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 .
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.
Claims 1-2, 7-10, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monismith et al. (US 2020/0106140) in view of UYEKI (US 2016/0075247).
Regarding claims 1, 9, Monismith discloses a battery operation management system (Page 28, [0157]) comprising: a data obtaining unit configured to obtain, from a battery pack, operation data of a load,
related to a type of the load, and state information of the battery pack (page 17, [0094]; page 28, [0156-0157]).
Monismith discloses all the limitations set forth above but fails to explicitly disclose a processor configured to evaluate a usage class of a user operating the load based on the operation data of the load and the state information of the battery pack, and select a battery pack to be provided to the user based on the usage class of the user in response to a battery pack providing request of the user.
However, Uyeki discloses a processor (control unit 36 in fig. 2) configured to evaluate a usage class of a user operating the load based on the operation data of the load and the state information of the battery pack, and select a battery pack to be provided to the user based on the usage class of the user in response to a battery pack providing request of the user (fig. 3; page 3, [0030]; page 5, [0046-0048]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was first filed to incorporate the features of UYEKI within the system of Monismith in order to accurately supply electrical power to electrical components connected thereto thereby increasing the reliability of the system.
Regarding claims 2, 10, Monismith discloses wherein the processor is further configured to select, as the battery pack to be provided to the user, a battery pack having a lower degradation (damaging) degree for a higher usage class of the user (page 1, [0002-0003]).
Regarding claim 7, Monismith discloses wherein the processor is further configured to evaluate the usage class of the user based on data storing usage classes of a plurality of users (page 1, [0002-0003]).
Regarding claim 8, Monismith discloses wherein the data obtaining unit is further configured to obtain the operation data of the load from an internal memory of the battery pack (page 10, [0053]).
Claims 3-6, 11-14, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monismith in view of UYEKI as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Humphrey (US 2006/0015543).
Regarding claims 3, 11, Monismith and UYEKI disclose all the limitations set forth above but fail to explicitly disclose wherein the processor is further configured to calculate a fuel efficiency of the load based on the operation data of the load and the state information of the battery pack, and evaluate the usage class of the user based on the calculated fuel efficiency.
However, Humphrey discloses wherein the processor is further configured to calculate a fuel efficiency of the load based on the operation data of the load and the state information of the battery pack, and evaluate the usage class of the user based on the calculated fuel efficiency (page 5, [0051-0052]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was first filed to incorporate the features of Humphrey within the system of Monismith and UYEKI in order to accurately supply electrical power to electrical components connected thereto thereby increasing the reliability of the system.
Regarding claims 4, 12, Monismith discloses wherein the type of the load comprises, at least one of a first moving object traveling that travels on the ground and a second moving object that flies (page 10, [0053]).
Regarding claims 5, 13, Monismith discloses wherein the operation data of the first moving object as the load comprises, at least one of a traveling distance, a location, and an altitude of the first moving object, and wherein the operation data of the second moving object as the load comprises at least
one of a traveling distance, a location, a wind speed, and a wind direction of the second moving object (page 10, [0053]).
Regarding claims 6 , 14, Monismith, UYEKi, and Humphrey disclose all the limitations set forth in claim 1 and UYEKI further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to evaluate the usage class of the user by comparing a moving path of the first moving object obtained based on the location of the first moving object with an optimal path considering the altitude, when the load is the first moving object, and wherein the processor is further configured to evaluate the usage class of the user by
comparing a moving path of the second moving object obtained based on the location of the
second moving object with an optimal path considering the wind speed and the wind
direction, when the load is the second moving object (fig. 1; page 5, [0047-0048]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Graefe et al. (US 2019/0132709) discloses sensor……..mechanisms.
Lindemann et al. (US 2018/0086223) discloses adaptive…vehicles.
Rao et al. (US 2006/0217113) discloses device…network.
Shimamura et al. (US 2020/0363183) discloses location……medium.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL PREVIL whose telephone number is (571)272-2971. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:30 AM -6:00 PM.
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, Wang Quan-Zhen can be reached at 571 272 3114. 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.
DP
February 9, 2026
/DANIEL PREVIL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights