DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgement is made of amendment filed on 07/15/2026 in which claims 1,8,10-12 have been amended while claim 13 has been newly added. By this amendment, claims 1-13 are now pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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) 1-2,8,10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bebbington US 2011/0106294 A1 to Bebbington in view of Latotzki US 2017/0329346 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 a 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).
Bebbington does not expressly disclose that the replacement of the drive battery of the electric motor vehicle is performed while the electric motor vehicle is carrying out an automated valet parking (AVP) operation in a parking lot.
Latotzki teaches factual evidence of, the replacement of the drive battery of the electric motor vehicle is performed while the electric motor vehicle is carrying out an automated valet parking (AVP) operation in a parking lot([0051]).
Bebbington and Latotzki are autonomous vehicles 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 Bebbington and Latotzki by having, control the drive battery replacement device such that it automatically replaces the drive battery of the electric motor vehicle while the electric motor vehicle is carrying out an automated valet parking operation in a parking lot, as recited, to facilitate to the user the pickup of the vehicle after car servicing at a different spot than the drop-off. Accordingly, claims 1,10-12 would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 2, modified 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 in view of Latotzki discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 1. Modified Bebbington further discloses, wherein the 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]).
Regarding claim 13, Bebbington in view of Latotzki discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 1. Latotzki further teaches, wherein the AVP operation includes at least one of:
(i) guiding the motor vehicle in an at least highly automated manner from a drop-off position to a
parking position(see [0051]), or (ii) guiding the motor vehicle in an at least highly automated manner from the parking position to a pick-up position(see [0049]-[0051]).
Claim(s) 4,6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bebbington US 2011/0106294 A1 to Bebbington in view of Latotzki US 2017/0329346 A1 and in further view of Park et al., (Park) KR 20120114490 A(Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 4, Bebbington in view of Latotzki discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 1. However, the combination of Bebbington and Latotzki 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]).
Accordingly claim 4 would have been obvious.
Bebbington, Latotzki 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 as modified by Latotzki 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 Latotzki and 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).
Accordingly claim 6 would have been obvious.
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.
Citation of Prior art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
USPAT 6,421,600 B1 to Ross discloses a roadway-powered electric vehicle system having automatic guidance and demand-based dispatch features.
USPAT 4,334,819 to Hammerslag discloses a battery charging system.
US 2018/0012156 A1 to Voelz et al., (Voelz) discloses a valet parking method.
USPAT 10,467,895 B2 to Nordbruch discloses a device and method for operating a parking facility.
S. Klemm et al., discloses "Autonomous multi-story navigation for valet parking," 2016 IEEE 19th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2016, pp. 1126-1133.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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, DREW A DUNN can be reached at 571-272-2312. 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 August 11, 2026
Prosecution Insights