DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1 & 3 are amended, claims 5 & 6 are cancelled and claims 7-10 are new. Claims 1-4 & 7-10 are pending examination as discussed below.
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 1-4 & 7-10 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 “lower deterioration degree” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “lower deterioration degree” 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. This term is a comparative term but there isn’t any way to evaluate what it is being compared to. It isn’t clear what the deterioration is being compared against to determine if it is in a “lower” state. It isn’t clear what factors determine when the deterioration is in a “lower” state.
Claims 2-4 & 7-10 are rejected for being dependent upon claim 1.
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 1-4 & 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2001-057711 (Fumio, cited in IDS) in view of US 2021/0132153 (Izumi).
Regarding claims 1, 7-9, Fumio teaches a battery supply system where vehicle batteries in the vehicle are swapped at a storage site for charged batteries (Abstract). The storage space for the plurality of batteries is located underground and therefore since underground areas are known to be constant in their temperatures, the space is kept at a constant temperature ([0040-0042]). Note, the claims do not have any parameters for the constant temperature. The status of the batteries is monitored, including charge status and other predetermined characteristics, and if the characteristics are outside the allowable range, then the battery is disposed of or recycled. As such a battery that is deemed unfit and recycled is not selected to be installed in the vehicle and another charged battery is selected ([0044]). The charging method includes maintaining the charge of the battery and therefore measures the charge deterioration state of the battery ([0062, 0064]). The process also maintains various states of the battery, as in the disposal standard, which then would be another deterioration state.
Fumio further teaches monitoring the residual capacity and internal resistance of the batteries to monitor their status (Claims 24, 52, 72). The purchase of the battery is based on the type of battery (Claim 75).
While Fumio is silent to explicitly selecting the battery based on the deterioration degree versus the anticipated usage time of the battery, Fumio does teach relating the fee to the type of battery. It is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the price of the product would be tied to the value offered. So a battery with less deterioration, a longer life and therefore more range, would be more expensive than a battery with less usable life and therefore range. So, selecting the appropriate battery for the needs of the vehicle and based on the price paid would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. If the vehicle needs to travel 100 miles, a battery for 20 miles is not going to be chosen.
Fumio does not explicitly state that the storage site is kept at a constant temperature.
Izumi teaches a battery storage and management system for vehicles, where the storage system is maintained at a constant temperature (Abstract, [0080, 0081, 0135]). This temperature regulation improves the life of the battery system and charging process.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the constant temperature storage feature of Izumi for the process of Fumio to improve the battery system maintenance.
Regarding claims 2-4, the batteries are charged in the storage space and therefore are managed to be in a certain charged state. The removed batteries from the vehicles are charged in storage to be ready for use again ([0040-0042], [0052-0055], [0062]).
Regarding claim 10, spaces are sorted by their charging state (Claim 32).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/23/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues neither Fumio nor Izumi teach matching a higher capacity battery with a need for a longer trip. However, Fumio teaches matching a paid fee with the battery type, which includes the capacity and status of the battery. The consumer would be able to prioritize the relationship between the capacity and the length of the trip. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select and prioritize the appropriate battery based on the usage.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH WALKER whose telephone number is (571)272-3458. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8am - 4pm.
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.
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights