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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. IT102022000026838, filed on 12/27/2022.
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on 09/12/2025. The examiner notes the following adjustments to the claims by the applicant:
Claim 1 is amended;
Claims 2-15 are cancelled
Claims 16-32 are new.
Therefore, Claims 1 and 16-32 are pending examination, in which Claims 1, 31 and 32 are independent claims.
In light of the instant amendments and arguments:
The objection to the Drawings for minor informalities is withdrawn.
The objection to the Specifications for minor informalities is withdrawn.
The objection to the Claims for minor informalities is withdrawn.
Regarding interpretation of Claims 1-7 and 11-13 under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the applicant is mute. The interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is maintained.
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), the applicant’s arguments have been considered and found persuasive. The rejection is withdrawn.
Claims 1, 16-18 and 25-32 are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), as detailed below.
Further examination resulted in a new rejection of Claims 1 and 16-32 under 35 U.S.C. §103, as detailed below.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Necessitated by amendment.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word "means," but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations is/are for the terms:
Recognition means in Claims 1, 16, 18, 24, 26 and 30-32.
Recognition module in Claim 24.
Communication means in Claims 18 and 26-27.
Identification means in Claims 16-17.
Control means in Claims 28-29.
Power supply module in Claim 25.
Selection module in Claim 28.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f)
or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the
corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
For each of the above, the specifications state:
Recognition means and Recognition module: “The recognition means preferably comprise a processing unit designed to receive a signal identifying the energy source. In this case, the processing unit comprises an recognition module designed to recognise the energy source on the basis of the signal received.” {Pg. 6, Lns. 21-24}
Communication means: “The above-mentioned identification signal may be transmitted to the processing unit by communication means which connect it to the compartments, which may, for example, be of the CAN-bus type.” {Pg. 7, Lns. 11-13}
Identification means: “These identification means may comprise a control device in which at least one parameter identifying the energy source is recorded. In this case, the battery 200 or the electricity generator apparatus 300 include an internal management logic connected to a relative connector 202, 302 by which they can send signals which identify the energy source and, optionally, also the serial number of the specific device which constitutes the energy source.” {Pg. 7, Lns. 18-23}
Control means: “control means which can be used by an operator, designed for controlling the energy sources 200, 300 on board the vehicle 1. More in detail, the control means may form part of the commands in the cabin and include one or more displays. The control means are equipped with a plurality of management configurations, which are set by the control unit (or other processing unit), as a function of which energy sources 200, 300 are present in the compartments.” {Pg. 5, Ln. 30 – Pg. 6, Ln. 7}
Power Supply module: “the telehandler 1 is provided with two alternative power supply configurations, which can be switched by the action of a user: - a fully electrical configuration wherein the power supply means include only one or more electric batteries 200; and - a hybrid configuration wherein the above-mentioned power supply means include the electricity generator apparatus 300.” {Pg. 3, Ln. 29 – Pg. 4, Ln. 4} and “the various modules can correspond to hardware units and/or software forming part of the programmed device.” {Pg. 7, Lns. 1-2}
Selection module: “Each battery 200 has a management system (BMS, that is, "Battery Management System")…the processing unit which is therefore able to distinguish the battery 200 located in one compartment from that located in the other, for the purpose of their management. For example, thanks to this feature, the operator can select whether to power the motors 21, 22 and other user devices using the battery located in the compartment on the right relative to the direction of advance the telehandler 1 or that located in the compartment on the left or both.” {Pg. 11, Lns. 16-28} and “the various modules can correspond to hardware units and/or software forming part of the programmed device.” {Pg. 7, Lns. 1-2}
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Response to Arguments
Applicant presents the following arguments regarding the previous office action:
[A.] To overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection, the applicant has amended independent Claim 1 to include the additional underlined limitations: "such that the recognition means is configured to distinguish between the battery (200) and the electricity generator apparatus (300)";
[B.] “The anticipatory reference, Di Florio, does not disclose or suggest recognition means that can tell a battery apart from a generator. The present claims recite that the recognition means automatically recognizes the type of device in a seat (battery or electric generator) because the recognition means "is configured to distinguish between the battery (200) and the electricity generator apparatus (300)." Because Di Florio does not have such a means, or teach or suggest such means, for distinguishing between the two types of devices positioned in a seat, Di Florio cannot anticipate claim 1 as amended, nor render it obvious without further modification of the references, which is not presently provided in the Office action.”;
[C.] “Di Florio fails to disclose the claimed recognition means that can selectively tell apart a battery from an electrical generator that both are removably positioned in a plurality of different seats. The cited Kokubu and Eshelman references do not cure this deficiency. Guillermin describes a lifting device or people or loads, which has a first power source (e.g., battery), in a first fixed position and a second source, located in a second position different from the first, which is removable. The second source can be a battery or a generator. The first battery is a fixed type and thus no recognition (not removable) is needed as the same source is always present in the position.”.
Applicant's arguments A., B. and C. appear to be directed to the instantly amended subject matter. Accordingly, they have been addressed in the rejections below.
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.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Di Florio et al. (US 2022/0098017 A1, henceforth Di Florio).
Regarding Claim 31, Di Florio discloses the limitations: a telehandler {Figs. 1-3} equipped with at least one electric motor {M1, M2, Fig. 4, ¶135} and several seats for housing energy sources on board the telehandler {a compartment for batteries 20 is evident in Fig. 7, and for generator 40 in Fig. 12}; wherein at least one electric battery is provided for powering said motor {battery 20 connected to motors M1, M2 in Fig. 4, ¶119-120} designed to be housed in at least one of the seats {a compartment for batteries 20 is evident in Fig. 7}; and wherein at least one electricity generator apparatus is provided designed to be housed in at least one of the seats {“The support 100 includes a positioning structure 101 for the power generator 40 in the location 39.”, ¶165 and Figs. 9 & 12}; the telehandler comprising recognition means configured for automatically recognizing whether a battery or an electricity generator apparatus is present in a seat {under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the examiner interprets this to simply be replacement of a one energy source by a source that is not identical; per ¶138, on-board electronics identify the type or model of the housed power generator (40, Fig. 1)}; wherein the telehandler further comprises a carriage {mobile, scissor-type aerial work platform in Figs. 1-3} which defines two lateral compartments {a compartment for batteries 20 is evident in Fig. 7, and for generator 40 in Fig. 12; positioning the compartments in different locations or adjacent or laterally to one another, is simply a matter of rearranging parts [MPEP § 2144.04.VI.C]}, the two lateral compartments in opposite lateral portions of the carriage and accessible from opposite sides of the carriage {separate compartments for batteries 20 and generator 40 are evident, respectively, in Figs. 7 & 12; positioning the compartments in different locations or adjacent or laterally to one another, is simply a matter of rearranging parts [MPEP § 2144.04.VI.C]}; wherein the two lateral compartments are designed to house the energy sources and are each provided with an access opening that allow a user to insert or extract the energy sources {an open compartment for batteries 20 is evident in Fig. 7}; wherein the at least one electric battery is designed to be inserted in or extracted from one of the two lateral compartments {the open compartment for batteries 20, evident in Fig. 7, provides the necessary access required to replace a battery; one skilled in the art will appreciate that vehicle batteries, even if recharged by an alternator or generator, will eventually need replacing} and the at least one electricity generator apparatus is designed to be inserted in or extracted from another of the two lateral {¶25, generator is removable (which is represented in Fig. 3, ¶95}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Di Florio before them, to modify the explicit teachings of Di Florio to include the broader understanding, known to one skilled in the art, that compartments for removable components can be positioned laterally on a telehandler or other work vehicle, as noted supra.
Claims 1, 16-28, 30 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Di Florio and Luke et al. (US 11,075,530 B2, henceforth Luke).
Regarding Claim 1, Di Florio discloses the limitations: a telehandler {Figs. 1-3} equipped with at least one electric motor {M1, M2, Fig. 4, ¶135} and several seats for housing energy sources on board the telehandler {a compartment for batteries 20 is evident in Fig. 7, and for generator 40 in Fig. 12}; wherein at least one electric battery is provided for powering said motor {battery 20 connected to motors M1, M2 in Fig. 4, ¶119-120} designed to be housed in at least one of the seats {a compartment for batteries 20 is evident in Fig. 7}; and wherein at least one electricity generator apparatus is provided designed to be housed in at least one of the seats {“The support 100 includes a positioning structure 101 for the power generator 40 in the location 39.”, ¶165 and Figs. 9 & 12}; the telehandler comprising recognition means configured for automatically recognizing whether a battery or an electricity generator apparatus is present in a seat {under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the examiner interprets this to simply be replacement of a one energy source by a source that is not identical; per ¶138, on-board electronics identify the type or model of the housed power generator (40, Fig. 1)}.
Di Florio does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: such that the recognition means is configured to distinguish between the battery and the electricity generator apparatus.
However, Luke explicitly recites the limitation: such that the recognition means is configured to distinguish between the battery and the electricity generator apparatus {sensors used to determine the presence of a power storage device in a receiver, Col. 17, Lns. 14-41, and a control subsystem is able to identify different types of electrical power storage devices according to the unique characteristics of each power storage device, Col. 21, Lns. 50-54}.
Di Florio and Luke are analogous art because they both deal the use of modular energy sources.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Di Florio and Luke before them, to modify the teachings of Di Florio to include the teachings of Luke to provide a system capable of responding to a change in modular energy source by recognizing both the change and identifying if the energy source is differentiated from the previous source {Col. 17, Lns. 14-41 and Col. 21, Lns. 50-54}.
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Di Florio and Luke discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. Di Florio does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: wherein each energy source includes identification means designed for operating in conjunction with said recognition means for allowing recognition of whether there is a battery or an electricity generator apparatus in the seat.
However, Luke explicitly recites the limitation: wherein each energy source includes identification means {Col. 14, Lns. 25-30, the portable electrical storage devices include data storage or transmission devices such as RFID to provide unique identifying information about a portable electrical storage devices 106} designed for operating in conjunction with said recognition means for allowing recognition of whether there is a battery or an electricity generator apparatus in the seat {sensors used to determine the presence of a power storage device in a receiver, Col. 17, Lns. 14-41, and a control subsystem is able to identify different types of electrical power storage devices according to the unique characteristics of each power storage device, Col. 21, Lns. 50-54}.
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Di Florio and Luke discloses all the limitations of Claim 16, as discussed supra. Di Florio does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: wherein said identification means comprise a control device in which an identification parameter of the energy source is recorded.
However, Luke explicitly recites the limitation: wherein said identification means {Col. 14, Lns. 25-30, RFID tags} comprise a control device {control subsystem 202 (Fig. 2) of collection, charging and distribution machine 102 (Fig. 1, Col. 13, Lns. 18-40)}, in which an identification parameter of the energy source is recorded {data from unnumbered RFID reader (which is also part of collection, charging and distribution machine 102, Col. 14, Lns. 43-47) inherently sends data electrical storage device RFID tags to the data storage elements (212, 214, 216, Fig. 2) of the control subsystem}.
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Di Florio and Luke discloses all the limitations of Claim 17, as discussed supra. In addition, Di Florio explicitly recites the limitations:
wherein the recognition means {¶138, on-board electronics identify the type or model of the housed power generator (40, Figs. 1 & 4)} comprise communication means {Fig. 4, electrical circuit} which connect the seats with the processing unit {Fig. 4, electrical circuit shows electronic controls 70 in wired communication with generator 40, for example, a computer, ¶136}, which are designed for transmitting said identification signal {¶138, on-board electronics identify the type or model of the housed power generator, corresponding to a signal from generator 40 to electronic controls 70, Fig. 4} and wherein said control device {electronic controls 70, Fig. 4} is designed for connecting with said communication means {Fig. 4, electrical circuit} for sending to the processing unit an identification signal as a function of said identification parameter {¶138, on-board electronics identify the type or model of the housed power generator}.
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Di Florio and Luke discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. Di Florio does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: wherein each seat is associated with at least one identification sensor designed for detecting the type of source housed and for producing an identification signal as a function of the detection performed.
However, Luke explicitly recites the limitation: wherein each seat is associated with at least one identification sensor designed for detecting the type of source housed {Col. 14, Lns. 25-30, RFID tags, which one skilled in the art will appreciate provide passive signal transmission detected by a reader, Col. 14, Lns. 43-47} and for producing an identification signal as a function of the detection performed {Col. 14, Lns. 25-30, the portable electrical storage devices include data storage or transmission devices such as RFID to provide unique identifying information about a portable electrical storage devices 106}.
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Di Florio and Luke discloses all the limitations of Claim 19, as discussed supra. Di Florio does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations wherein said sensor is a microswitch.
However, Luke explicitly recites the limitation: wherein said sensor is a microswitch { Col. 17, Lns. 14-41, detect the presence or absence of portable electrical power storage device is accomplished using mechanical or optical sensors}.
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of Di Florio and Luke discloses all the limitations of Claim 19, as discussed supra. Di Florio does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations wherein said sensor is a proximity sensor.
However, Luke explicitly recites the limitation: wherein said sensor is a proximity sensor { Col. 17, Lns. 14-41, detect the presence or absence of portable electrical power storage device is accomplished using mechanical or optical sensors}.
Regarding Claim 22, the combination of Di Florio and Luke discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Di Florio explicitly recites the limitation: wherein each seat is defined by a containment compartment for housing an energy source {a compartment for batteries 20 is evident in Fig. 7, and for generator 40 in Fig. 12}.
Regarding Claim 23, the combination of Di Florio and Luke discloses all the limitations of Claim 22, as discussed supra. In addition, Di Florio explicitly recites the limitation: comprising a carriage movable on wheels {mobile, scissor-type aerial work platform in Figs. 1-3}, wherein the compartments are made in said carriage, with the access opening positioned on a side of the carriage {a compartment for batteries 20 is evident in Fig. 7, and for generator 40 in Fig. 12}.
Regarding Claim 24, the combination of Di Florio and Luke discloses all the limitations of Claim 22, as discussed supra. In addition, Di Florio explicitly recites the limitation: wherein said recognition means comprise a processing unit designed for receiving a signal identifying the energy source {Fig. 4, electrical circuit shows electronic controls 70 in wired communication with generator 40, for example, a computer, ¶136} and comprising a recognition module designed for recognizing the energy source on the basis of the signal received {the examiner sees no apparent substantive difference between recognition means and a recognition module: ¶138, on-board electronics identify the type or model of the housed power generator (40, Figs. 1 & 4)}}.
Regarding Claim 25, the combination of Di Florio and Luke discloses all the limitations of Claim 24, as discussed supra. In addition, Di Florio explicitly recites the limitations: comprising an electrical system {Fig. 4, electrical circuit} which connects the seats and the electric motor to each other {electrical connection of battery 20 and generator 40 to motors M1, M2 in Fig. 4, is indicative of the electrical connection between the compartment for battery 20 (Fig. 7) and for generator 40 (Fig. 12, with motors M1, M2}, wherein said processing unit {70, Fig. 4} comprises a power supply module {“The aerial work platform comprises at least a first single-phase charger 31 for recharging the battery 20 via a battery management circuit 21”, ¶120 and Fig. 4} configured for allowing by means of the system current to be supplied to a battery from a source housed in a seat when it is recognised to be an electricity generator apparatus {as evident in Fig. 7, on-board electronics 70 controls identification (¶138) and operation of generator 40, for both recharging battery 20 and directly powering motors M1, M2}.
Regarding Claim 26, the combination of Di Florio and Luke discloses all the limitations of Claim 24, as discussed supra. In addition, Di Florio explicitly recites the limitations:
26. (new) The telehandler according to claim 24, wherein the recognition means {¶138, on-board electronics identify the type or model of the housed power generator (40, Figs. 1 & 4)} comprise communication means {Fig. 4, electrical circuit} which connect the seats with the processing unit {Fig. 4, electrical circuit shows electronic controls 70 in wired communication with generator 40, for example, a computer, ¶136}, which are designed for transmitting said identification signal {¶138, signal regarding the type or model of the housed power generator (40, Figs. 1 & 4) goes from generator to electronic controls 70}.
Regarding Claim 27, the combination of Di Florio and Luke discloses all the limitations of Claim 26, as discussed supra. In addition, Di Florio explicitly recites the limitation: wherein said communication means are of the CAN-bus type {“The communication link between the control electronics 70 and these components, or at least the remote ones, may be via a bus such as a CAN data bus conforming to ISO 11898”, ¶136}.
Regarding Claim 28, the combination of Di Florio and Luke discloses all the limitations of Claim 24, as discussed supra. In addition, Di Florio explicitly recites the limitation: comprising control means which can be used by an operator {¶129, on-board electronics 70 includes a console 75 (Fig. 8, including switches and buttons, ¶151) to serve as a user interface for the operator, in addition to controlling capabilities when the on-board electronics is a computer, ¶136} and equipped with a plurality of management configurations {¶129, on-board electronics 70 console 75 (Fig. 8) includes various switches and buttons, ¶151, for inherently changing operating conditions of the lifter in Figs. 1-3}, wherein said processing unit comprises a selection module {switches and buttons (¶151) associated with on-board electronics console 75 (Fig. 8) for inherently changing operating conditions of the lifter in Figs. 1-3} configured for switching the management configuration of the control means as a function of which energy sources are housed in the seats {system adapts to the specific type and condition of the power sources: on-board electronics are configured to optimize power consumption and peak power, such as by applying power limitation setpoints needed based on the functional state of the battery, such as for ageing and temperature levels, ¶137, and the on-board electronics identifies the type or model of the housed power generator to operate according to the specific load curve of a particular generator, ¶138}.
Regarding Claim 30, the combination of Di Florio and Luke discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Di Florio explicitly recites the limitation: wherein each of the several seats is configured to removably receive the battery and the electricity generator apparatus {a compartment for batteries 20 is evident in Fig. 7, and for generator 40 in Fig. 12}.
Di Florio does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: the recognition means is configured to distinguish between the battery and the electricity generator apparatus in each of the several seats.
However, Luke explicitly recites the limitation: the recognition means is configured to distinguish between the battery and the electricity generator apparatus in each of the several seats {sensors used to determine the presence of a power storage device in a receiver, Col. 17, Lns. 14-41, and a control subsystem is able to identify different types of electrical power storage devices according to the unique characteristics of each power storage device, Col. 21, Lns. 50-54; additionally, RFID tags are used to provide unique identifying information about a portable electrical storage devices, Col. 14, Lns. 25-30}.
Regarding Claim 32, Di Florio discloses the limitations: a telehandler {Figs. 1-3} equipped with at least one electric motor {M1, M2, Fig. 4, ¶135} and several seats for housing energy sources on board the telehandler {a compartment for batteries 20 is evident in Fig. 7, and for generator 40 in Fig. 12}; wherein at least one electric battery is provided for powering said motor {battery 20 connected to motors M1, M2 in Fig. 4, ¶119-120} designed to be removably housed in at least one of the seats {a compartment for batteries 20 is evident in Fig. 7}; and wherein at least one electricity generator apparatus is provided designed to be removably housed {¶25, generator is removable (which is represented in Fig. 3, ¶95} in at least one of the seats {“The support 100 includes a positioning structure 101 for the power generator 40 in the location 39.”, ¶165 and Figs. 9 & 12}; the telehandler comprising recognition means configured for automatically recognizing whether a battery or an electricity generator apparatus is present in a seat {under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the examiner interprets this to simply be replacement of a one energy source by a source that is not identical; per ¶138, on-board electronics identify the type or model of the housed power generator (40, Fig. 1)}.
Di Florio does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: wherein each seat is associated with at least one identification sensor designed for detecting the type of source housed and for producing an identification signal as a function of the detection performed.
However, Luke explicitly recites the limitation: wherein each seat is associated with at least one identification sensor designed for detecting the type of source housed {Col. 14, Lns. 25-30, RFID tags, which one skilled in the art will appreciate provide passive signal transmission detected by a reader, Col. 14, Lns. 43-47} and for producing an identification signal as a function of the detection performed {Col. 14, Lns. 25-30, the portable electrical storage devices include data storage or transmission devices such as RFID to provide unique identifying information about a portable electrical storage devices 106}.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Di Florio, Luke and Eshleman et al. (US 12,036,888 B2, henceforth Eshleman).
Regarding Claim 29, the combination of Di Florio and Luke discloses all the limitations of Claim 28, as discussed supra. The combination of Di Florio and Luke does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: wherein the control means comprise a display configured for showing different specific interfaces for respective different energy sources, as a function of the management configuration established by the processing unit.
However, Eshleman explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the control means comprise a display configured for showing different specific interfaces for respective different energy sources, as a function of the management configuration established by the processing unit {Fig. 1 shows a lift device and Figs. 1-3 and 6-7 show the use of a phone app to monitor battery conditions, for a multi-battery power source; “The controller is configured to determine a state of charge of the batteries for load conditions based on the sensor data.”, Abstract}.
The combination of references Di Florio and Luke along with Eshleman are analogous art because they both deal with heavy duty work vehicles with multiple power sources.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Di Florio, Luke and Eshleman before them, to modify the teachings of the combination of Di Florio and Luke to include the teachings of Eshleman to monitor vehicle power sources and conditions {Abstract}.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
AU 2022313535 A1 – Teaches of an aerial work platform, with seating for a second, swappable battery. The on-board electronics of the aerial work platform communication with the integrated electronics in the battery to identify battery specific data.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD EDWIN GEIST whose telephone number is (703)756-5854. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at (571) 272-4190. 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.
/R.E.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights