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 .
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 15, 20-22, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bakogiannis (WO 2022064230) in view of Coonan (US 20090212738).
Re claim 1, Bakogiannis teaches:
A battery assembly for a local use vehicle (300 FIG. 5d), the battery assembly movable by an end effector of a robotic device (100, 106, 108 FIG. 5D), the battery assembly comprising:
a battery having outer walls (300 FIG. 3-4), electrical contacts (implicit in batteries), and a communication connection (paragraph [0051]+ teaches “… to provide information related to… detection and identification of the battery packs 30” therefore respective identification markers at the batteries communicate the data), the battery providing a quantity of energy to power the local use vehicle (paragraph [0001]+ teaches battery packs used for electric vehicles);
a housing assembly configured for mounting within the local use vehicle, the housing assembly including outer walls which define an opening therethrough into a battery compartment within the outer walls, the opening sized to allow the battery to be moved into or out of the battery compartment for replacement when the battery is discharged (512 in FIG. 5c/d/e and paragraph [0069]+ teaches a battery swapping procedure in battery storage compartments 512 located at the front and rear of the vehicle 500);
the battery further including a grasping point extending from one of the outer walls of the battery adjacent the opening (404 in FIG. 4b), the grasping point configured for being grasped by the end effector of the robotic device to thereby move the battery back and forth between the fully-inserted position and a removed position outside of the housing assembly via the opening (112, 304 in FIG. 4B).
Bakogiannis is silent to the housing assembly further including first electrical contacts and second electrical contacts, the first electrical contacts being for electrical connection to the electrical contacts of the battery when the battery is in a fully-inserted position within the battery compartment, and the second electrical contacts being for electrical connection to the local use vehicle for powering the local use vehicle from the battery; and
the housing assembly further including a first communication connection and a second communication connection, the first communication connection being for data communication with the communication connection of the battery when the battery is in a fully-inserted position within the battery compartment, and the second communication connection being for data communication with the local use vehicle.
While Bakogiannis teaches the battery is put into a housing (512 in FIG. 5c/d/e) of a vehicle, Coonan teaches contacts (98 in FIG. 10) inside a respective housing (32 in FIG. 9-10) and a respective cable outlet in FIG. 15 (below 32) and the same in a schematic manner in FIG. 13. Additionally, the Examiner notes that data communication between a battery and a battery station is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to be done wirelessly when dealing with intelligent batteries for convenience/ ease of use, and also noting that Coonan teaches “wireless communication:” in paragraph [0053]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the first and second contacts for battery powering the vehicle and connectivity to the battery, for such expected results, and that the first and second communication connections for data communication with the battery and the vehicle.
One would have been motivated to do this for bidirectional communication between various elements of the vehicle and battery system, to communicate data and power as needed, using known and conventional methods.
Re claims 3-5, though silent to the contacts, and spring members, the Examiner notes that prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to use such contact members and contacts as commonly used for the expected results of reliable/ safe electrical contacts, biasing the contacts.
Re claim 6, the teachings of Bakogiannis/ Coogan have been discussed above, and while teaching “wireless” do not explicitly teach the communication connection of the battery and first communication connection of the housing communicate in a non-contact manner, the Examiner notes that wireless communication is an obvious expedient for ease of connection/ communication, and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill int eh art prior to the effective filing date.
Re claim 7, the Examiner notes that Coogan teaches the connection between the battery and assembly with 98 and 82. FIG. 2 shows docking with a repository as claimed, obviating the connection for recharging.
Re claim 15, as discussed above, contacts for recharging are an obvious expedient prior to the effective filing date, in order to conduct electrical signals, such as for charging.
Re claims 20-21, the limitations have been discussed above re claim 1.
Re claim 22, the limitations have been discussed above re claim 3.
Re claim 25 the limtaitosn have been discussed above re claim 15.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bakogiannis/ Coonan et al., as discussed above, in view of Sung et al. (US 10971763)
Re claim 2, a BMS is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to monitor batteries. Though Bakogiannis/ Coonan is silent, Sung et al. teaches such limitations of BMS 100 which includes a battery, controller, and sensor (FIG. 2+).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings to monitor battery status.
Claim(s) 6, 8, 18, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bakogiannis/ Coonan et al., as discussed above, in view of Thomas et al. (US 20200036056).
Re claims 6 and 8, the teachings of Bakogiannis/ Coonan et al. have been discussed above but are sient to wireless/ NFC between the first communication connection of the battery and the first communication connection of the housing.
Thomas et al. teaches an NFC device of the housing to read parameters of the battery module, which implies a device on the battery to communicate via NFC.
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings for wireless communication.
Re claim 18, the teachings of Bakogiannis/ Coonan/ De Paschoal have been discussed above but are silent to the NFC.
Thomas et al. teaches an NFC device of the housing to read parameters of the battery module, which implies a device on the battery to communicate via NFC.
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings for wireless communication.
Re claim 23, the litmaiton shav been discussed above re claim 8
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bakogiannis/ Coonan et al., as discussed above, in view of Obrist et al. (US 20170274751).
Re claim 9, though silent to cables, cables are routine and conventional for sending signals and are an obvious expedient. Nonetheless, Obrist et al. (US 20170274751) teaches such limitations via the port at the end of the housing (FIG. 1+).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings to take the signals from the housing to the vehicle using known and acceptable and predictable means.
Claim(s) 10-13 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bakogiannis/ Coonan, as discussed above, in view of Oishi et al. (US 20160049702).
The teachings of Bakogiannis/ Coonan have been discussed above but are silent to a counterweight with a mass related to a difference between a mass of the battery and housing and energy source (OEM), the counterweight being a retrofit.
Oishi et al. teaches at paragraph [0018]+ that an OEM replacement (lead acid replacement) battery pack can include a counterweight so as to have the same weight as an initial battery (claimed alternate energy source) while still balancing the vehicle body, thus functioning as a retrofit.
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings in order to maintain the balance of a vehicle using a counterweight, when a different battery is used compared to the OEM/ alternate energy source.
Re claims 11-12, the Examiner notes that where the general conditions of the claim are taught, limitations that are drawn to the location of the counterweight such as adjacent or beneath are matters of design variation based upon the desired structure/sizing and do not provide unexpected results but are matters of form that are obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date to have a desired shape/ size.
Re claim 13, such limitations are merely specifying certain arrangements / orientations of the counterweights, which do not involve unexpected results and are obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date based on counterbalancing. A first portion and second portion of the counterweight are merely intpereted as different locations on the counterweight.
Re claim 24, the limtaitosn have been discussed above re claim 10.
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bakogiannis/ Coonan, as discussed above, in view of Confer et al. (US 20200321569).
The teachings of Bakogiannis/ Coonan have been discussed above but are silent to a counterweight with the battery attachment and battery at first and second positions.
Confer et al. teaches at paragraph [0078]+ attachment mechanisms in a first attachment location. Re the portions/ positions of claim 13 the Examiner note that portions/portions are intpereted as merely on the counterweight, thus obviating the battery located between portions is an obvious expedient based on the position and desired format. Re claim 14, general attachment is taught, and therefore specific locations or orientations for attachment, when general conditions are taught is not providing unexpected results and is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date based on an expected form.
Claim(s) 16 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bakogiannis/ Coonan et al., as discussed above, in view of Reeves (US 10807493).
Re claim 16, the teachings of Bakogiannis/ Coonan have been discussed above but are silent to interfacing as recited at the repository.
Reeves (at FIG. 4) teaches exchanging battery packs at a station and a data interface reading data stored int eh battery packs.
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art combine the teachings in order to obtain battery data.
Re claim 26, the limitations have been discussed above re claim 16.
Claim(s) 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bakogiannis/ Coonan et al., as discussed above, in view of De Paschoal (US 20110198137).
Re claim 17, the teachings of Bakogiannis/ Coonan have been discussed above but are silent to the latching mechanism as claimed.
De Paschoal generally teaches latches for power containers (see claim 1).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings for generally securing batteries.
Re claim 19, though silent, spring loaded contacts are an obvious expedient for securing connections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive in light of the new art above.
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 DANIEL I WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2409. The examiner can normally be reached 7-9pm.
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, Steven Paik can be reached at 571-272-2404. 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.
/DANIEL I WALSH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights