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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on two (2) applications filed in the Japan Patent Office on 03/31/2022 and 02/21/2023. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Introduction
Claims 1-17 are currently pending in this application and are subject to examination herein.
Information Disclosure Statement
The two (2) information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 03/20/2023 and 10/24/2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 1-7 and 13-17 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.
Claims 1 and 7 each recite the limitation "An electric work vehicle" in line 1 and then recites “a vehicle” in line 3. The metes and bounds of this claim cannot be determined because it is unclear whether the second recitation of “a vehicle” is the same or different from the earlier recitation. Claims 2-6 and 13-17 each depend either directly or ultimately from independent claim 1 or 7 and are, therefore, likewise rejected as indefinite.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2012/0159916 to Ishii et al. (hereinafter Ishii).
Regarding claim 1, Ishii discloses an electric work vehicle (motor-driven lawnmower vehicle 350) (Abstract; Figs. 50-58; Paras. [0327]) comprising:
at least one motor (one or more of deck motors 404, 406, 408 and/or drive motors 400, 402) (Figs. 50-58, 67; Paras. [0327], [0380]) to drive one or both of a travelling device (wheels 40, 42) (Figs. 50-58; Para. [0326]) and a working device (mower deck 20) (Figs. 50-58; Para. [00326]) included in a vehicle (electric lawnmower) (Abstract);
an operation section (lever-type operator 70 or handle-type or monolever-type steering operator 72, switches 302, 458, 460, 470 and/or sensors 418, 420, 456, 304) (see annotated Fig. 49 of Ishii infra; Figs. 3, 50-58; Paras. [0129], [0333]-[0336]) to direct a rotational speed or actuation of the motor (one or more of deck motors 404, 406, 408 and/or drive motors 400, 402) (Figs. 50-58, 67; Paras. [0327], [0380]);
a control section (control system 410) (Figs. 50-58; Paras. [0326], [0333], [0337]) to control the motor (one or more of deck motors 404, 406, 408 and/or drive motors 400, 402) (Figs. 50-58, 67; Paras. [0327], [0380]) according to an operation of the operation section; and
a battery (battery 412) (Figs. 49-58; Paras. [0328]-[329], [0333]-[0334], [0336]-[0339], [0342], [0349]-[0353]) to supply power to the motor (one or more of deck motors 404, 406, 408 and/or drive motors 400, 402) (Figs. 50-58, 67; Paras. [0327], [0380]),
wherein the control section decreases an upper limit of rotational speed of the motor (one or more of deck motors 404, 406, 408 and/or drive motors 400, 402) (Figs. 50-58, 67; Paras. [0327], [0380]), based on a detected result with regard to a battery condition (Fig. 67; Paras. [0363], [0375]-[380]) including a voltage of the battery (battery 412) (Figs. 49-58; Paras. [0328]-[329], [0333]-[0334], [0336]-[0339], [0342], [0349]-[0353]).
[AltContent: textbox (Operation
Section)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image1.png
476
627
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 49 of Ishii.
Regarding claim 2, Ishii discloses the electric work vehicle according to claim 1 (see above). Furthermore, Ishii discloses an electric work vehicle (motor-driven lawnmower vehicle 350) (Abstract; Figs. 50-58; Paras. [0327]) wherein, in a case where a change amount in voltage of the battery (battery 412) (Figs. 49-58; Paras. [0328]-[329], [0333]-[0334], [0336]-[0339], [0342], [0349]-[0353]) from a reference voltage or a magnitude of a change rate of voltage of the battery (battery 412) (Figs. 49-58; Paras. [0328]-[329], [0333]-[0334], [0336]-[0339], [0342], [0349]-[0353]) to the reference voltage is a first threshold or higher, the control section (control system 410) (Figs. 50-58; Paras. [0326], [0333], [0337]) decreases the upper limit of rotational speed of the motor (one or more of deck motors 404, 406, 408 and/or drive motors 400, 402) (Figs. 50-58, 67; Paras. [0327], [0380]) to a set first rotational speed limit (Fig. 67; Paras. [0363], [0375]-[380]).
Regarding claim 3, Ishii discloses the electric work vehicle according to claim 1 (see above). Furthermore, Ishii discloses an electric work vehicle (motor-driven lawnmower vehicle 350) (Abstract; Figs. 50-58; Paras. [0327]) wherein, each time a change in voltage of the battery (battery 412) (Figs. 49-58; Paras. [0328]-[329], [0333]-[0334], [0336]-[0339], [0342], [0349]-[0353]) occurs, the control section (control system 410) (Figs. 50-58; Paras. [0326], [0333], [0337]) adjusts the upper limit of rotational speed of the motor (one or more of deck motors 404, 406, 408 and/or drive motors 400, 402) (Figs. 50-58, 67; Paras. [0327], [0380]) according to a change amount from a reference voltage or a magnitude of a change rate to the reference voltage (Fig. 67; Paras. [0363], [0375]-[380]).
Regarding claim 4, Ishii discloses the electric work vehicle according to claim 1 (see above). Furthermore, Ishii discloses an electric work vehicle (motor-driven lawnmower vehicle 350) (Abstract; Figs. 50-58; Paras. [0327]) wherein the battery condition includes a remaining charge amount of the battery (battery 412) (Figs. 49-58; Paras. [0328]-[329], [0333]-[0334], [0336]-[0339], [0342], [0349]-[0353]), and wherein, each time a change in voltage of the battery (battery 412) (Figs. 49-58; Paras. [0328]-[329], [0333]-[0334], [0336]-[0339], [0342], [0349]-[0353]) occurs, the control section (control system 410) (Figs. 50-58; Paras. [0326], [0333], [0337]) adjusts the upper limit of rotational speed of the motor (one or more of deck motors 404, 406, 408 and/or drive motors 400, 402) (Figs. 50-58, 67; Paras. [0327], [0380]) according to a change amount from a reference voltage or a change rate to the reference voltage, and the remaining charge amount (Fig. 67; Paras. [0363], [0375]-[380]).
Regarding claim 5, Ishii discloses the electric work vehicle according to claim 1 (see above). Furthermore, Ishii discloses an electric work vehicle (motor-driven lawnmower vehicle 350) (Abstract; Figs. 50-58; Paras. [0327]) further comprising a battery monitoring device (battery voltage monitoring section) (Para. [0380]) to monitor the battery condition, wherein the control section (control system 410) (Figs. 50-58; Paras. [0326], [0333], [0337]) decreases an upper limit of target rotational speed of the motor so as to decrease an upper limit of actual rotational speed, based on a detected result with regard to the battery condition (Fig. 67; Paras. [0363], [0375]-[380]) from the battery monitoring device (battery voltage monitoring section) (Para. [0380]).
Regarding claim 6, Ishii discloses the electric work vehicle according to claim 1 (see above). Furthermore, Ishii discloses an electric work vehicle (motor-driven lawnmower vehicle 350) (Abstract; Figs. 50-58; Paras. [0327]) wherein the at least one motor (one or more of deck motors 404, 406, 408 and/or drive motors 400, 402) (Figs. 50-58, 67; Paras. [0327], [0380]) is a travel motor (one or more of drive motors 400, 402) (Figs. 50-58, 67; Paras. [0327], [0380]) which drives the at least one travelling device (wheels 40, 42) (Figs. 50-58; Para. [0326]) and a work motor (one or more of deck motors 404, 406, 408) (Figs. 50-58, 67; Paras. [0327], [0380]) which drives the at least one working device (mower deck 20) (Figs. 50-58; Para. [00326]).
Regarding claim 7, Ishii discloses an electric work vehicle (motor-driven lawnmower vehicle 350) (Abstract; Figs. 50-58; Paras. [0327]) comprising:
at least one motor (one or more of deck motors 404, 406, 408 and/or drive motors 400, 402) (Figs. 50-58, 67; Paras. [0327], [0380]) to drive one or both of a travelling device (wheels 40, 42) (Figs. 50-58; Para. [0326]) and a working device (mower deck 20) (Figs. 50-58; Para. [00326]) included in a vehicle (electric lawnmower) (Abstract);
an operation section (lever-type operator 70 or handle-type or monolever-type steering operator 72, switches 302, 458, 460, 470 and/or sensors 418, 420, 456, 304) (see annotated Fig. 49 of Ishii supra; Figs. 3, 50-58; Paras. [0129], [0333]-[0336]) to direct torque or actuation of the motor (one or more of deck motors 404, 406, 408 and/or drive motors 400, 402) (Figs. 50-58, 67; Paras. [0327], [0380]);
a control section (control system 410) (Figs. 50-58; Paras. [0326], [0333], [0337]) to control the motor (one or more of deck motors 404, 406, 408 and/or drive motors 400, 402) (Figs. 50-58, 67; Paras. [0327], [0380]) according to an operation of the operation section (lever-type operator 70 or handle-type or monolever-type steering operator 72, switches 302, 458, 460, 470 and/or sensors 418, 420, 456, 304) (see annotated Fig. 49 of Ishii supra; Figs. 3, 50-58; Paras. [0129], [0333]-[0336]); and
a battery (battery 412) (Figs. 49-58; Paras. [0328]-[329], [0333]-[0334], [0336]-[0339], [0342], [0349]-[0353]) to supply power to the motor (one or more of deck motors 404, 406, 408 and/or drive motors 400, 402) (Figs. 50-58, 67; Paras. [0327], [0380]), wherein the control section (control system 410) (Figs. 50-58; Paras. [0326], [0333], [0337]) decreases an upper limit of torque of the motor (one or more of deck motors 404, 406, 408 and/or drive motors 400, 402) (Figs. 50-58, 67; Paras. [0327], [0380]), based on a detected result with regard to a battery condition (Fig. 67; Paras. [0363], [0375]-[380]) including a voltage of the battery (battery 412) (Figs. 49-58; Paras. [0328]-[329], [0333]-[0334], [0336]-[0339], [0342], [0349]-[0353]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishii in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2009/0266042 to Mooney et al. (hereinafter Mooney).
Regarding claim 8, Ishii discloses an electric work vehicle (motor-driven lawnmower vehicle 350) (Abstract; Figs. 50-58; Paras. [0327]) comprising:
a travel motor (one or more of drive motors 400, 402) (Figs. 50-58, 67; Paras. [0327], [0380]) to drive at least one travelling device (wheels 40, 42) (Figs. 50-58; Para. [0326]);
a work motor (one or more of deck motors 404, 406, 408) (Figs. 50-58, 67; Paras. [0327], [0380]) to drive at least one working device (mower deck 20) (Figs. 50-58; Para. [00326]);
a battery (battery 412) (Figs. 49-58; Paras. [0328]-[329], [0333]-[0334], [0336]-[0339], [0342], [0349]-[0353]) to supply power to the travel motor (one or more of drive motors 400, 402) (Figs. 50-58, 67; Paras. [0327], [0380]) and the work motor (one or more of deck motors 404, 406, 408) (Figs. 50-58, 67; Paras. [0327], [0380]), the battery (battery 412) (Figs. 49-58; Paras. [0328]-[329], [0333]-[0334], [0336]-[0339], [0342], [0349]-[0353]) having a specified maximum discharge current (Fig. 47; Paras. [0310], [0358]); and
a control section (control system 410) (Figs. 50-58; Paras. [0326], [0333], [0337]) to control the travel motor (one or more of drive motors 400, 402) (Figs. 50-58, 67; Paras. [0327], [0380]) and the work motor (one or more of deck motors 404, 406, 408) (Figs. 50-58, 67; Paras. [0327], [0380]).
However, Ishii discloses control of the work motors rather than the drive motors and, thus, does not expressly disclose that the control section controls a rotational speed of the travel motor so that a discharge current of the battery does not exceed the maximum discharge current during driving of the work motor.
Nevertheless, Mooney teaches an electric work vehicle (battery-powered lawn mower) (Abstract) wherein the control section (main controller 24) (Fig. 1; Para. [0067]) controls a rotational speed of the travel motor (self-drive motor 210) (Figs. 21-23, 25-26, 28; Para. [0101]) so that a discharge current of the battery (battery 12) (Figs. 1-4; Para. [0067]) does not exceed the maximum discharge current during driving of the work motor (cutting motor(s) 86, 88) (Figs. 33, 34; Para. [0101]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the electric work vehicle disclosed in Ishii with the functionality of reducing the rotational speed of the drive motor to avoid exceeding maximum discharge current during driving of the work motor with a reasonable expectation of success in order to allow the cutting motor to utilize the extra current during high-load grass cutting (i.e., wet and/or thick grass), as taught in Mooney (Para. [0004]). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the electric work vehicle disclosed in Ishii with the functionality of reducing the rotational speed of the drive motor to avoid exceeding maximum discharge current during driving of the work motor with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Ishii in view of Mooney teaches the electric work vehicle according to claim 8 (see above). Furthermore, Ishii discloses an electric work vehicle further comprising a battery monitoring device (e.g., current, voltage and/or temperature sensors) (Paras. [0356], [0358], [0380]) to monitor a condition of the battery (battery 412) (Figs. 49-58; Paras. [0328]-[329], [0333]-[0334], [0336]-[0339], [0342], [0349]-[0353]), wherein the control section obtains the maximum discharge current from the battery monitoring device (e.g., current, voltage and/or temperature sensors) (Paras. [0356], [0358], [0380]) via a communication unit (communication lines between current sensor and the corresponding motor control unit via ECU 424 and/or portion of ECU 424).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Ishii in view of Mooney teaches the electric work vehicle according to claim 8 (see above). Furthermore, Ishii discloses an electric work vehicle wherein the travel motor is driven by a travel inverter (Fig. 51; Paras. [0334]-[0335], [0338]), wherein the work motor is driven by a work inverter (Fig. 51; Paras. [0342]-[0343], [0358]), and wherein the control section calculates the discharge current from a sum of a detected value of a discharge current from the battery (battery 412) (Figs. 49-58; Paras. [0328]-[329], [0333]-[0334], [0336]-[0339], [0342], [0349]-[0353]) to the travel inverter (Fig. 51; Paras. [0334]-[0335], [0338]), which is obtained by the travel inverter (Fig. 51; Paras. [0334]-[0335], [0338]), and a detected value of a discharge current from the battery (battery 412) (Figs. 49-58; Paras. [0328]-[329], [0333]-[0334], [0336]-[0339], [0342], [0349]-[0353]) to the work inverter (Fig. 51; Paras. [0342]-[0343], [0358]), which is obtained by the work inverter (Fig. 51; Paras. [0342]-[0343], [0358]).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Ishii in view of Mooney teaches the electric work vehicle according to claim 8 (see above). Furthermore, Ishii discloses an electric work vehicle further comprising a battery monitoring device (e.g., current, voltage and/or temperature sensors) (Paras. [0356], [0358], [0380]) to monitor a condition of the battery (battery 412) (Figs. 49-58; Paras. [0328]-[329], [0333]-[0334], [0336]-[0339], [0342], [0349]-[0353]), wherein the control section (control system 410) (Figs. 50-58; Paras. [0326], [0333], [0337]) obtains the discharge current from the battery monitoring device (e.g., current, voltage and/or temperature sensors) (Paras. [0356], [0358], [0380]) via a communication unit (communication lines between current sensor and the corresponding motor control unit via ECU 424 and/or portion of ECU 424).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Ishii in view of Mooney teaches the electric work vehicle according to claim 8 (see above). Furthermore, Ishii discloses an electric work vehicle further comprising a sensor (e.g., current, voltage and/or temperature sensors) (Paras. [0356], [0358], [0380]) to measure the discharge current of the battery (battery 412) (Figs. 49-58; Paras. [0328]-[329], [0333]-[0334], [0336]-[0339], [0342], [0349]-[0353]), wherein the control section (control system 410) (Figs. 50-58; Paras. [0326], [0333], [0337]) obtains the discharge current from the sensor (e.g., current, voltage and/or temperature sensors) (Paras. [0356], [0358], [0380]) via a communication unit (communication lines between current sensor and the corresponding motor control unit via ECU 424 and/or portion of ECU 424).
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishii in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2014/0285936 to Garbacik et al. (hereinafter Garbacik) and further in view of Canadian Pat. Pub. No. CA 3152034 to Feldkamp et al. (hereinafter Feldcamp).
Regarding claim 13, Ishii discloses the electric work vehicle according to claim 1 (see above). Furthermore, Ishii discloses an electric work vehicle wherein the battery (battery 412) (Figs. 49-58; Paras. [0328]-[329], [0333]-[0334], [0336]-[0339], [0342], [0349]-[0353]) is made up of a plurality of battery packs (Para. [0334]). However, Ishii does not expressly disclose that the plurality of battery packs are removably connected to a plurality of pack connection sections, so that the plurality of battery packs can be electrically connected in parallel, and wherein forward directional converters that can flow current only in a direction of an output from the corresponding battery packs are connected to the plurality of pack connection sections, respectively. Nevertheless, Garbacik teaches a plurality of batteries (cells) (Paras. [0027]-[0033]) that are connected, so that the plurality of battery packs can be electrically connected in parallel (Para. [0020]), and wherein forward directional converters (Paras. [0027]-[0028], [0030]-[0032], [0034]) that can flow current only in a direction of an output from the corresponding battery packs. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the electric work vehicle disclosed in Ishii with the cell balancing taught in Garbacik with a reasonable expectation of success in order to optimally balance the battery charge across all of the cells of the battery. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the electric work vehicle disclosed in Ishii with the cell balancing taught in Garbacik with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). Moreover, Feldcamp teaches a plurality of battery packs that are removably connected to a plurality of pack connection sections (Figs. 20-24; Paras. [00151]-[00157]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the electric work vehicle disclosed in Ishii and the active balancing taught in Garbacik with the plurality of battery packs taught in Feldcamp with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide multiple battery packs that are of a lighter weight than one large battery pack and allow for swapping out of discharged packs with newly charged packs without having to recharge all of the batteries in the vehicle simultaneously, which could have the effect of making the electric work vehicle unavailable to work for the time it takes to charge all of the battery packs. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the electric work vehicle disclosed in Ishii and the active balancing taught in Garbacik with the plurality of battery packs taught in Feldcamp with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 14, Ishii discloses the electric work vehicle according to claim 1 (see above). Furthermore, Ishii discloses an electric work vehicle wherein the battery (battery 412) (Figs. 49-58; Paras. [0328]-[329], [0333]-[0334], [0336]-[0339], [0342], [0349]-[0353]) is made up of a plurality of battery packs (Para. [0334]). However, Ishii does not expressly disclose that the battery is made up of a plurality of battery packs that are removably connected to a plurality of pack connection sections, so that the plurality of battery packs can be electrically connected in parallel, and wherein bidirectional converters that can flow current in both of a direction of an output from the corresponding battery packs and a direction of an input to the corresponding battery packs by switching therebetween are connected to the plurality of pack connection sections, respectively. Nevertheless, Garbacik teaches a plurality of batteries (cells) (Paras. [0027]-[0033]) that are connected, so that the plurality of battery packs can be electrically connected in parallel (Para. [0020]), and wherein bidirectional converters (Paras. [0027]-[0029], [0033]-[0034]) that can flow current only in a direction of an output from the corresponding battery packs. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the electric work vehicle disclosed in Ishii with the cell balancing taught in Garbacik with a reasonable expectation of success in order to optimally balance the battery charge across all of the cells of the battery. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the electric work vehicle disclosed in Ishii with the cell balancing taught in Garbacik with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). Moreover, Feldcamp teaches a plurality of battery packs that are removably connected to a plurality of pack connection sections (Figs. 20-24; Paras. [00151]-[00157]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the electric work vehicle disclosed in Ishii and the active balancing taught in Garbacik with the plurality of battery packs taught in Feldcamp with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide multiple battery packs that are of a lighter weight than one large battery pack and allow for swapping out of discharged packs with newly charged packs without having to recharge all of the batteries in the vehicle simultaneously, which could have the effect of making the electric work vehicle unavailable to work for the time it takes to charge all of the battery packs. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the electric work vehicle disclosed in Ishii and the active balancing taught in Garbacik with the plurality of battery packs taught in Feldcamp with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishii in view of Garbacik and further in view of Feldcamp and further in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2015/0200551 to Wu.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Ishii in view of Garbacik and further in view of Feldcamp teaches the electric work vehicle according to claim 14 (see above). However, neither Ishii, Garbacik nor Feldcamp expressly disclose or teach a rechargeable battery pack further comprising a voltage sensor to detect voltages of the plurality of battery packs, respectively, wherein, based on a detected value of the voltage sensor, whether or not voltages of two or more of the plurality of battery packs match is determined. Nevertheless, Wu teaches a rechargeable battery pack further comprising a voltage sensor (voltage detection module) (Figs. 5, 7; Paras. [0060]-[0062], [0071]) to detect voltages of the plurality of battery packs (B1, B2, B3), respectively, wherein, based on a detected value of the voltage sensor (voltage detection module) (Figs. 5, 7; Paras. [0060]-[0062], [0071]), whether or not voltages of two or more of the plurality of battery packs match is determined (Figs. 5, 7; Paras. [0079]-[0085]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the electric work vehicle taught by Ishii in view of Garbacik and further in view of Feldcamp with the voltage sensor taught in Wu with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have precise measurement of voltages of each cell of the battery to optimize charging and avoid overvoltage of any of the cells. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the electric work vehicle taught by Ishii in view of Garbacik and further in view of Feldcamp with the voltage sensor taught in Wu with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Ishii in view of Garbacik and further in view of Feldcamp teaches the electric work vehicle according to claim 14 (see above). Furthermore, Ishii discloses including a current sensor to detect current values that are output from the plurality of battery packs (Paras. [0356], [0358], [0380]). It would have been obvious to modify the voltage matching taught in Wu to utilize the current sensing of each battery pack and, based on a detected value of the current sensor, whether or not voltages of two or more of the plurality of battery packs match is determined, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Ishii in view of Garbacik and further in view of Feldcamp and further in view of Wu teaches the electric work vehicle according to claim 15 (see above). Wu teaches a rechargeable battery pack further comprising a voltage sensor (voltage detection module) (Figs. 5, 7; Paras. [0060]-[0062], [0071]) to detect voltages of the plurality of battery packs (B1, B2, B3), respectively, wherein, based on a detected value of the voltage sensor (voltage detection module) (Figs. 5, 7; Paras. [0060]-[0062], [0071]), whether or not voltages of two or more of the plurality of battery packs match is determined (Figs. 5, 7; Paras. [0079]-[0085]). Ishii discloses forward directional and bidirectional conductive connections between the battery packs. It would have been obvious to on having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the electric work vehicle taught by Ishii in view of Garbacik and further in view of Feldcamp and further in view of Wu to have the battery wherein, in a case where voltages of two of the battery packs match, as taught in Wu (Figs. 5, 7; Paras. [0079]-[0085]), the bidirectional converters corresponding to the battery packs whose voltages match are switched to bidirectionally conductive because the voltages have already been balanced between the cells and none of the individual cells should be pushing a voltage high enough to overvoltage any of the other cells.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Pat. No. 5,937,622 to Carrier et al. relates to a cordless electric lawn mower having energy management control system. U.S. Pat. No. 6,170,241 to Shibilski et al. relates to a microprocessor controlled motor controller with current limiting protection. U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2016/0105042 to Taylor et al. relates to systems and methods for series battery charging.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAUDE J BROWN whose telephone number is (571)270-5924. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8AM-5PM.
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, Joseph M. Rocca can be reached at (571) 272-8971. 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.
/CLAUDE J BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671