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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because figures 2, 3, 6, 9, 12a, 12b, 17a and 17b are blurry and the font is too small. 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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 9-11 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McClintock et al. (US 9,778,653).
Re claim 1, the reference discloses a computer-implemented method for optimal on-the-go electric vehicle battery replacement for a battery electric vehicle (BEV) 102 in a BEV network, the computer-implemented method having, inter alia, identifying, using one or more processors, an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) network comprising one or more UAVs 106 (col 2, lines 41-45); determining, using the one or more processors, a selected UAV in the UAV network to pair with the BEV network; and providing, using the one or more processors, pairing instructions to the selected UAV (fig 8), wherein the pairing instructions are configured to cause the selected UAV to: (i) perform automated navigation operations corresponding to a travel to a geographic region associated with the BEV (col 33 and fig 9), and (ii) performing one or more battery replacement operations to replace one or more dead/discharged battery cells of the BEV with one or more fresh battery cells (col 34, lines 21-25). See figs 6 and 8-10.
Re claim 2, the reference further discloses performing the automated navigation operations by the selected UAV comprises: identifying a co-trip BEV in the BEV network: (i) that has a threshold-satisfying charging state (inherent feature; otherwise, no reason to dock with dead BEV), (ii) that is traveling in a general direction associated with the travel, and (iii) whose operator has agreed to a latching pairing with the selected UAV (col 2, lines 51-63); causing the selected UAV to latch onto a charging pad of the co-trip BEV until the co-trip BEV is within a threshold proximity of the BEV (col 2, line 64 to col 3, line 3); and after the co-trip BEV is within the threshold proximity of the BEV, causing the selected UAV to travel from a location of the co-trip BEV to a location of the BEV (col 3, line 34). See also col 4, lines 15-35.
Re claim 3, the reference further discloses determining, using the one or more processors, whether a charging distribution measure for the geographic region fails to satisfy a charging distribution measure threshold; and in response to determining that the charging distribution measure for the geographic region fails to satisfy the charging distribution measure threshold, redirecting, using the one or more processors, one or more mobile charging stations to the geographic region. See col 8, line 57 to col 9, line 17.
Re claim 9-11, same rejections applied to claims 1-3 satisfied here. Claims 9-11 are apparatus claims using the computer-implemented methods of claims 1-3.
Re claims 17-19, same rejections applied to claims 1-3 satisfied here. Claims 17-19 are computer program products implementing methods of claims 1-3.
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.
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.
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 4-8, 12-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McClintock et al. (US 9,778,653) in view of document WO 2023/123932 A1.
Re claims 4, 5, 7, 12, 13, 15 and 20, McClintock does not disclose removing the one or more dead/discharged battery cells from a particular battery cabinet that is in an extraction battery compartment slot of the BEV, wherein removing the one or more dead/ discharged battery cells causes the particular battery cabinet to shift to an empty battery compartment slot of the BEV; and causing the one or more fresh battery cells to be installed into the particular battery cabinet that is in the empty battery compartment slot of the BEV. Moreover, the fresh battery is inserted into the installation chute. The WO document teaches a robot battery swap method wherein a cabinet 1 is provided with batteries and a first battery B1 is exchanged via battery slot 3. A battery B1 is removed and the empty space is taken up by a second battery B2 (figs 4-5 and 9; para 36-42). 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 teaching of the WO document into the EV of McClintock to ensure a system of replacing discharged batteries is optimized.
Re claims 6, 8, 14 and 16, the WO document discloses the batteries are sized for the slots (fig 4-5) and the batteries are stored in a rack system (figs 2-4).
Conclusion
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