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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDSes filed 3/29/23 and 3/22/24 have both been considered and made of record. The initialed copies are attached herewith.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the unlabeled rectangular boxes shown in figures 1-10 should be provided with descriptive text labels. Although the boxes in the figures are numbered which allow a correlation to each box as one reads the specification, the numbers by themselves do not allow one to quickly ascertain the concept of the invention.
In addition, the descriptive text in figure 1 is small and blurry.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it has legal phraseology often used in patent claims such as “comprising.” In addition, it should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure discloses,” etc. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Claim 6, 7, 16 and 21 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.
Re claims 6 and 7, the limitation “the user” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Re claim 16, the limitation “the display screen” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Re claim 21, the pronoun “it” is indefinite. It is unclear what is “it”? In addition, the limitation “the batteries” lacks proper antecedent basis. It should be “the battery modules” or “battery pack units.”
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.
Claims 1, 2, 10-13, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 2016/0082859) in view of Kawata et al. (US 2019/0372065). (Note: crossed-out limitations are not found in Yang).
Re claim 1, the reference discloses a DC power supply system having a fixed battery pack unit (an inherent feature of any vehicle (EV/hybrid or petrol) for powering accessories) and a variable battery pack unit 11, the variable battery pack unit 11 including: a plurality of battery modules 111-114, which are respectively formed by combination and para 22: battery module monitoring board), which is equipped with a selector switch (power transistor) and a switch controller 101 (end of para 22: Moreover, the sorting controller 101 can control the operation of power transistors…), the selector switch is set corresponding to the battery mounting position, and the use and idle of the battery module mounted on the battery mounting position is selected based on the control of the switch controller (end of para 22: Moreover, the sorting controller 101… vehicular computer 10); an external data exchange module 10/101, which is connected with an electronic control unit 10 of the moving equipment 19 driven by the DC power supply system and carries out data exchange; and a battery control module (relays of the battery modules), which is connected with the external data exchange module and the switch controller 101, and dynamically selects one or more of the battery modules to put them in an operating state based on the information input from the external data exchange module (end of para 22: the on/off state of the configuration-variable-series type battery box are adjusted according to the on/off state of the power transistors… consequently the priorities determined according to the computer 10).
The reference does not disclose the battery modules having plurality of monomer cells. It would have been well within the skill of one versed in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have fabricated the modules from monomer cells since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
The reference does not disclose a base having a plurality of mounts for accepting a plurality of batteries wherein each mount having an electrode interface. Kawata teaches a battery pack with a base having plurality of modules wherein each module maybe removable and having electrode and are mounted onto the base so that each battery can be configured to connect or disconnect from the main power source (fig 1). It would have been well within one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have mounted the battery of Kawata into the EV of Yang such that they would form the basic shell for the underpinning of an EV and the base tray of batteries can be replaced easily.
Re claim 2, the reference further discloses battery control module controls the power supply mode switching module to make the DC power supply system operate in a plurality of power supply modes, which include the mode of using only a few of the battery modules in the variable battery pack unit, the mode of using most of the battery modules in the variable battery pack unit, top half of para 22). However, the reference is silent on using the fixed battery in the combination thereof. It would have been well within the skill of one versed in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the fixed battery or combination thereof, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known materiale on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Re claim 10, the reference is silent on having the control module selects a few modules when congestion ahead is detected and selects more modules when the road ahead is clear. Official notice is taken of the fact that selecting a fewer number of battery modules when congestion ahead is sensed would conserve battery capacity and selecting more battery modules when the road ahead is clear would allow for acceleration (i.e. acceleration requires more energy). It would have been well within the skill of one versed in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected more battery modules for quicker acceleration when the road ahead is clear while selected a few battery modules to conserve charge when the road ahead is congested.
Re claims 11 and 13, the reference is silent on having the battery control module selects more battery modules when the acceleration is depressed or when trying to overtake other vehicles. Official notice is taken of the fact that more energy is needed to accelerate, thereby more batteries would be needed to accomplish such task (i.e. similar to petrol car uses more petrol when accelerating). It would have been well within the skill of one versed in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected more modules when the acceleration pedal is depressed to accomplish proper acceleration.
Re claim 12, the reference is silent on having the battery control module selects fewer number of battery modules when the vehicle speed has reached a predetermined speed. Official notice is taken of the fact that the vehicle uses less charge when the speed has reached a predetermined speed (i.e. similar to petrol vehicle uses less petrol when vehicle is on cruise control). It would have been obvious to have selected a fewer number of battery modules when the vehicle has reached its predetermined speed because constant speed required less energy. Therefore, a fewer number of batteries are needed.
Re claim 16, the reference is silent on having a display of data of the batteries on a screen. Official notice is taken of the fact that having a display to alert a user to the condition of the batteries would be beneficial to the life of the batteries. It would have been well within the skill of one versed in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have included a display screen so the user can immediately react to the condition of the batteries, thereby saving the SOC of the batteries.
Re claim 17, the reference further discloses the moving equipment is a vehicle (para 1).
Claims 3-9, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 2016/0082859) in view of Kawata et al. (US 2019/0372065) and further in view of Ostrowski et al. (US 2022/0136474) [filing date 11/4/2020]. (Note: A certified English translation of the CN application is needed should Applicant desired the benefits of the priority date 10-01-2020. See MPEP 2304,01(c) “A certified translation of every foreign benefit application or Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) application not filed in English is required. See 35 U.S.C. 119(b)(3) and 372(b)(3) and 37 CFR 1.55(g)(3)(i) and 41.154(b). If no certified translation is in the official record for the application, the examiner must require the applicant to file a certified translation. The applicant should provide the required translation if applicant wants the application to be accorded benefit of the non-English language application. Any showing of priority that relies on a non-English language application is prima facie insufficient if no certified translation of the application is on file. See 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e)” or
MPEP 216 “When the claim to priority and the certified copy of the foreign application are received while the application is pending before the examiner… In those cases where the applicant files the certified copy of the foreign application for the purpose of overcoming the effective date of a reference, a translation is required if the certified copy is not in the English language.”
Re claims 3-5, 8, 9, 14 and 15, Yang is silent on having the data exchange module receiving and processing different data including current road condition, vehicle data, driving habits/behaviors. Ostrowski teaches methods and systems for adapting hybrid battery operation based on conditions including driving habits/behavior, road conditions, battery SOC, historical data determining from the neural network 400 (fig 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have incorporated the teachings of Ostrowski into the EV of Yang in view of Kawata to ensure the proper number of batteries are activated/deactivated based on external data trained from AI (e.g. a neural network).
Re more specific claim 5, the references are silent on having a display of data of the batteries on a screen. Official notice is taken of the fact that having a display to alert a user to the condition of the batteries would be beneficial to the life of the batteries. It would have been well within the skill of one versed in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have included a display screen so the user can immediately react to the condition of the batteries, thereby saving the SOC of the batteries.
Re claims 6 and 7, the references are silent on having the user selected modules and stored in driver profile. Official notice is taken of the fact that giving drivers the ability to store individual profiles based on the batteries selected would individualize the driving dynamics of the vehicle. It would have been well within the skill of one versed in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have individualized the driving dynamics of the vehicle to allow the driver the freedom to pick and choose the kind of driving the driver desired at the moment (i.e. similar to different modes of driving in sport vehicles).
Claims 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 2016/0082859) in view of Kawata et al. (US 2019/0372065) and further in view of Penilla et al. (US 2020/0006969). (Note: crossed-out limitations are not found in Yang).
Re claim 18, Yang discloses a battery module charging system having at least a dc power supply 111-141,
The references do not disclose a battery mounting position. Official notice is taken of the fact that these batteries for an EV are mounted on the base with plural mounts with electrodes so that each battery can be configured individually to connect or disconnect from the main power source. It would have been well within the skill of one versed in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have mounted these variable batteries onto a base such that they would form the basic shell for the underpinning of an EV and the base tray of batteries can be replaced easily.
The references do not disclose a display. Official notice is taken of the fact that having a display to alert a user to the condition or status of the batteries would be beneficial to the life of the batteries. It would have been well within the skill of one versed in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have included a display screen so the user can immediately react to the condition and status of the batteries, thereby saving the SOC of the batteries.
The reference of Yang does not disclose payment/price/fee of charging batteries. Penilla teaches methods and systems for processing payment/fee of charging of EVs. Prices and fees are associated with charging services based on duration, service history, user profiles ect. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have included the teachings of Penilla into the EV of Yang in order to control the cost of the modules and charging duration.
Re claim 19, the references do not disclose the modules having plural cells with electrode set on the mounting position through its own attached electrodes. Kawata teaches a battery pack having plurality of modules wherein each module maybe removable and having electrode and are mounted onto a base so that each battery can be configured to connect or disconnect from the main power source (fig 1). It would have been well within one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have mounted the battery of Kawata into the EV of Yang such that they would form the basic shell for the underpinning of an EV and the base tray of batteries can be replaced easily.
Re claim 20, Yang does not disclose the battery modules having brand, service history, remaining power/life etc. as claimed. Penilla teaches servicing includes battery with a service history and SOC. It would have been well within the skill of one versed in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have included battery modules with personalized history as taught by Penilla into the EV of Yang in view of Kawata in order for the user to ascertain possible end of life of the module.
Re claim 21, Yang does not disclose a payment system for the user to charge or trade the batteries. Penilla teaches a payment system to alert the user to the charge price of the batteries. It would have been well within one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have included a payment system as taught by Penilla into the EV of Yang in view of Kawata to charge or trade the batteries because a financial transaction is beneficial to both parties.
Conclusion
A certified English translation of Applicant’s CN 202011066609.0 is required should Applicant desired to claim the benefit of filing date of 10/10/2020 OR submit convincing evidence/argument that Ostrowski et al. (US 2022/0136474) would not make obvious Applicant’s claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to the Examiner at the below-listed number. The Examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thu from 7:00am-5:00pm.
The Examiner’s SPE is Taelor Kim and he can be reached at 571.270.7166. The fax number for the organization where this application is assigned is 571.273.8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800.786.9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571.272.1000.
/EDWARD TSO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859 571.272.2087