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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of invention Group I in the reply filed on June 15, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In ¶0039, (“M”) should be –(“M1”)--;
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-2, 4, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Storm (10,449,848).
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Storm discloses a vehicle system comprising:
a vehicle body (implicit) supported by a first pair of wheels (3’) and a second pair of wheels (3’’);
a first traction battery pack (ESS1);
a first drive unit (EM1) in electrical communication with the first traction battery pack and in driving engagement with at least one of the first pair of wheels (see Fig. 3 and Col. 10, lines 38-53);
a first charge receptacle in electrical communication with the first traction battery pack (see Col. 11, lines 1-15 describing how a plug-in recharge electrical connection can be used to recharge the energy store); and
a second traction battery pack (ESS2) electrically isolated from the first traction battery pack (see Col. 11, lines 42-46).
Regarding claims 2 and 10, Storm further discloses that the second traction battery pack (ESS2) is in electrical communication with a second drive unit (EM2) that is configured to drive at least one second wheel (3’’) and the second traction battery pack (ESS2) is electrically isolated from the first charge receptacle (i.e., see Col. 11, lines 46-50 describing how the two electrical storage and drive systems are fully separated, implicit to such isolation is that the charge inlet for the first battery would also be electrically isolated from the second drive EM2 and its associated battery ESS2) .
Regarding claim 4, Storm further discloses that the at least one first wheel includes a pair of first wheels (3’, see Fig. 3) and the first drive unit (EM1) includes a hub motor associated with each of the pair of first wheels (see Col. 3, lines 2-5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 3, 8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Storm in view of Botts et al. (11,745,619)
Regarding claims 3 and 11, while Storm discloses that the two energy stores (ESS1, ESS2) can be different set ups (see Col. 3, lines 3-7) having different storage capacities and/or sizes (see Col. 5, lines 44-48) that can be depleted/recharged according to different control schemes (Col. 4, lines 9-22), it does not disclose that the different traction battery packs (ESS1, ESS2) have different battery chemistries.
Botts teaches an electric vehicle having two traction battery packs (232, 234; see Fig. 3A). Each pack driving a separate motor (222, 224; see e.g., Col. 33, lines 15-42 describing a third control state where the two drive/battery (222/232; 224/234) sets are separate. Each of these battery packs (232, 234) can have different battery chemistries from each other (see Col. 26, lines 2-8).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application modify the vehicle powertrain of Storm to use different battery chemistries in the separate batteries as taught by Botts to arrive at the claimed with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so to provide more operational flexibility and capability by taking advantage of the different features of different battery types, such as capacity, discharge rate, charge rate, operating temperature, life safety, toxicity and/or cost.
Regarding claim 8, Storm further discloses that the first drive unit (EM1) is in electrical communication with the first traction battery pack (ESS1) through a first electrical connection (EC1) and the second drive unit (EM2) is in electrical communication with the second traction battery pack (ESS2) through a second electrical connection (EC2), and while vehicle batteries are DC and substantially all electric vehicle traction motors are AC and require in inverter to power the motors, Storm does not explicitly recite such an arrangement.
Botts teaches that an electric vehicle uses one or more inverters to convert the DC of a battery into AC for the traction motors. With the inverters being provided on either the batteries or the motors (see e.g., Col. 15, lines 39-49).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application modify the powertrain of Storm to include use an inverter to power AC equipment using a DC power source as taught by Botts to arrive at the claimed with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (e.g., using power conversion equipment to supply a downstream component with the appropriate power) to known devices (e.g., electric vehicles) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (e.g., an EV that can use simpler, more efficient AC motors).
Claims 5-7 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Storm in view of Huang et al. (US 2023/0174008).
Regarding claims 5-7 and 12-15, Storm discloses that the first battery pack (ESS1) can be formed from a set of batteries, but does not disclose that the set is formed from separately housed modules or that the separate batteries can be switched to power different connections/loads.
Huang teaches another electric vehicle including a traction battery (102) formed from two separate battery packs (110, 112), where one battery pack (110) is fixed to the vehicle while the other battery pack (112) is removably attached (see e.g., Col. 3, lines 1-10). These separate batteries (110, 112) include a controller/switch (104) to form different electrical connections between the fixed battery (110), the removable battery (112), and various loads (e.g., motors 106; see Col. 4, lines 25-30), including switching to output power to the motor via either the fixed battery (110; see Fig. 2A) or the removable battery (112; see Fig. 2B).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application modify the vehicle powertrain of Storm to replace its main battery with a paired set of switchable fixed and removable batteries as taught by Huang to arrive at the claimed with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (e.g., providing additional range by supplementing fixed storage with a swappable battery) to known devices (e.g., electrical vehicle’s having batteries made up of sets of batteries) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (e.g., an EV having additional range through an added swappable battery).
Conclusion
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire reference(s) as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVE CLEMMONS whose telephone number is (313)446-4842. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-4:30 EST Monday-Friday.
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, J Allen Shriver can be reached on 303-297-4337. 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 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.
/STEVE CLEMMONS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights