DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after 2013 March 16, 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 statements (IDS) submitted on 2023 November 02 and 2024 December 04 were filed after the mailing date of the 2023 June 30. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: A title that states the inventive concept of this particular BATTERY PACK MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, which distinguishes it from other BATTERY PACK MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification states "match the charging terminal unit 15 of the second battery pack 110 and the charging connector unit 50 with each other by moving the charging connector unit 50 by the hinge unit 30." The second battery pack is uniformly designated as reference numeral 12 throughout the remainder of the specification and in all figures (FIG. 4–6). "110" does not correspond to any element in the reference numeral list.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 1 – 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RYO (JP 6924165 B2), in view of GE (US 2013/0257376 A1), and further in view of HOFFMAN (US 2008/0185992 A1).
In re claim 1, RYO discloses a battery pack management system (battery charger 1 with charging control board 70) comprising:
a housing in which a battery pack is housed (FIG. 2; ¶[0030]: peripheral wall portion 7 of housing 20 formed to enclose battery 10);
a hinge formed in the housing (¶[0059]: rotation axis O rotatably supporting battery mounting section 230 relative to housing 20).
RYO is silent to a charging connector connected to the hinge by a wire, wherein, when the battery pack is inserted through an inlet port of the housing, the hinge moves the charging connector if a size of the battery pack is equal to or larger than a predetermined size.
GE teaches a charging connector connected to the hinge by a wire (¶[0023]: charging connector interface 83 connected to sleeve member 35 by power wire 81).
A person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) would have been motivated to modify RYO's battery pack management system (BPMS) with GE's wire-connected charging connector to accommodate movement of the charging connector relative to the hinge without exposing the connection to damage from repeated pulling or flexing.
GE does not expressly teach wherein, when the battery pack is inserted through an inlet port of the housing, the hinge moves the charging connector if a size of the battery pack is equal to or larger than a predetermined size.
HOFFMAN teaches if a size of the battery pack is equal to or greater than a predetermined size, the hinge moves the charging connector (¶s [0027–0028]; claim 27: plunger 504/508 positioned at an intermediate position for a first battery size or an extended position for a second, larger battery size).
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA to modify RYO's BPMS so that the hinge moves the charging connector when the battery pack is equal to or larger than a predetermined size, as taught by HOFFMAN, to accommodate batteries of different sizes within a single receiving region without requiring separate differently-sized receiving bays.
In re claims 2, 3, RYO discloses wherein the hinge is formed adjacent to an upper part of the housing (¶[0060]: rotation axis O positioned above base 3 of housing 20).
As to claim 3, RYO further discloses wherein the hinge is formed on an inner side surface of the upper part of the housing (¶[0060]: rotation axis O positioned on the opposite side of side portion 5 of housing 20, above base 3).
In re claim 4, RYO discloses the hinge moves the charging connector (¶s [0064 – 0065]: rotation axis O's rotational position determining retreat or mating position of charger terminal 40).
RYO is silent to wherein if the size of the battery pack is larger than the size of a space between a lower part of the housing and the hinge.
HOFFMAN teaches wherein if the size of the battery pack is larger than the size of a space between a lower part of the housing and the hinge (¶s [0027 – 0028]; claim 27: plunger 504/508 held by latch at an intermediate position for a battery of a first size, or moved to an extended position for a battery of a second size).
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA to modify RYO's BPMS so that the hinge moves the charging connector when the battery pack is equal to or larger than a predetermined size, as taught by HOFFMAN, to accommodate batteries of different sizes within a single receiving region without requiring separate differently-sized receiving bays.
In re claim 5, RYO discloses the charging connector is uplifted (¶[0064]: charger terminal 40 arranged movably from a recessed position below lower support section 231 to a mating position above), so that the charging connector and a charging terminal of the battery pack are arranged to correspond to each other (¶[0064]: charger terminal 40 movable to a mating position that can be mounted on the battery terminal 14).
RYO is silent to wherein the hinge pulls the wire.
GE teaches wherein the hinge pulls the wire (¶[0028]: power wire 81 automatically retracting due to rotation of sleeve member 35 driven by coil spring member 37).
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA to modify RYO's BPMS with GE's wire-connected charging connector to accommodate movement of the charging connector relative to the hinge without exposing the connection to damage from repeated pulling or flexing.
In re claim 6, RYO discloses wherein the hinge, comprises:
a hinge rotation part that contacts the battery pack when the battery pack is inserted (¶s [0059, 0062]: lower support section 231 of battery mounting section 230, rotating about rotation axis O, facing and contacting battery 10 when placed), and
a hinge fixing portion that is connected to the hinge rotation part and determines a maximum value of a rotation radius of the hinge rotation part (FIG. 6, 7; ¶s [0059 – 0060]: rotation axis O fixed to housing 20; battery placement section 230 rotation limited to angle less than 90°; maximum value of a rotation radius of the hinge rotation part is inherent to the fixed-axis).
In re claims 7, RYO is silent to wherein the hinge further comprises: a wire pulling plate that is connected to the wire and rotates together with the hinge rotation part, and a rail portion to which one end of the wire pulling plate is connected.
GE teaches wherein the hinge further comprises:
a wire winding member that is connected to the wire and rotates independently (¶s [0017, 0028]: sleeve member 35 connected to power wire 81 by winding, rotating via coil spring member 37), and
a rail portion to which one end of the wire pulling plate is connected (¶s [0016 – 0017]: guiding shaft 31 engaged with inner thread portion 359 at one end of sleeve member 35).
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA to substitute GE's wire winding member for a plate conforming to RYO's hinge rotation part and to mechanically couple the plate and the hinge rotation part to co-rotate, to prevent the wire from being pulled or torn where its payout fails to match the connector's travel.
In re claims 8 – 9, RYO is silent to wherein the wire pulling plate comprises a sliding portion that moves along the rail portion; the wire pulling plate moves along the rail portion and raises the charging connector.
As to claim 8, GE teaches wherein the wire winding member comprises a sliding portion that moves along the rail portion (¶s [0017, 0026]: inner thread portion 359 of sleeve member 35 engaged with guiding shaft 31, translating along the shaft as sleeve member 35 rotates).
As to claim 9, GE further teaches
wherein the wire winding member moves along the rail portion and raises the charging connector (¶[0026]: sleeve member 35 moving along guiding shaft 31 toward top board 13, driving assembly 60 to move toward charging space 17).
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA to modify RYO's BPMS with GE's wire-connected charging connector to accommodate movement of the charging connector relative to the hinge without exposing the connection to damage from repeated pulling or flexing.
In re claim 10, RYO discloses wherein the position of the charging connector is changed (¶s [0064–0065]: charger terminal 40 moving between retreat and mating positions).
RYO is silent to wherein the wire pulling plate moves along the rail portion in a direction away from the charging connector, and the wire moves.
GE teaches
wherein the wire winding member moves along the rail portion in a direction away from the charging connector, and the wire moves (¶[0027]: sleeve member 35 driven by elastic elements 393 and coil spring member 37 to rotate and move towards bottom plate 19, away from charging connector's mated position).
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA to modify RYO's BPMS with GE's wire-connected charging connector to accommodate movement of the charging connector relative to the hinge without exposing the connection to damage from repeated pulling or flexing.
In re claim 11, RYO is silent to wherein the rail portion is formed to be adjacent to an upper part of the housing, and wherein the rail portion is fixed onto the housing by a fixing part.
GE teaches wherein the rail portion is formed to be adjacent to an upper part of the housing (¶[0015]: guiding shaft 31 extending from inner surface of top board 13), and
wherein the rail portion is fixed onto the housing by a fixing part (¶[0016]: fastening portion 311 of guiding shaft 31 fixed to top board 13).
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA to modify RYO's BPMS with GE's wire-connected charging connector to accommodate movement of the charging connector relative to the hinge without exposing the connection to damage from repeated pulling or flexing.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RYO (JP 6924165 B2), GE (US 2013/0257376 A1), HOFFMAN (US 2008/0185992 A1), and further in view of ZHANG (CN 214984885 U).
In re claim 12, RYO is silent to wherein the battery pack management system comprises a battery swapping system.
ZHANG teaches wherein the battery pack management system comprises a battery swapping system (¶s [n0047, n0048]; Claim 23: battery swapping station including charging module with charging and battery swapping functions).
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA to incorporate RYO’s battery pack management system into ZHANG’s battery swapping station to achieve the space-saving benefit of combining charging and battery swapping functions within a single station.
Prior Art Disclaimer
The prior art applied in this Office Action includes foreign patent documents that were originally published in languages other than English. Machine-generated translations of these documents were utilized to assess their relevance and content.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHANN DJANAL-MANN whose telephone number is (571)272-4697. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:00 - 17:00.
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 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.
/D. JOHANN DJANAL-MANN/Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/DREW A DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights