DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-17 are pending. Claims 16-17 are new.
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
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) to Chinese Patent Application No. 202310084915.4 filed on 2/7/2023.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 4/15/26, have been fully considered but are not persuasive, except where noted below.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) (page 11) are persuasive and the claims are no longer rejected for these reasons. Note that new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112 are presented below.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (page 11) are persuasive and the claims are no longer rejected under that statute.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (pages 11-15) are moot because the claims are no longer rejected under that statute.
For at least these reasons, the rejection of the claims is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With regard to claim 1, this claim recites the limitation 'a corresponding task cycle time corresponding to each type of equipment for periodic testing of each type of equipment at intervals defined by the task cycle time’, i.e. the equipment itself is periodically tested based on the task cycle time. However, the specification/PGPub describes that pieces of test equipment of different types are each transported to the location of batteries where the test equipment is used to periodically execute a test task on the batteries [0042-0046], i.e. the periodic testing refers to periodic testing of the batteries using the test equipment not to periodic testing of the test equipment itself based on the task cycle time. This limitation therefore constitutes new matter because it is not described in the application as originally filed.
In addition, claim 1 recites ‘wherein the task start time recurs upon each expiration of a task cycle time corresponding to an equipment type of the piece of equipment’. The specification/PGPub describes that ‘The task start time herein may be an initial task start time or a task start time upon arrival of a cycle of each task’ [0057]. But the specification does not describe that the task start time recurs upon each expiration of a task cycle time. The recurrent task appears to be associated with testing of the batteries after specific recurring periods, e.g. ‘every half a year’ [0046], that is different than a recurrent task cycle. This limitation therefore constitutes new matter because it is not described in the application as originally filed.
Claim 9 recites similar limitations to claim 1 and is rejected based on the same rationale as for claim 1.
The dependent claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 as they inherit all of the characteristics of the claim from which they depend.
Note that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNARD G. LINDSAY whose telephone number is (571)270-0665. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:30 AM to 5:30 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mohammad Ali can be reached on (571)272-4105. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant may call the examiner or use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/BERNARD G LINDSAY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights