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 .
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.
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 nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6-8, 10-15, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mirle et al, US Pub. 2013/0257602, in view of Splett et al, US Pub. 2022/0288397.
Regarding claim 1, 3, 8, 10, 15, 17 Mirle et al disclose a system for providing a reminder to remove a mobile device from a vehicle comprising: an ignition switch 34 having an ON and OFF states and identify the OFF state as a trigger for indicating the operator has exited or is about to exit the vehicle (par. 0024); receiving wireless signals between the operator device and determine if the signal has changed by amount to indicate the operator and/or the device has moved away from the vehicle; providing a threshold based determination to determine whether the received power drops below a specified power range (par. 0034). (See Fig. -2; par. 0014-0039).
Mirle et al fail to disclose that the battery is disconnected based on the determination that the device has moved away from the machine.
Wang et al disclose battery devices for use with telematics comprising determining the electrical disconnection from lost of power and/or communication and generating and alert to indicate a disconnection, including detecting loss of power and to transmit au audible or electronic signal indicating disconnection of power (see par. 0152).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling of the claimed invention to modify the monitoring system of Mirle et al to include the electrical disconnection detection and notification of Wang et al in order to notify the operator after exiting the vehicle that the battery system has been disconnected. Such modification would improve the monitoring system. Therefore, it would have been an obvious extension as taught by the prior art.
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 18, in addition to the rejection of claims 1, 8, and 15, Wong et al teach exchanging communication data to identify a disconnection component. If the status information is not received, the control circuit determines that electrical coupling is absent, periodic messages are sent, with failure to receive the expected message resulting in a determination the devices are no longer electrically coupled. Therefore, Mirle et al in view of Wong et al render the claims obvious.
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 19, Mirle et al as modified by Wang et al fail to include to include the well-known GPS/location comparison in the mobile. However, it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan to incorporate such a known feature in order to accurately determine whether the operator carrying the device had traveled a predetermined distance away from the machine. For instance, US Pub. 2018/0108259, teaches such known feature. Therefore, it would have been an obvious extension as taught by the prior art.
Regarding claims 6, 13, 20, wherein the battery involves car and/or mobile device batteries, the are low voltage batteries.
Regarding claims 7 and 14, the battery can be disconnected from the machine. Therefore, Mirle et al in view of Wong et al render the claims obvious.
Claim(s) 2, 9, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mirle et al in view of Wong et al and Twigger et al, WO 2023/101875. The teachings of Mirle et al and Wong et al have been discussed above.
Mirle et al as modified by Wong et al fail to scheduling charging time when a low battery is determined.
Twigger et al disclose a charging management for autonomous electric work vehicle at a worksite comprising: communicating a schedule containing the designate charging time, charging module locations, battery state of charge, charger availability, and assigning a designated charging time and charging module (see Fig. and its description).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Mirle et al in view of Wong et al to include a scheduling operation in order to schedule the vehicles when it is determined that the vehicles require charging. Such modification would make sure that each vehicle is charged accordingly in order to continuously operational. Therefore, it would have been an obvious extension as taught by the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Remarks:
In response to the applicant general argument that the prior art fails to disclose determining that the battery is disconnected based on predetermined distance the operator device is traveled from the machine and/or the current state of charge of the battery, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The new set of prior art teaches indicating the state of the battery based on distance, lack of communication, and the state of charge of the battery. The applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Refer to the rejection above
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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL ST CYR whose telephone number is (571)272-2407. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 8:00-8:00.
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, Pham Thomas can be reached at 571-272-3689. 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.
DANIEL ST CYR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2876
/DANIEL ST CYR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights