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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/03/2023 was in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a battery pack information acquisition section,” “a battery module accommodation section,” “a charging and discharging control section,” “a battery module state recognition section,” “a spare battery module accommodation section,” “shipping target selection section,” “a block exchange arrangement section,” in claims 1-4.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
According to MPEP 2181, II, B, “In cases involving a special purpose computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation, the Federal Circuit has consistently required that the structure be more than simply a general purpose computer or microprocessor and that the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed function. See, e.g., Noah Systems Inc. v. Intuit Inc., 675 F.3d 1302, 1312, 102 USPQ2d 1410, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239. Image… the specification must sufficiently disclose an algorithm to transform a general purpose microprocessor to a special purpose computer so that a person of ordinary skill in the art can implement the disclosed algorithm to achieve the claimed function. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1338, 86 USPQ2d at 1241.” A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding algorithm for performing the claimed function as described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: Figs. 4-5 and paras. [0036]-[0046].
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim 1-5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakanishi et al. (US 2001/0035737 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Nakanishi”) in view of Okamoto et al. (US 2022/0242272 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Okamoto”).
Regarding claim 1, Nakanishi teaches a battery management system (Fig. 1, 6) that manages storage and shipment of a plurality of battery modules (para. [0062]: shipping as a substantially new (regenerated) product), the battery management system (Fig. 1) comprising:
a battery module accommodation section (Fig. 1) configured to separately accommodate a plurality of the battery modules in block (Fig. 1, 1), the block each including a predetermined number of the battery modules (Fig. 1, 11-15), the predetermined number being greater than or equal to 2 (Fig. 1, 11-15);
a charging and discharging control section configured to charge and discharge (Fig. 1, 7 and para. [0048]: Numeral 7 denotes a battery input-output control section. This controls a state-of-charge based on a state-of-charge level calculated by the battery controller 6) the battery modules (Fig. 1, 11-15) in units of the block (Fig. 1, 1), the battery modules (Fig. 1, 11-15) being accommodated in the battery module accommodation section (Fig. 1); and
a shipping target selection section configured to select, in units of the block, the battery modules serving (para. [0062]: battery modules to be replaced include what has been specified as abnormal modules due to a minute short-circuit or the like, and what can be reused by recovering the battery characteristics, note that the above feature of “Battery modules to be replaced” reads on “select the battery modules serving”) as shipping targets from the battery modules accommodated in the battery module accommodation section (para. [0062]: by rebuilding the reusable battery modules as a battery pack and shipping as a substantially new (regenerated) product, cost reduction of replacement battery pack and a remarkable reduction of waste will be available).
Nakanishi does not specifically teach blocks.
However, Okamoto teaches blocks (Fig. 5, 2; para. [0047]: the battery packs 2 (three battery packs shown in FIG. 5) mounted to the mounting slots are electrically connected in parallel to one another, note that the above feature of “three battery packs” reads on “three blocks” for battery modules).
Nakanishi and Okamoto are both considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the similar filed of management of battery pack. 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 blocks such as is described in Okamoto into Nakanishi, in order to provide a technique for efficiently operating a power storage pack to be mounted in an electric vehicle (Okamoto, para. [0005]).
Regarding claim 2, Nakanishi in view of Okamoto teaches all the limitation of claim 1, in addition, Nakanishi teaches a battery module state recognition section configured to recognize a state (para. [0062]: battery modules to be replaced include what has been specified as abnormal modules due to a minute short-circuit or the like, and what can be reused by recovering the battery characteristics) of each of the battery modules (Fig. 1, 11-15) accommodated in the battery module accommodation section (Fig. 1), wherein
the shipping target selection section preferentially selects (para. [0062]: what can be reused by recovering the battery characteristics), as a shipping target (by rebuilding the reusable battery modules as a battery pack and shipping as a substantially new (regenerated) product, cost reduction of replacement battery pack and a remarkable reduction of waste will be available), the block including the battery module recognized by the battery module state recognition section as being in a predetermined defective state (para. [0062]: battery modules to be replaced include what has been specified as abnormal modules due to a minute short-circuit or the like, and what can be reused by recovering the battery characteristics).
Regarding claim 3, Nakanishi in view of Okamoto teaches all the limitation of claim 2, in addition, Nakanishi teaches a spare battery module accommodation section configured to accommodate the predetermined number or a greater number of the battery modules each confirmed as being in a predetermined normal state (Fig. 1, 11-15).
Nakanishi does not specifically teach a block exchange arrangement section configured to execute processing for exchanging the block including the battery module recognized by the battery module state recognition section as being in the defective state for the predetermined number of battery modules accommodated in the spare battery module accommodation section.
However, Okamoto teaches a block exchange arrangement section configured to execute processing for exchanging the block including the battery module recognized by the battery module state recognition section as being in the defective state for the predetermined number of battery modules accommodated in the spare battery module accommodation section (para. [100]: spare battery pack 2, and replaces battery pack 2 having insufficient capacity with battery pack 2).
Nakanishi and Okamoto are both considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the similar filed of management of battery pack. 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 block exchange arrangement section such as is described in Okamoto into Nakanishi, in order to provide a technique for efficiently operating a power storage pack to be mounted in an electric vehicle (Okamoto, para. [0005]).
Regarding claim 4, Nakanishi in view of Okamoto teaches all the limitation of claim 3, in addition, Nakanishi teaches that the battery modules are taken out from a battery pack (para. [0051]: the first battery module 11 is set as a battery to be replaced (S22) before a subsequent step S23 starts) collected from an electric vehicle (para. [0024]: a battery assembly equipped in the vehicle), and the battery management system (Fig. 1, 6).
Nakanishi does not teach a battery pack information acquisition section configured to acquire battery pack information including information related to at least any one of a manufacture date of the electric vehicle equipped with the battery pack and a distance traveled by the electric vehicle equipped with the battery pack; and a spare battery module selection section configured to select, on a basis of the battery pack information, the battery module that is accommodated in the spare battery module accommodation section from the battery modules taken out from the battery pack.
However, Okamoto teaches a battery pack information acquisition section configured to acquire battery pack information (para. [100]: spare battery pack 2, and replaces battery pack 2 having insufficient capacity with battery pack 2) including information related to at least any one of a manufacture date of the electric vehicle equipped with the battery pack and a distance traveled by the electric vehicle equipped with the battery pack (para. [0096]: receiving the identification number of battery pack 2 and the identification number of electric vehicle 3 from wireless terminal device 36 of electric vehicle 3, acquisition unit 111 of monitoring device 1 registers the identification number of battery pack 2, the identification number of electric vehicle 3, and the user ID of the user who rides on electric vehicle 3 in battery-vehicle-user table 125 in association with each other); and
a spare battery module selection section configured to select, on a basis of the battery pack information, the battery module that is accommodated in the spare battery module accommodation section from the battery modules taken out from the battery pack (para. [100]: spare battery pack 2, and replaces battery pack 2 having insufficient capacity with battery pack 2).
Nakanishi and Okamoto are both considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the similar filed of management of battery pack. 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 a battery pack information acquisition section such as is described in Okamoto into Nakanishi, in order to provide a technique for efficiently operating a power storage pack to be mounted in an electric vehicle (Okamoto, para. [0005]).
Regarding claim 5, Nakanishi teaches a battery management method (Fig. 1, 6) that is executed by a computer to manage storage and shipment of a plurality of battery modules (Fig. 1, 11-15), the battery management method (Fig. 1, 6) comprising:
a battery module registration step of separately registering a plurality of the battery modules (Fig. 1, 11-15) in block (Fig. 1, 1), the plurality of the battery modules (Fig. 1, 11-15) being accommodated in a battery module accommodation section (Fig. 1), the block (Fig. 1, 1) each including a predetermined number of the battery modules (Fig. 1, 11-15), the predetermined number being greater than or equal to 2 (Fig. 1, 11-15);
a charging and discharging control step of charging and discharging (Fig. 1, 7 and para. [0048]: Numeral 7 denotes a battery input-output control section. This controls a state-of-charge based on a state-of-charge level calculated by the battery controller 6) the battery modules (Fig. 1, 11-15) in units of the block (Fig. 1, 1), the battery modules (Fig. 1, 11-15) being accommodated in the battery module accommodation section (Fig. 1); and
a shipping target selection step of selecting, in units of the block, the battery modules serving (para. [0062]: battery modules to be replaced include what has been specified as abnormal modules due to a minute short-circuit or the like, and what can be reused by recovering the battery characteristics, note that the above feature of “Battery modules to be replaced” reads on “select the battery modules serving) as shipping targets from the battery modules accommodated in the battery module accommodation section (para. [0062]: by rebuilding the reusable battery modules as a battery pack and shipping as a substantially new (regenerated) product, cost reduction of replacement battery pack and a remarkable reduction of waste will be available).
Nakanishi does not specifically teach blocks (or packs).
However, Okamoto teaches blocks (Fig. 5, 2; para. [0047]: the battery packs 2 (three battery packs shown in FIG. 5) mounted to the mounting slots are electrically connected in parallel to one another, note that the above feature of “three battery packs” reads on “three blocks” for battery modules).
Nakanishi and Okamoto are both considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the similar filed of management of battery pack. 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 blocks such as is described in Okamoto into Nakanishi, in order to provide a technique for efficiently operating a power storage pack to be mounted in an electric vehicle (Okamoto, para. [0005]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Stewart et al. (US 2022/0305922) teaches that systems and methods for replacing one or more battery modules of a battery pack include using one or more communication devices to instruct a battery management system of the battery pack that a number of battery modules of the battery pack is equal to a remaining number of battery modules in the battery pack after one or more battery modules have been disconnected.
Sauerwine et al. (US 2012/0119747 A1) teaches that a battery confirmation system and method for confirming a state of charge in a vehicle battery installed in a vehicle includes a vehicle having a controller, a battery powering the controller, and an onboard diagnostics connector operatively connected to the controller.
Xie et al. (WO 2023216159 A1 A1) teaches that embodiments of the present application provide a battery swapping work station, comprising a supporting column fixed to the shore and a platform movably connected to the supporting column.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANGKYUNG LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3669. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, LEE RODARK can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
/SANGKYUNG LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858