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.
Claims 2, 8 and 10 are 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.
The term “Taguchi methods” in claims 2, 8 and 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “Taguchi methods” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. More specifically, Taguchi is just a name and does not sufficiently provide a standard as to what steps of “the methods” being performed.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,491,958. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the elements are mentioned explicitly or implicitly.
[AltContent: textbox (Claim 1: An auxiliary assembly for a bicycle, comprising: … a battery device …
wherein the battery device includes: two battery packs …
and a management module …
Claim 7: The auxiliary assembly according to claim 1,
the management module is configured to obtain a piece of battery health data for each of the two battery packs; )][AltContent: textbox (Claim 1: A battery device, which is configured to be installed on an electric bicycle, the battery device comprising:
two battery packs; and
a management module electrically coupled to the two battery packs,
wherein the management module is configured to obtain a piece of battery health data for each of the two battery packs; )]Claim 1 of 18/457,355 Claims 1 and 7 of U.S. Patent 12,491,958
[AltContent: textbox (Claim 7 (cont.):
wherein, when the management module detects that a first variation between the two pieces of the battery health data is greater than 2%, the management module selects one of the two battery packs in which the battery health data is high to supply power to the electric bicycle, and
another one of the two battery packs in which the battery health data is low is controlled to suspend operation;
wherein, when the management module detects that the first variation between the two pieces of the battery health data is less than 2%,
the management module selects one of the two battery packs to supply the power to the electric bicycle according to a first rule.)][AltContent: textbox (Claim 1 (cont.):
wherein, when the management module detects that a first variation between the two pieces of the battery health data is greater than 2%, the management module selects one of the two battery packs in which the battery health data is high to supply power to the electric bicycle, and
another one of the two battery packs in which the battery health data is low is controlled to suspend operation;
wherein, when the management module detects that the first variation between the two pieces of the battery health data is less than 2%,
the management module selects one of the two battery packs to supply the power to the electric bicycle according to a first rule.)]Claim 1 (cont.) of 18/457,355 Claim 7 (cont.) of U.S. Patent 12,491,958
It is the examiner’s opinion the wording “A battery device, which is configured to be installed on an electric bicycle, the battery device comprising” from application 18/457,355 is not patentably distinct from the wording “An auxiliary assembly for a bicycle, comprising: … a battery device …” from U.S. Patent 12,491,958.
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, 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 1is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizutani et al. U.S. PGPub 2010/0019724 A1 (hereinafter Mizutani) in view of Hu U.S. PGPub 2023/0420966 A1 (hereinafter Hu).
Regarding Claim 1, Mizutani teaches a battery device (Mizutani, Fig. 8; Paras. [0018] – [0019] and [0104]), the battery device comprising: two battery packs (Mizutani, Fig. 8, “Module Battery 10(1,1)” and “Module Battery 10(y,1); and a management module electrically coupled to the two battery packs (Mizutani, Fig. 8, Element 41b, “Inter-Module Balance Control Circuit”; Para. [0105]), wherein the management module is configured to obtain a piece of battery health data for each of the two battery packs (Mizutani, Para. [0106], “cell voltage signals”), but does not explicitly teach the battery system configured to be installed on an electric bicycle, nor does it explicitly teach the management module detecting a first variation between the two pieces of the battery health data is less than 2%, the management module selects one of the two battery packs to supply the power … according to a first rule.
Hu, however, teaches the battery system being configured to be installed on an electric bicycle (Hu, Fig. 1; Paras. [0020] and [0034]), and the management module detects that a first variation between the two pieces of the battery health data is greater than 2%, the management module selects one of the two battery packs in which the battery health data is high to supply power to the electric bicycle, and another one of the two battery packs in which the battery health data is low is controlled to suspend operation; wherein, when the management module detects that the first variation between the two pieces of the battery health data is less than 2%, the management module selects one of the two battery packs to supply the power to the electric bicycle according to a first rule (Hu, Para. [0022], When a difference in voltage is less than a custom amount, for example such as a voltage difference value that represents less than 2 percent variation amongst batteries, a rule/condition to select a battery pack with the lowest power to supply power).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to understand that although Mizutani is silent as to what explicitly triggers the selection among battery modules of a multi-module battery system, Mizutani would inherently incorporate some type of conventional charging and management circuitry commonly understood in the art. The circuitry taught by Hu, for controlling the charging of the rechargeable batteries, teaches one of the many conventional battery charging circuits utilized in the art for charging a system with multiple battery modules. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to choose based on desirability, one of the many known conventional methods, such as the one taught by Hu, to control the charge/discharge of the batteries within the battery system of Mizutani.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is allowed.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The reason for allowance of claim 9 is that it comprises the allowable material of the claims of application 18/457,354 (now U.S. Patent 12,491,958) with the additional limitation of monitoring surface temperature and using this information to control the management of the battery system, which ‘additional limitation’ eliminates a double patenting rejection of claim 9.
Regarding Claim 9: Though the prior art discloses a battery management method, wherein the battery management method is applicable to a battery device of an electric bicycle, and the battery device includes two battery packs, the battery management method comprising:
obtaining a piece of battery health data for each of the two battery packs;
determining whether or not a first variation between the two pieces of the battery health data is greater than 2%; wherein, when the first variation is greater than 2%, one of the two battery packs in which the battery health data is high supplies power to the electric bicycle, and another one of the two battery packs in which the battery health data is low is controlled to suspend operation; wherein, when the first variation is less than 2%, a piece of battery capacity data is obtained for each of the two battery packs …
selecting one of the two battery packs in which the sampled voltage variation is high to supply the power to the electric bicycle, and controlling another one of the two battery packs in which the sampled voltage variation is low to suspend operation, it fails to teach or suggest the aforementioned limitations of claim 9, and further including the combination of:
A battery management method …
determining whether or not a second variation between the two pieces of the battery capacity data is greater than 50%; wherein, when the second variation is greater than 50%, one of the two battery packs in which the battery capacity data is high supplies the power to the electric bicycle, and another one of the two battery packs in which the battery health data is low is controlled to suspend operation; wherein, when the second variation is less than 50%, a sampled voltage variation and a surface temperature of each of the two battery packs within a unit of time are obtained;
selecting one of the two battery packs in which the sampled voltage variation is high to supply the power to the electric bicycle, and controlling another one of the two battery packs in which the sampled voltage variation is low to suspend operation; and
controlling one of the two battery packs in which the surface temperature is greater than a predetermined threshold value to suspend operation, and selecting another one of the two battery packs in which the surface temperature is less than or equal to the predetermined threshold value to supply the power to the electric bicycle.
Claim 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 2-8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under non-statutory Double Patenting and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
McLean et al. U.S. PGPub 2022/0029431 teaches a switchable battery management system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERRY D ROBBINS whose telephone number is (571)272-7585. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00AM - 6:00PM Tuesday-Saturday.
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, Julian Huffman can be reached at 571-272-2147. 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.
/JERRY D ROBBINS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights