electric vehicle’s range. Regarding dependent Claim 2 , the claimed dependent subject matter is included in Lee’s claim 1. Regarding dependent Claim 3 , the claimed dependent subject matter is included in Lee’s claim 2. Regarding dependent Claim 4 , the claimed dependent subject matter is included in Lee’s claims 3 -4. Regarding dependent Claim 5 , the claimed dependent subject matter is included in Lee’s claim 5. Regarding dependent Claim 6 , the claimed dependent subject matter is included in Lee’s claims 6-7. Alternatively, Zen teaches (see detailed claim item mapping in the prior art rejection included infra ) controlling the charging of the main battery to be performed by the driver demand power when the driver demand power is the maximum charge power of the main battery or less than the maximum charge power of the main battery when the vehicle is started, and the driver demand power requires battery charge . Zen further teaches directing the vehicle’s regeneration power to charge the main battery avoid unnecessary depletion of the main battery, which extends the vehicle’s range (¶ [39, 77]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method claimed by Lee to direct the vehicle’s regeneration power to charge the main battery , as taught by Zen, to extend the electric vehicle’s range. Regarding dependent Claim 7 , the claimed dependent subject matter is included in Lee’s claim 6 . Claims 8 and 10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of the prior U.S. Patent granted to Lee et al. (US 12,365,262 B2) in view of Zenner et al. (US 2017/0043670 A1; hereinafter "Zen") and Masuda et al. (US 2012/0299377 A1; hereinafter “Mas”). Regarding dependent Claim 8 , Lee does not claim “ checking whether charging by an external charger is performed when a state of charge (SOC) value of the swap battery is not equal to a preset first reference value or is less than the preset first reference value when the starting of the vehicle stops . ” Mas teaches (see detailed claim item mapping in the prior art rejection included infra ) check ing whether charging by an external charger is performed when a state of charge (SOC) value of the auxiliary battery (analogous to the swap battery, as detailed in the prior art rejection) is not equal to a preset first reference value or is less than the preset first reference value when the starting of the vehicle stops . Mas further teaches checking for an external charger when the swap battery’s SOC is low when the vehicle stops to ensure reliable start-up of the vehicle (¶ [12]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the power control method claimed by Lee to check for an external charger when the swap battery’s SOC is low when the vehicle stops, as taught by Mas, to ensure reliable start-up of the vehicle . Regarding dependent Claim 10 , Lee does not claim “ the controlling further includes controlling the charging of the swap battery to be performed by a discharge power of the external charger when the main battery is fully charged and the SOC value of the swap battery is a preset second reference value or less than the second reference value when the charging by the external charger is performed. ” Mas teaches (see detailed claim item mapping in the prior art rejection included infra ) the c ontrolling further includes controlling the charging of the auxiliary battery to be performed by a discharge power of the external charger when the main battery is fully charged and the SOC value of the auxiliary battery is a preset second reference value (see note 10 1, included infra ) or less than the second reference value when the charging by the external charger is performed . Mas further teaches charging the swap battery with an external charger when the swap battery’s SOC is low to ensure reliable start-up of the vehicle (¶ [12]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the power control method claimed by Lee to control charging of the swap battery with an external charger when the swap battery’s SOC is low , as further taught by Mas, to ensure reliable start-up of the vehicle . Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of the prior U.S. Patent granted to Lee et al. (US 12,365,262 B2) in view of Zenner et al. (US 2017/0043670 A1; hereinafter "Zen") , Masuda et al. (US 2012/0299377 A1; hereinafter “Mas”) , and Ger (US 2017/0253138 A1). Regarding dependent Claim 9 , Lee does not claim “ the controlling further includes controlling the charging of the main battery to be performed by the swap battery when the charging by the external charger is not performed ”. Ger teaches (see detailed claim item mapping in the prior art rejection included infra ; also see note 9 1 on claim interpretation, included infra ) the controlling further includes controlling the charging of the main battery to be performed by the swap battery when the charging by the external charger is not performed . Ger further teaches charging the main battery with the swap battery while not connected to the external charger to prolong the service time of the main battery while the vehicle is being driven (¶ [7-8]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the power control method claimed by Lee to charge the main battery with the swap battery while not connected to the external charger, as taught by Ger , to prolong the service time of the main battery while the vehicle is being driven. Claim s 1 1 and 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of the prior U.S. Patent granted to Lee et al. (US 12,365,262 B2) in view of Zenner et al. (US 2017/0043670 A1; hereinafter "Zen") , Masuda et al. (US 2012/0299377 A1; hereinafter “Mas”) , and Oh Hong et al. (KR 2017-0040923 A; hereinafter “Hong”) . Regarding dependent Claim 11 , Lee does not claim “the controlling further includes comparing the maximum charge power of the main battery with the discharge power of the external charger when the charging by the external charger is performed and the main battery is not fully charged.” Hong teaches (see detailed claim item mapping in the prior art rejection included infra ) the controlling further includes comparing the maximum charge power of the main battery with the discharge power of the external charger when the charging by the external charger is performed and the main battery is not fully charged . Hong further teaches comparing the main battery’s maximum charge power and the external charger’s discharge power to better prioritize charging of the main battery (¶ [35, 81-82]), which protects the long-term life cycle of the main battery (¶ [36]) and improve reliability of the motor’s driving power energy requirements (¶ [44]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the power control method claimed by Lee to compare the main battery’s maximum charge power and the external charger’s discharge power, as taught by Hong, to protect the long-term life cycle of the main battery and improve reliability of the motor’s driving power energy requirements. Regarding dependent Claim 13 , Lee does not claim “the controlling further includes: controlling the charging of the main battery to be performed by the maximum charge power of the main battery when the maximum charge power of the main battery is smaller than the discharge power of the external charger; and controlling the charging of the swap battery to be performed by a minimum value of a difference between the discharge power of the external charger and the maximum charge power and the maximum charge power of the swap battery.” Hong further teaches (see detailed claim item mapping in the prior art rejection included infra ) the controlling further includes: controlling the charging of the main battery to be performed by the maximum charge power of the main battery when the maximum charge power of the main battery is smaller than the discharge power of the external charger; and controlling the charging of the auxiliary battery to be performed by a minimum value of a difference between the discharge power of the external charger and the maximum charge power and the maximum charge power of the auxiliary battery . Hong further teaches controlling the charging of the swap battery with the surplus discharging power in excess of the main battery’s maximum charging power to ensure all the discharging power from the external charger is used, which supports completing the charging process in a short time and in an efficient manner (¶ [8]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the power control method claimed by Lee to charge the swap battery with the surplus discharging power in excess of the main battery’s maximum charging power, as further taught by Hong, to ensure the swap battery also receives charge rather than wasting the surplus discharging power from the external charger, which improves the speed and efficiency of the charging of the two batteries. Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of the prior U.S. Patent granted to Lee et al. (US 12,365,262 B2) in view of Zenner et al. (US 2017/0043670 A1; hereinafter "Zen") , Masuda et al. (US 2012/0299377 A1; hereinafter “Mas”) , and Lee (US 2024/0100986 A1; hereinafter “ Lee-3 ”). Regarding dependent Claim 12 , Lee does not claim “the controlling further includes: controlling the charging of the main battery to be performed by the discharge power of the external charger; and controlling the swap battery so that the swap battery charges the main battery by a difference between the maximum charge power of the main battery and the discharge power of the external charger when the maximum charge power of the main battery is greater than the discharge power of the external charger”. Lee-3 teaches (see detailed claim item mapping in the prior art rejection included infra ) the controlling further includes: controlling the charging of the main battery to be performed by the discharge power of the external charger; and controlling the swap battery so that the swap battery charges the main battery by a difference between the maximum charge power of the main battery and the discharge power of the external charger when the maximum charge power of the main battery is greater than the discharge power of the external charger . Lee-3 further teaches to supplement the external charging to the main battery with additional charge from the swap battery to support faster charging of the main battery when the external power will be too slow (¶ [29]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the power control method claimed by Lee to supplement the external charging to the main battery with additional charge from the swap battery, as taught by Lee-3 , to more quickly charge the main battery when the external power would otherwise be too slow. Claims 14-1 8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9-12 and 14-15 of the prior U.S. Patent granted to Lee et al. (US 12,365,262 B2) in view of Zenner et al. (US 2017/0043670 A1; hereinafter "Zen"). The following table compares the instant application and Lee’s claims. The patentably indistinct claim language is identified with bold text. Instant Application (18/117,893) Lee et al. (US 12, 365,262 B2) Claim 14 An electric vehicle comprising: a main battery and a swap battery; and a charge and discharge management controller which is configured to determine whether the vehicle is started, and which is configured to control discharging of the main battery to be performed after discharging the swap battery, or is configured to control charging of the swap battery to be performed after charging the main battery according to whether the vehicle is started, (NOTE: This limitation is optional due to the term “or”.) based on maximum charge and discharge powers of each of the main battery and the swap battery. Claim 9 col. 11, line 21: An electrified vehicle comprising: col. 11, lines 23-24: a main battery and a swappable battery electrically connected to the power electric unit; col. 11, lines 25-26: a vehicle control unit configured to: determine a driver demand power, (NOTE: “determine whether the vehicle is started” is inherently part of “determine a driver demand power”.) col. 11, lines 27-28 : satisfy the driver demand power first with an output of the swappable battery col. 11, lines 31-33 : charge the main battery first in response to the driver demand power when the power electric unit is generated (NOTE: “in response to the driver demand power” inherently means charging is “according to whether the vehicle is started”.) Partially claimed by col. 11, lines 29-30 : based on an upper limit of discharging of the swappable battery; col. 11, lines 33-34: based on an upper limit of charging, of the mam battery. Claim 15 The electric vehicle of claim 14, wherein the charge and discharge management controller is configured to control the discharging of the swap battery to be performed by the maximum discharge power of the swap battery and is configured to control the discharging of the main battery to be performed by a difference between a driver demand power and the maximum discharge power of the swap battery when the driver demand power is greater than the maximum discharge power of the swap battery when the vehicle is started and the driver demand power requires battery discharge. Claim 10 col. 11, lines 38-40: t he vehicle control unit is configured to: discharge the swappable battery by the upper limit of discharging; col. 12, lines 1-3: and discharge the main battery by a value obtained by subtracting the upper limit of discharging of the swappable battery from the driver demand power col. 11, lines 35 -38: when the driver demand power exceeds the discharging upper limit of the swappable battery when the power electric unit outputs the driving force, (NOTE: “when the vehicle is started” is inherent for the existence of the “driver demand power”.) Claim 16 The electric vehicle of claim 15, wherein the charge and discharge management controller is configured to check whether the main battery is capable of being charged or discharged when the driver demand power is the maximum discharge power of the swap battery or less than the maximum discharge power, and is configured to control the discharging of the swap battery to be performed by the driver demand power when the main battery is not capable of being charged or discharged. Claims 11-12 col. 12, lines 4-6: wherein the vehicle control unit is configured to determine whether the main battery is in a state of charging and discharging col. 12, lines 6-8: when the driver demand power is less than the discharge upper limit of the swappable battery col. 12, lines 9-11: the vehicle control unit is configured to discharge the swappable battery in response to the driver demand power col. 12, lines 11-13: when determined that the main battery cannot be charged or discharged Claim 17 The electric vehicle of claim 14, wherein the charge and discharge management controller is configured to control the charging of the main battery to be performed by a driver demand power when the driver demand power is the maximum charge power of the main battery or less than the maximum charge power of the main battery when the vehicle is started and the driver demand power requires battery charge. Claims 14-15 col. 12 , lines 29-30 : the main battery is charged in response to the driver demand power col. 12, lines 31-32: when the upper charge limit of the main battery is less (see note) than the driver demand power (NOTE: It is interpreted that Lee’s claim 15 intends to recite “greater than” in col. 12, line 31, in light of Lee’s Fig. 2.) (NOTE: “when the vehicle is started” is inherent for the existence of the “driver demand power”.) col. 12, line 28: when the power electric unit is generated Claim 18 The electric vehicle of claim 17, wherein the charge and discharge management controller is configured to control the charging of the main battery to be performed by the maximum charge power of the main battery, and is configured to control the charging of the swap battery to be performed by a difference between the driver demand power and the maximum charge power of the main battery when the driver demand power is greater than the maximum charge power of the main battery. Claim 14 col. 12, lines 22-24: wherein the vehicle control unit is configured to charge the main battery by the upper limit of charging col. 12, lines 24-26: charges the main battery (see note) by a value obtained by subtracting the upper limit of charging of the main battery from the driver demand power (NOTE: It is interpreted that Lee’s claim 6 intends to refer to “charges the swap battery” in col. 12, line 24, in light of Lee’s Fig. 2.) col. 12, lines 26-28: when the driver demand power exceeds the upper limit of charging of the main battery Regarding in dependent Claim 14 , Lee does not claim the charging or discharging is “ based on maximum charge and discharge powers of each of the main battery and the swap battery ”. Though, Lee does claim the charging or discharging is based on the main battery’s maximum charge power and the swap battery’s maximum discharge power. Zen teaches a charge and discharge management controller ( “control system 58”; Figs. 1-2 ) which is configured to control ( ¶ [56]: “58 is configured to … selectively provide power to the motor 22 from the modular battery 56, the vehicle-mounted battery 24, or a combination of the two” ) discharging of the main battery (“vehicle-mounted battery 24”; Figs. 1-2) to be performed after the discharging the swap battery (“modular battery 56”; Figs. 1-2, 3A-3B; discharging of “56” is performed first in Fig. 8, step 318, until its SOC falls below “minimum threshold” of step 312, after which discharging of “24” is performed in step 314). Zen teaches discharging based on maximum charge and discharge powers (“threshold” of Fig. 8, step 316 is the “predetermined power threshold of the modular battery 56”, per ¶ [72]; “aggregate threshold (modular + VEH)” of Fig. 8, step 324 is the sum of the maximum powers of each battery per ¶ [73]: “24, 56 can collectively provide”) of each of the main battery (24) and the swap battery (56). Zen further teaches basing the discharging on the maximum charge and discharge powers to determine whether only the swap battery or both the swap and main batteries are needed to meet the vehicle’s demand (¶ [72-73]). This helps to avoid unnecessary depletion of the main battery, which extends the vehicle’s range (¶ [39, 77]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the charge and discharge management controller claimed by Lee to control charging/discharging based on each of the main and swap batteries’ maximum charge and discharge powers, as taught by Zen, to extend the electric vehicle’s range. Regarding dependent Claim 15 , the claimed dependent subject matter is included in Lee’s claim 10. Regarding dependent Claim 16 , the claimed dependent subject matter is included in Lee’s claims 11-12. Regarding dependent Claim 17 , the claimed dependent subject matter is included in Lee’s claims 14-15. Regarding dependent Claim 18 , the claimed dependent subject matter is included in Lee’s claim 14. Claims 19-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of the prior U.S. Patent granted to Lee et al. (US 12,365,262 B2) in view of Zenner et al. (US 2017/0043670 A1; hereinafter "Zen") and Masuda et al. (US 2012/0299377 A1; hereinafter “Mas”). Regarding dependent Claim 19 , Lee does not claim “the charge and discharge management controller is configured to check whether charging by an external charger is performed when a state of charge (SOC) value of the swap battery is not equal to a preset first reference value or is less than the preset first reference value when the starting of the vehicle stops ”. Mas teaches (see detailed claim item mapping in the prior art rejection included infra ) the charge and discharge management controller is configured to check whether charging by an external charger is performed when a state of charge (SOC) value of the auxiliary battery (analogous to the swap battery, as detailed in the prior art rejection) is not equal to a preset first reference value or is less than the preset first reference value when the starting of the vehicle stops . Mas further teaches checking for an external charger when the swap battery’s SOC is low when the vehicle stops to ensure reliable start-up of the vehicle (¶ [12]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the charge and discharge management controller claimed by Lee to check for an external charger when the swap battery’s SOC is low when the vehicle stops, as taught by Mas, to ensure reliable start-up of the vehicle . Regarding dependent Claim 20 , Lee does not claim “ t he charge and discharge management controller is configured to control the charging of the swap battery to be performed by a discharge power of the external charger when the main battery is fully charged and the SOC value of the swap battery is a preset second reference value or less than the second reference value when the charging by the external charger is performed .” Mas teaches (see detailed claim item mapping in the prior art rejection included infra ) the charge and discharge management controller is configured to control the charging of the auxiliary battery to be performed by a discharge power of the external charger when the main battery is fully charged and the SOC value of the auxiliary battery is a preset second reference value or less than the second reference value when the charging by the external charger is performed . Mas further teaches charging the swap battery with an external charger when the swap battery’s SOC is low to ensure reliable start-up of the vehicle (¶ [12]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the charge and discharge management controller claimed by Lee to control charging of the swap battery with an external charger when the swap battery’s SOC is low , as further taught by Mas, to ensure reliable start-up of the vehicle . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1 - 3 , 6, 14 -15 , and 17 are rejected under 35 U. S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zenner et al. (US 2017/0043670 A1; hereinafter "Zen"). Regardin g Claim 1 , Zen discloses a power control method (Title: “method for powering electrified vehicle with modular battery”; Fig. 8) of an electric vehicle (“vehicle 12”; Figs. 1-2 ; ¶ [40]: “electrified vehicle” ) including a main battery (“vehicle-mounted battery 24”; Figs. 1-2) and a swap battery (“modular battery 56”; Figs. 1-2, 3A-3B), the power control method comprising the following. Zen further discloses determining, by a charge and discharge management controller (“control system 58”; Figs. 1-2) , whether the vehicle (12) is started (“58” determines whether “12” is started because “58” is responsible to control “selectively provide power to the motor 22” per ¶ [56]). Zen further discloses controlling, by the charge and discharge management controller (58; ¶ [56]: “58 is configured to … selectively provide power to the motor 22 from the modular battery 56, the vehicle-mounted battery 24, or a combination of the two”) , the d