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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to application 18/475,744 filed 9/27/23. Claims 1-16 are pending with claims 1 and 8 in independent form.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8-10 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang et al. CN 111 162 331-A.
Yang teaches:
Re: claim 1, A power storage device, comprising: a power storage unit configured to store electric power (battery 1); an electrical connection unit (discharge circuit 6), configured to electrically connected with the power storage unit and coupled with a load device (load 2); and a device management unit (controller 4) electrically connected with the power storage unit (battery 1) and configured to: detect a connection event regarding coupling of the electrical connection unit with another electrical connection unit on the load device (via detection unit 3); in response to the connection event, output the electric power to the load device through the electrical connection unit under a discharging limit (example 2 – when the load detection unit 3 detects that the load 2 is connected, if there is no power request or the power request is not authenticated, the battery 1 maintains a low power consumption state without discharging); and confirm an authentication result between the power storage device and the load device during output of the electric power under the discharging limit (under Content of the Invention – the authentication result information controls the working mode of the battery. When the load is connected to the battery and the authentication information is authenticated, the controller controls the battery to enter the discharge mode; otherwise Maintain or enter low power consumption mode).
Re: claim 2, The power storage device of claim 1, wherein the device management unit is further configured to: lift the discharging limit for output of the electric power if the authentication result indicates to be successful authentication (under Content of the Invention – the authentication result information controls the working mode of the battery. When the load is connected to the battery and the authentication information is authenticated, the controller controls the battery to enter the discharge mode; otherwise Maintain or enter low power consumption mode).
Re: claim 3, The power storage device of claim 1, wherein the device management unit is further configured to: prohibit output of the electric power to the load device if the authentication result indicates to be failed authentication (pages 5-6, example 1).
Re: claim 8, A method for discharging a power storage device (battery 1), comprising: detecting a connection event regarding coupling of the power storage device with a load device (via detection unit 3); in response to the connection event, enabling the power storage device to conduct an electric power output to the load device under a discharging limit (example 2 – when the load detection unit 3 detects that the load 2 is connected, if there is no power request or the power request is not authenticated, the battery 1 maintains a low power consumption state without discharging); and confirming an authentication result between the load device and the power storage device during the electric power output under the discharging limit by the power storage device (under Content of the Invention – the authentication result information controls the working mode of the battery. When the load is connected to the battery and the authentication information is authenticated, the controller controls the battery to enter the discharge mode; otherwise maintain or enter low power consumption mode).
Re: claim 9, The method of claim 8, further comprising: if the authentication result indicates to be successful authentication, lifting the discharging limit of the electric power output by the power storage device (under Content of the Invention – the authentication result information controls the working mode of the battery. When the load is connected to the battery and the authentication information is authenticated, the controller controls the battery to enter the discharge mode; otherwise Maintain or enter low power consumption mode).
Re: claim 10, The method of claim 8, further comprising: if the authentication result indicates to be failed authentication, prohibiting the electric power output by the power storage device (pages 5-6, example 1).
Re: claim 15, The method of claim 8, wherein the step of detecting the connection event regarding the power storage device coupling with the load device comprises: sensing a closed-circuit condition of an electrical connection between the power storage device and the load device (page 6).
Re: claim 16, The method of claim 8, further comprising: confirming an electrically supplied state of the load device; and if the electrically supplied state indicates to be supplied with electric power, enabling the power storage device to confirm the authentication result free from the discharging limit (page 6).
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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) 5 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. CN 111 162 331-A.
The teachings of Yang have been discussed above.
Yang additionally teaches:
Re: claim 5, The power storage device of claim 1, wherein the discharging limit confines the electric power of the power storage unit to be output at a power value less than or equal to a maximum output power value of the power storage device; or the discharging limit confines the electric power of the power storage unit to be output at a current value less than or equal to a maximum output current value of the power storage device (page 4, step S3 and corresponding paragraphs).
Re: claim 12, The method of claim 8, wherein the discharging limit confines a power value for the electric power output to be less than or equal to a maximum output power value of the power storage device; or the discharging limit confines a current value for the electric power output to be less than or equal to a maximum output current value of the power storage device (page 4, step S3 and corresponding paragraphs).
Yang fails to specifically teach a specific percentage such as one-twentieth.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill In the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose a specific percentage since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 4 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. CN 111 162 331-A in view of Belesiu et al. WO 2013134438A1.
The teachings of Yang have been discussed above.
Yang fails to specifically teach:
Re: claim 4, The power storage device of claim 3, wherein a means for the device management unit confirming the authentication result indicates to be failed authentication comprises confirming the device management unit failing to receive the authentication result within a time limit confined by the discharging limit, and wherein the time limit confines the electric power to be output in a time less than or equal to 15 seconds.
Re: claim 11, The method of claim 10, wherein a means for confirming the authentication result indicates to be failed authentication comprises confirming the power storage device failing to receive the authentication result within a time limit confined by the discharging limit, and wherein the time limit confines a time for the electric power output to be less than or equal to 15 seconds.
However, Belesiu teaches:
Re: claim 4, The power storage device of claim 3, wherein a means for the device management unit confirming the authentication result indicates to be failed authentication comprises confirming the device management unit failing to receive the authentication result within a time limit confined by the discharging limit ([0049])
Re: claim 11, The method of claim 10, wherein a means for confirming the authentication result indicates to be failed authentication comprises confirming the power storage device failing to receive the authentication result within a time limit confined by the discharging limit ([0049]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Belesiu into the device and method of Yang as an obvious matter of design choice to provide sufficient time to initiate/perform authentication to determine if further power exchange is appropriate ([0049]).
Belesiu teaches a time of approximately 30 seconds but fails to specifically teach less than or equal to 15 sec. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose a time limit range since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 and 13-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art, in conjunction with all the other limitations of the claims: With respect to claim 6 and all its dependencies, wherein the authentication result is reported back to the device management unit by a bridge control unit, and wherein the bridge control unit is on the load device and is electrically connected with the another electrical connection unit, when included with all the other limitations of both claims 1 and 3 from which it depends. With respect to claim 13 and all its dependencies, wherein the authentication result is reported back to the power storage device by a bridge device, and the bridge device is electrically connected to the load device, when included with all the other limitations of both claims 8 and 10 from which it depends. The prior art of record fails to provide sufficient teaching or motivation to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the additionally recited features of these claims in the combinations as claimed.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTY A HAUPT whose telephone number is (571)272-8545 and email address is kristy.haupt@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Sun 5:30 AM- 10PM; Flex during day.
If all attempts to reach the examiner by telephone and email are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Pham, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-3689. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/KRISTY A HAUPT/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
KAH
Prosecution Insights