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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-12 are pending herein.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/14/2023, 11/25/2024, and 10/30/2025 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “connector” (Claim 1 – should be shown and labeled in Fig.4 in order to understand the invention) and “a cover-shaped member” (Claim 10 – see below 35 USC 112 rejection) all options must be shown and labeled or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “a movable base configured to carry a battery that is provided with a connector” (line 2-3) is unclear and should be rewritten as: “a movable base configured to carry a battery, wherein the battery is provided with a connector.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “a protective apparatus provided on the movable base, configured to protect the connector, and comprising a drive mechanism and a covering member” (line 4-5) is unclear and should be rewritten as: “a protective apparatus provided on the movable base, configured to protect the connector of the battery, and wherein the protective apparatus comprises a drive mechanism and a covering member”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation in line 3: “the rotating shaft, one end” should be rewritten as: “the rotating shaft, the one end.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “being both open” is unclear and should be rewritten. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “means of the rotating shaft…means of the gear” in claim 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1-12 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the open-ended clause “a protective apparatus…configured to protect" (line 4) which is unclear and overly broad and renders the claims indefinite, since it's not clear whether the claimed "protection" is actually taking place or not. It has been held that the open-ended recitations stating that an element is capable to perform a function (e.g., "configured to", "adapted to", etc.) are not the positive limitations but only require the ability to so perform. They do not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. See In re Hutchinson, 69 USPQ 138. Just because something is "configured to" do something (i.e. is "capable of" doing something), doesn't actually mean it does it. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). The Office hereby notes that "configured to" does not explicitly denote how features(s) are constructed and/or associated with other claimed limitations; whereas the claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions. If a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions, then the claim may be deemed indefinite. See Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 2008) (precedential). Applicant is required to use definitive and positive statements while reciting the structure and functions of the claimed apparatus (e.g. "a locking arm chamfer [that is configured to engage] --engaging-- the lock pin chamfer"). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Regarding claim 6, the claim recites the limitation: "mounted at", which is unclear and therefore renders the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 8-9 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Regarding claim 8, the claim recites the limitation: "means of the rotating shaft…means of the gear", which is unclear, and therefore renders the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 8-9 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Regarding claim 8, the claim recites the limitation: "the connecting rod" (line 6), which is of unclear antecedent basis, and therefore renders the claims indefinite. The limitation should most likely be rewritten as: “the first connecting rod”, however appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 and 11 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Regarding claim 10, the claim recites the limitation: " wherein the covering member is a cover-shaped member configured to cover over the connector" (line 2), which is unclear and therefore renders the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Boyce et al. (US 12,030,402 B2).
[Claim 1] Regarding Claim 1, Boyce discloses: A battery swap device (See, e.g., Fig.1-28, 328), comprising: a movable base (See, e.g., Fig.1-28, 328+440+etc.) configured to carry a battery (See, e.g., Fig.1-28, 380) that is provided with a connector (See, e.g., Fig.1-28, 501) configured to transfer electric energy (See, e.g., Fig.1-28); and a protective apparatus (See, e.g., Fig.1-28, 430+464+360+452) provided on the movable base (See, e.g., Fig.1-28), configured to protect the connector (See, e.g., Fig.1-28), and comprising a drive mechanism (See, e.g., Fig.1-28, 430+464) and a covering member (See, e.g., Fig.1-28, 476+442+452+456+458+360), the drive mechanism being configured to drive the covering member to move to cover or uncover the connector (See, e.g., Fig.1-28).
[Claim 2] Regarding Claim 2, Boyce discloses: wherein the protective apparatus has an extended state in which the covering member extends out of the movable base to cover the connector (See, e.g., Fig.1-28), and a retracted state in which the covering member is retracted to the movable base (See, e.g., Fig.1-28).
[Claim 3] Regarding Claim 3, Boyce discloses: wherein the movable base has an accommodating space (See, e.g., Fig.1-28, 440+360), and in the retracted state, the covering member is at least partially located in the accommodating space (See, e.g., Fig.1-28).
[Claim 4] Regarding Claim 4, Boyce discloses: wherein in the retracted state, the covering member is located on a side surface of the movable base (See, e.g., Fig.1-28), and in the extended state, the covering member is located above the movable base (See, e.g., Fig.1-28).
[Claim 5] Regarding Claim 5, Boyce discloses: further comprising at least one of: a first detection unit (See, e.g., Fig.1-28, 468+489+442+490) configured to output a first signal in response to the protective apparatus being detected to be in the extended state (See, e.g., Fig.1-28); or a second detection unit configured to output a second signal in response to the protective apparatus being detected to be in the retracted state.
[Claim 6] Regarding Claim 6, Boyce discloses: wherein one end of the drive mechanism is mounted at the movable base (See, e.g., Fig.1-28), and the covering member is connected to another end of the drive mechanism (See, e.g., Fig.1-28).
[Claim 7] Regarding Claim 7, Boyce discloses: wherein the drive mechanism comprises a drive member (See, e.g., Fig.1-28, 430+464), a first connecting rod (See, e.g., Fig.1-28, 360+450+456), and a second connecting rod (See, e.g., Fig.1-28, 360+450+456), one end of the first connecting rod and one end of the second connecting rod being separately hinged to the movable base (See, e.g., Fig.1-28, 459), another end of the first connecting rod and another end of the second connecting rod being separately hinged to the covering member (See, e.g., Fig.1-28, 459), and the drive member being configured to drive the first connecting rod to rotate around a hinge point at which the first connecting rod is hinged to the movable base (See, e.g., Fig.1-28).
[Claim 8] Regarding Claim 8, Boyce discloses: wherein the drive mechanism further comprises: a rotating shaft (See, e.g., Fig.1-28, 450), one end of the first connecting rod being hinged to the movable base by means of the rotating shaft (See, e.g., Fig.1-28), and the rotating shaft being fixed to the first connecting rod (See, e.g., Fig.1-28); and a gear and a rack meshing with each other (See, e.g., Fig.1-28, 450+452), the gear being fixed to the rotating shaft (See, e.g., Fig.1-28), and the drive member being configured to drive the rack to move so as to swing the connecting rod by means of the gear (See, e.g., Fig.1-28).
[Claim 9] Regarding Claim 9, Boyce discloses: wherein the drive mechanism further comprises a sliding rail (See, e.g., Fig.1-28, 448+382+360) and a slider (See, e.g., Fig.1-28, 448+382+360) cooperating with each other (See, e.g., Fig.1-28), the slider being fixedly connected to the movable base (See, e.g., Fig.1-28), and the rack being fixedly connected to the sliding rail (See, e.g., Fig.1-28).
[Claim 10] Regarding Claim 10, Boyce discloses: wherein the covering member is a cover-shaped member (See, e.g., Fig.1-28, 476+442+452+456+458+360) configured to cover over the connector (See, e.g., Fig.1-28).
[Claim 11] Regarding Claim 11, Boyce discloses: wherein the covering member comprises a top plate, an end plate, and two side plates (See, e.g., Fig.1-28, 442+452+456+458+476+360), the two side plates being connected to opposite sides of the top plate (See, e.g., Fig.1-28), the end plate being provided at one end of the top plate and connected to the top plate and the two side plates (See, e.g., Fig.1-28), and a side of the covering member opposite the top plate and a side of the covering member opposite the end plate being both open (See, e.g., Fig.1-28).
[Claim 12] Regarding Claim 12, Boyce discloses: A battery swap system (See, e.g., Fig.1-28), comprising: a battery swap platform (See, e.g., Fig.1-28, 324); a battery pick-and-place device (See, e.g., Fig.1-28, 444+468); and the battery swap device according to claim 1, wherein the battery swap device is configured to move between the battery swap platform and the battery pick-and-place device to transfer a battery (See, e.g., Fig.1-28).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, and can be found on the attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M DOLAK whose telephone number is (571)270-7757. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-530 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.
/JAMES M DOLAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3613