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 .
Acknowledgement is made of application #18/191,529 filed on 03/28/2023 in which claims 1-12 have been presented for prosecution in a first action on the merits.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 03/28/2023 has been considered and placed of record. An initialed copy is attached herewith.
Specification
Claim Objections
Claims 1,3,8-9,10-12 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claims recite the limitations of, “while the electric motor vehicle is carrying out an AVP operation in a parking lot”. The underlined limitations are undefined and it is unclear what the limitations of “AVP” mean and thus the claims are indefinite. Claims 2-9 depend either directly or indirectly from claim 1 and therefore they inherit the same deficiencies and are also indefinite.
In claim 10, the limitations of, “…, the device configure to:” should and would read for examination purpose -- …, the device configured to:--
In claim 11, the limitations of, “…and s device configured to:” are unclear and render the claim indefinite. For examination purpose, the “…and s device configured to:” should and would read for examination purpose -- …and said drive battery replacement device configured to:--
In claim 8, the limitations of, “a drive battery replacement station of the parking lot at which the drive battery replacement device s located” should and would read --a drive battery replacement station of the parking lot at which the drive battery replacement device is located--
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 1-12 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.
Upon performing a text search on the entire specification, Examiner could not find the definition of the limitations of “AVP operation”, as it appears in claims 1, 3,8-12 and this limitation renders the claims unclear and 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.
Claim(s) 1-2,8,10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)as being anticipated by Bebbington US 2011/0106294 A1
Regarding claims 11,10,12 and 1: Bebbington at least discloses and shows in Figs. 1-4: A system (see [0024]) configured to replace a drive battery(12) of an electric motor vehicle(AGV 14), comprising: a drive battery replacement device(10)([0024],[0028]) configured to replace([0023]) a drive battery(12) of an electric motor vehicle(AGV 14); and said device configured to: determine that the drive battery(12) of the electric motor vehicle(AGV 14) needs to be replaced(see [0023]); and in response to the determination, control(buy a central computer 34)(see [0005],[0031],[0035],[0037]) the drive battery replacement device(10) such that it automatically replaces the drive battery(the depleted battery) of the electric motor vehicle(AGV 14) while the electric motor vehicle is carrying out an AVP operation in a parking lot(not given any patentable weight absent a showing of a parking lot and a definition of the limitations “AVP”).
Accordingly claims 1,10-12 are anticipated.
Regarding claim 2, Bebbington discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 1. Bebbington further discloses, wherein it is determined that the drive battery of the electric motor vehicle needs to be replaced when there is an existing request to replace the drive battery([0033])(note: an AGV 14 whose battery 12 needs to be replaced will rendezvous(i.e. get an appointment) with an EAGV 10 at either the dedicated station 46 or one of the decentralized stations 48 so that the battery may be exchanged with a fresh battery).
Regarding claim 8, Bebbington discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 1. Bebbington further discloses, wherein the AVP operation(not given any patentable weight absent a definition and a showing in the specification and/or drawings of the word “AVP operation”) specifies that the motor vehicle(AGV 14) is guided in an at least highly automated manner to a drive battery replacement station([0033]) of the parking lot at which the drive battery replacement device(10) is located, so that the control(by the central computer 34)(see [0005],[0031],[0035],[0037]) of the drive battery replacement device does not take place until the electric motor vehicle is located at the drive battery replacement station(see [0033]-[0035]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The 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) 4,6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bebbington US 2011/0106294 A1 in view of Park et al., (Park) KR 20120114490 A(Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 4, Bebbington discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 1. However, Bebbington fails to expressly disclose the limitations: “wherein the drive battery replacement device includes a robot which is configured to replace the drive battery when the drive battery cover of the electric motor vehicle is open, wherein controlling the drive battery replacement device includes controlling the robot such that the robot replaces the drive battery when the drive battery cover of the electric motor vehicle is open”.
Park teaches factual evidence of, a battery exchanging robot(30)(see [0052],[0053]) which exchanges the battery and having a charging station controller (50). Park further discloses, wherein the drive battery replacement device includes a robot(30) which is configured to replace the drive battery when the drive battery cover(213) of the electric motor vehicle(200) is open, wherein controlling the drive battery replacement device(30) includes controlling the robot(30) such that the robot replaces the drive battery(10) when the drive battery cover(213) of the electric motor vehicle(200) is open(see Figs. 5-7)(note- the mounting module door 213 may be configured to open and close in the front and rear directions of the mounting base 211 as shown in Fig. 4, but the battery is not exposed to the external environment as much as possible when the battery 10 is replaced; see attached machine translation [0059]-[0060] and [0079]).
Bebbington and Park are battery replacement analogous art. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Park with Bebbington by having, wherein the drive battery replacement device includes a robot which is configured to replace the drive battery when the drive battery cover of the electric motor vehicle is open, wherein controlling the drive battery replacement device includes controlling the robot such that the robot replaces the drive battery when the drive battery cover of the electric motor vehicle is open, as recited to improve the efficiency of the battery replacement. Using the robot into the system of Bebbington would allow the battery of an electric vehicle to be replaced quickly, accurately, and safely based on robot technology, as per the teachings of Park.
Regarding claim 6, Bebbington in view of Park discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 4. Park further discloses, wherein the robot(30) is configured to open the drive battery(battery and take-out storage robot 32) cover(213) and/or close the drive battery cover(213) after replacement(as shown In Figs. 5-7), wherein the controlling(by controller 50) of the drive battery replacement device includes controlling the robot(30) such that the robot opens the drive battery cover(213) and/or closes the drive battery cover after replacement(see Fig. 5-7)(note- the mounting module door 213 may be configured to open and close in the front and rear directions of the mounting base 211 as shown in Fig. 4, but the battery is not exposed to the external environment as much as possible when the battery 10 is replaced).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5,7 and 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M'BAYE DIAO whose telephone number is (571)272-6127. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 10:00AM-6:30PM and OFF most of the time Friday when working IFP.
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, TAELOR KIM can be reached at 571-270-7166. 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.
M'BAYE DIAO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2859
/M BAYE DIAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859 January 15, 2026