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 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 is:
“a communication unit” in claim 1, ll. 5.
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.
The claim limitation(s) has/have been presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it/they meet(s) the following 3-prong analysis:
(A) The claim limitation(s) use the phrase “means for” or “step for” or a generic replacement therefore: The word (or phrase) “unit” is a generic nonce term which imparts no structure to the words which it purportedly modifies. The claims would have no more or less weight and meaning if they instead disclosed “a communication means for acquiring…”.
(B) The “means for” or “step for” is modified by functional language: “that acquires … information”. The functional language only describes the operation/function of the communication unit. It does not detail what structure performs said function.
(C) The phrase “means for” or “step for” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for achieving the specified function. In this instance, the term “a communication unit” is not at all structural, nor do they carry implicit structure. The remaining cited language is entirely functional in nature and contains no structural descriptions at all.
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 § 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.
Claim 1 is rejected as it provides the limitation ”a communication unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
In the instant application, the specifications filed on 11/20/2023 do not provide any structural description of what the communication unit is. Page 6 of the specifications lightly defines what the communication unit is functioning as, being able to “communicate” with a DCM of an electric vehicle and the like. This, however, is not a structural definition and therefore the limitation is indefinite.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
For the same reasons, all dependent claims 2-4 are rejected as well by virtue of their dependency.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Totsuka (J.P. Patent Application Publication 2018154190 A).
Regarding claim 1, Totsuka discloses (Title: Battery Pack Replacing Device) a battery replacement apparatus for replacing a first battery (battery pack 41, p. 2, ll. 19) attached to an electric vehicle (electric vehicle 31, p. 2, ll. 18) with a second battery (new battery pack 41, p. 4, ll. 33), the battery replacement apparatus comprising:
at least one drive unit (travel control device, p. 3, ll. 15; or nut runner device 77 driven by a motor 77a, p. 3, ll. 45-46);
a controller (work control unit 69, p. 3, ll. 35) that controls the drive unit; and
a communication unit (receiver 71, p. 3, ll. 37) that acquires, through communication, information about at least one of the electric vehicle and the first battery (transmitter 55, p. 3, ll. 16-17 & ll. 36-39, information mapped as position/location of elements, Totsuka details transmitter 55 communicating with receiver 71 as a positioning means for the battery pack and lifter), wherein
the controller adjusts a position of the drive unit based on the information that is acquired through the communication unit, and performs control of replacing the first battery with the second battery by controlling the drive unit whose position is adjusted (p. 4, ll. 24-33, “the work control unit 69 uses the function of raising the unlocking piece 79 in advance and communication between the transmitter 55 and the receiver 71 as positioning means, and the battery pack 41 and the lifter. The function of supporting the battery pack 41 from below with the lifter base 65 while placing the base 65 at a predetermined position and the function of operating the nutrunner device 77 (the bolt release side) after placement are set. When the “battery pack replacement” mode is selected from the operation unit 97, a command signal is output, and the lifter mechanism 61, the safety hook mechanism 11, and the nutrunner device 77 are operated, and the electric vehicle 31 parked on the floor 23. So that the battery pack 41 can be removed. Of course, a new battery pack 41 can be attached to the vehicle by the reverse operation”).
Regarding claim 2, Totsuka further discloses wherein the drive unit includes at least one of
a wheel stopper that positions a wheel of the electric vehicle (p. 4, ll. 32, Totsuka details “the electric vehicle 31 parked on the floor 23”),
a lift unit that raises and lowers the electric vehicle (p. 3, ll. 18-19, “floor 23 for placing an electric vehicle 31 at a fixed position”),
a battery mount that is movable below the electric vehicle at least in a horizontal direction (p. 3, ll. 25-26, “the lifter mechanism 61 is installed on the lower surface of the pit space 24 as shown in FIGS. 1 and 3, and controls the position in the XY direction (left and right front-rear direction)”), the battery mount being where at least one of the first battery removed from the electric vehicle and the second battery for being attached to the electric vehicle is placed on (FIG. 6 depicts lifter mechanism 61 supporting battery 41), and
PNG
media_image1.png
253
431
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a positioning pin (unlocking piece 79, p. 4, ll. 1) that is used for position alignment of the electric vehicle and the battery mount in the horizontal direction FIGS. 5a & 5B depict unlocking piece 79 used to position/align elements together).
PNG
media_image2.png
466
714
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Totsuka further discloses the wherein the information includes at least one of information about the electric vehicle, information about the first battery, and information about the second battery (p. 3, ll. 16-17 & ll. 36-39, Totsuka details transmitter 55 communicating with receiver 71 as a positioning means for the battery pack and lifter. Totsuka also details the process in p. 4, ll. 24-33 that the operation is reversable to attach a new battery pack 41. The positions of first battery, second battery, and electric vehicle location is known by the operation).
Regarding claim 4, Totsuka further discloses the wherein the communication unit is capable of communicating with the electric vehicle, and acquires the information from the electric vehicle.
(Refer to the rejection of claim 3, supra, as it is applicable to the rejection of claim 4).
Regarding claim 5, Totsuka discloses (Title: Battery Pack Replacing Device) a battery replacement method for replacing a first battery (Title: Battery Pack Replacing Device) attached to an electric vehicle (electric vehicle 31, p. 2, ll. 18) with a second battery (new battery pack 41, p. 4, ll. 33) by using a battery replacement apparatus (battery pack exchanging device 21, p. 2, ll. 18), the battery replacement method comprising:
acquiring from the electric vehicle, through communication, information about at least one of the electric vehicle and the first battery (p. 3, ll. 16-17 & ll. 36-39, information mapped as position/location of elements, Totsuka details transmitter 55 communicating with receiver 71 as a positioning means for the battery pack and lifter);
adjusting a position of at least one drive unit of the battery replacement apparatus based on the information acquired in the acquiring (p. 4, ll. 24-33, “the work control unit 69 uses the function of raising the unlocking piece 79 in advance and communication between the transmitter 55 and the receiver 71 as positioning means, and the battery pack 41 and the lifter. The function of supporting the battery pack 41 from below with the lifter base 65 while placing the base 65 at a predetermined position and the function of operating the nutrunner device 77 (the bolt release side) after placement are set. When the “battery pack replacement” mode is selected from the operation unit 97, a command signal is output, and the lifter mechanism 61, the safety hook mechanism 11, and the nutrunner device 77 are operated, and the electric vehicle 31 parked on the floor 23. So that the battery pack 41 can be removed; p. 3, ll. 25-26, “the lifter mechanism 61 is installed on the lower surface of the pit space 24 as shown in FIGS. 1 and 3, and controls the position in the XY direction (left and right front-rear direction)”); and
replacing the first battery with the second battery by the drive unit whose position is adjusted in the adjusting (p. 4, ll. 24-33, “a new battery pack 41 can be attached to the vehicle by reverse operation”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUGENE REY D LEGASPI whose telephone number is (571)272-2956. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5PM.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/E.D.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3729
/JEFFREY T CARLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729
Prosecution Insights