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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 contains the trademark/trade name "EnerCera"®. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a type of battery and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
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.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 1 uses “means for issuing an alert appealing to the five senses in response to the reception of the warning signal”. In light of the specification, the claim limitation is being interpreted as any visual (light, text, display), auditory (e.g., noise, ding, beep, horn), smell, or feel (e.g., vibration) alert.
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.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-7 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada et al. (JP 2021-092984) in view of Zhang et al. (Wireless Power Transfer – An Overview).
Regarding claim 1, Okada discloses a remote monitoring system for remotely monitoring the state of a battery (see para [0001]), the remote monitoring system comprising:
a lithium-ion secondary battery (para [0019]-[0020]).
a sensor that detects the state of the lithium-ion secondary battery to acquire status information (see para [0022]);
a wireless communication module connected to the lithium-ion secondary battery and the sensor, the wireless communication module comprising a transmission unit that transmits the status information to a remote server (see para [0023]), and
a reception unit that receives a warning signal transmitted from the remote server when the status information is out of a normal range (see para [0024]-[0025]); and
means for issuing an alert appealing to the five senses in response to the reception of the warning signal (see para [0029]-[0033]) (specifically, the server has means to send to e.g., a smart phone which has text, and notification sounds which corresponds to five senses),
wherein the status information includes information pertaining to the state of the lithium-ion secondary battery, and when charging, repair, or replacement of the lithium-ion secondary battery is determined to be necessary on the basis of the information, the warning signal is transmitted and received (see para [0019]-[0035]).
Okada does not disclose a battery capable of wireless power transfer.
Zhang is analogous art to Okada as Zhang is directed to battery technology (see abstract). Zhang discloses batteries capable of wireless power transfer (see pages 1044-1053).
The court has held it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine prior art elements (i.e. the battery of Okada and the wire power transfer technology of Zhang) according to known methods (i.e., as disclosed by Zhang), wherein the result is predictable (i.e., charging of the battery).
Regarding claim 2, modified Okada discloses the remote monitoring system according to claim 1, wherein the information pertaining to the state of the lithium-ion secondary battery includes at least one selected from the group consisting of the voltage, resistance, and temperature of the lithium-ion secondary battery (see para [0022], i.e. current, voltage, temperature, wherein current and voltage together provides resistance, Ohm’s law V=IR).
Regarding claim 3, modified Okada discloses the remote monitoring system according to claim 1, wherein the remote monitoring system further includes a remote server, the remote server comprising:
a server reception unit (receiving unit b1) that receives the status information;
a server determination unit (generation unit b2) that determines, on the basis of the status information, whether or not any action is required with respect to the lithium-ion secondary battery; and
a server transmission unit (transmission unit b3) that transmits the warning signal when it is determined by the server determination unit that the action is required (see para [0012] and [0023]-[0035]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Okada discloses a remote monitoring system according to claim 3, wherein the remote server further comprises a server storage unit (see para [0026]) that store data necessary for determining normality and abnormality in relation to the lithium-ion secondary battery, and
wherein the server determination unit compares the status information with the data from the server storage unit to determine whether or not the action is required (see para [0026]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Okada discloses a remote monitoring system according to claim 4, wherein the information pertaining to the state of the lithium-ion secondary battery includes the voltage and/or resistance of the lithium-ion secondary battery (see para [0022], specifically current, voltage, temperature, wherein current and voltage together provides resistance, Ohm’s law V=IR),
wherein the data in the server storage unit includes correlation data between the state of charge and the voltage and/or resistance pertaining to the lithium-ion secondary battery, and
wherein the server determination unit determines that the action is required when the information pertaining to the state of the lithium-ion secondary battery is out of a normal range in comparison to the correlation data from the server storage unit (see para [0023]-[0035], sprcifically server B generates battery evaluation information such as "the state of charge (SOC), the degree of deterioration/degree of health (SOH), the chargeable/dischargeable (inputtable/outputtable) power (SOP), the need for maintenance, the existence of failure, the existence of insufficient charging, the existence of excessive charging, a prediction of battery failure, and a predicted replacement timing" inclusive of data sent to the server in para [0022]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Okada discloses a remote monitoring system according to claim 4, wherein the information pertaining to the state of the lithium-ion secondary battery includes the voltage and/or resistance and the temperature of the lithium-ion secondary battery (see para [0022] wherein data gathered from sensors and sent to server includes current, voltage, and temperature, wherein current and voltage provide resistance, i.e., Ohm’s law V=IR),
wherein the data in the server storage unit includes correlation data between the state of charge and the voltage and/or resistance pertaining to the lithium-ion secondary battery at various temperatures (see para [0024]-[0028], i.e., “based on received data”, and
wherein the server determination unit determines that the action is required when the information pertaining to the state of the lithium-ion secondary battery is out of a normal range in comparison to the correlation data from the server storage unit corresponding to the temperature (see para [0024]-[0033]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Okada discloses a remote monitoring system according to claim 4, wherein the server storage unit accumulates the status information that the server reception unit receives, thereby enhancing the data necessary for determining normality and abnormality (see para [0024]-[0028]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Okada discloses a maintenance method for a battery, the maintenance method comprising the steps of:
perceiving abnormality of the lithium-ion secondary battery through an alert appealing to the five senses via the remote monitoring system according to claim 1 (see discussion of claim 1, and Okada para [0019]-[0033]); and
taking measures for returning the lithium-ion secondary battery to a normal state (see para [0031]).
Regarding claim 14, modified Okada discloses a maintenance method for a battery according to claim 13, wherein the status information includes information pertaining to the state of the lithium-ion secondary battery, and in the remote monitoring system, when charging, repair, or replacement of the lithium-ion secondary battery is determined to be necessary on the basis of the information, the warning signal is transmitted and received (see para [0022] and [0029]-[0034]), and
wherein the measures for returning the lithium-ion secondary battery to the normal state include moving the lithium-ion secondary battery to a location where wireless power transfer is available and/or repairing or replacing the lithium-ion secondary battery (see para [0031], specifically parts replacement and/or removal).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada et al. and Zhang et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (US 2021/0058755) (hereafter Zhang2).
Regarding claim 8, modified Okada discloses a remote monitoring system according to claim 1. Okada discloses communication by internet (see para [0023]), but does not disclose wherein communication between the wireless communication module and the remote server is performed by Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) or low-power wide-area (LPWA) communication.
Zhang2 is analogous art to Okada as Zhang2 is directed to a server monitoring a battery (see para [0058]). Zhang2 discloses the communication method is by LPWA communication (see para [0058]).
The court has held it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to substitute one known device (i.e., LPWA communication) for another known device (i.e. communication over the internet as disclosed by Okada), wherein the result is predictable (i.e., the server communicates with the battery monitoring site).
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada et al. and Zhang et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yura (US 2019/0363359)
Regarding claim 9, modified Okada discloses a remote monitoring system according to claim 1, and discloses wherein the battery is a lithium-ion secondary battery (see para [0020), but does not disclose wherein the lithium-ion secondary battery is a secondary battery comprising a positive electrode plate which is a lithium composite oxide sintered plate, a negative electrode layer which is composed of a lithium titanate sintered plate or which contains carbon, a separator disposed between the positive electrode plate and the negative electrode layer, and an electrolyte.
Yura is analogous art to Okada as Yura discloses a lithium-ion battery (see abstract and para [0002]). Yura discloses wherein the lithium-ion secondary battery comprises a positive electrode plate which is a lithium composite oxide sintered plate (see para [0011]-[0014], a negative electrode layer which is composed of a lithium titanate sintered plate or which contains carbon (see para [0049], a separator disposed between the positive electrode plate and the negative electrode layer (see para [0054]), and an electrolyte (see para [0045]).
The court has held it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to substitute one known device (i.e., the lithium-ion secondary battery of Yura) with another known device (i.e., the lithium-ion battery of Okada), wherein the result is predictable.
Regarding claim 10, modified Okada discloses a remote monitoring system according to claim 9, wherein the lithium composite oxide composing the positive electrode plate is lithium cobaltate (see Yura para [0011]-[0014]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Okada discloses a remote monitoring system according to claim 9, wherein the negative electrode layer is composed of a lithium titanate sintered plate (see Yura para [0049]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada et al. and Zhang et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of PR Newswire (NGK's Chip-type Ceramic Secondary Battery "EnerCera" Series Wins Award for Best Technical Development within Energy Storage) (hereafter Newswire).
Regarding claim 12, modified Okada discloses a remote monitoring system according to claim 1, wherein the battery is a lithium-ion secondary battery (see para [0020]). But modified Okada does not disclose wherein the lithium-ion secondary battery is the chip-type ceramic secondary battery "EnerCera"®.
Newswire discloses a lithium-ion secondary battery that is a chip-type ceramic battery (see pages 1-2).
The court has held it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to substitute one known device (i.e., the lithium-ion secondary battery of Newswire) with another known device (i.e., the lithium-ion battery of Okada), wherein the result is predictable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAYNE L MERSHON whose telephone number is (571)270-7869. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 to 6:00 M-F.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303) 297-4684. 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.
JAYNE L. MERSHON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1721
/JAYNE L MERSHON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights