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 .
This is the first action on the merits for application 18/523,281. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/29/2023 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 2, “the second-life battery” should be changed to - -the second second-life battery- - for claim consistency (see, for reference, Claim 10, lines 1-2, “a second second-life battery”). Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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 “acceptable” in Claim 1, lines 6 and 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “acceptable” 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. It is unclear what constitutes an “acceptable” SOH value. For examination purposes, these limitations have been interpreted as an arbitrary “first” value and “second” value.
Claims 2-8 are indefinite due to their dependence from indefinite Claim 1.
The term “acceptable” in Claim 9, lines 3-4 (two instances) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “acceptable” 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. It is unclear what constitutes an “acceptable” SOH value. For examination purposes, these limitations have been interpreted as an arbitrary “first” value and “second” value.
Claims 10-18 are indefinite due to their dependence from indefinite Claim 9.
The term “acceptable” in Claim 19, lines 4-5 (two instances) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “acceptable” 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. It is unclear what constitutes an “acceptable” SOH value. For examination purposes, these limitations have been interpreted as an arbitrary “first” value and “second” value.
Claim 20 is indefinite due to its dependence from indefinite Claim 19.
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, 4, 6-8 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by MICHELINI et al. (NPL citation number 3 on the IDS filed 11/29/2023).
Regarding Claim 1 as best understood, MICHELINI et al. discloses a method for providing power for a tractor (Abstract), comprising: selecting a second-life battery by: providing a plurality of vehicle batteries (page 1, “batteries”); conducting a state-of-health (SOH) test on each of the plurality of vehicle batteries (page 1, “need to be replaced once certain automotive requirements are reached…state of health (SOH)”); comparing a SOH result value for each of the SOH tests to a target SOH range, the target SOH range being below an acceptable SOH value for powering an electric vehicle and above an acceptable SOH value for powering a tractor (page 3, “SECOND-LIFE APPLICATIONS”, “following criteria were considered to evaluate”); and selecting a first second-life battery of the plurality of vehicle batteries with a SOH result being within the target SOH range (page 4, “second-life applications determined previously”); positioning the first second-life battery near a tractor (page 5, “Hybrid trucks”, “Tractors”); and providing power to the tractor from the first second-life battery through an electrical connection (page 5, “Potential second-life applications”, “Hybrid trucks”, “Tractors”).
Regarding Claim 3 as best understood, MICHELINI et al. discloses selecting a second second-life battery of the plurality of vehicle batteries with a SOH result being within the target SOH range (page 1, “Using batteries in a second life”).
Regarding Claim 4 as best understood, MICHELINI et al. discloses positioning the second second-life battery near the tractor and electrically connected to the first second-life battery; and providing power to the tractor from the second second-life battery through the electrical connection (page 5, “Potential second-life applications”, “Hybrid trucks”, “Tractors”).
Regarding Claim 6 as best understood, MICHELINI et al. discloses the tractor is a fully electric tractor (page 5, “Potential second-life applications”, “Tractors”).
Regarding Claim 7 as best understood, MICHELINI et al. discloses the tractor is a hybrid-electric tractor (page 5, “Potential second-life applications”, “Hybrid trucks”).
Regarding Claim 8 as best understood, MICHELINI et al. discloses providing power to the tractor from the first second-life battery through an electrical connection is in addition to another power supply being used on the tractor (page 5, “Potential second-life applications”, “Hybrid trucks”).
Regarding Claim 19 as best understood, MICHELINI et al. discloses a method for providing a second-life battery for use with a tractor (Abstract), comprising: providing a vehicle battery comprising a plurality of battery cells (page 1, “batteries”; page 4, “cell level”); determining a target state-of-health (SOH) range, the target SOH range having as a lower limit an acceptable SOH value for powering a tractor and having as an upper limit an acceptable SOH value for powering an electric vehicle (page 1, “need to be replaced once certain automotive requirements are reached…state of health (SOH)”; page 3, “SECOND-LIFE APPLICATIONS”, “following criteria were considered to evaluate”); conducting a SOH test on each of the plurality of battery cells (page 1, “need to be replaced once certain automotive requirements are reached…state of health (SOH)”; page 3, “SECOND-LIFE APPLICATIONS”, “following criteria were considered to evaluate”; page 4, “cell level”); comparing a SOH result value for each of the SOH tests to the target SOH range (page 1, “need to be replaced once certain automotive requirements are reached…state of health (SOH)”; page 3, “SECOND-LIFE APPLICATIONS”, “following criteria were considered to evaluate”); selecting one or more battery cells with a SOH result value that falls within the target SOH range (page 4, “second-life applications determined previously”); removing the selected one or more battery cells from the vehicle battery (page 4, “cell level”); repackaging the selected one or more battery cells in a second-life battery (page 4, “cell level”); and using the second-life battery to provide power to a tractor (page 5, “Potential second-life applications”, “Hybrid trucks”, “Tractors”).
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 (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.
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) 2, 5 and 9-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MICHELINI et al. (NPL citation number 3 on the IDS filed 11/29/2023) in view of GIBBS (NPL citation number 2 on the IDS filed 11/29/2023).
Regarding Claim 2 as best understood, MICHELINI et al. discloses the method of Claim 1, described in detail above, but does not explicitly disclose positioning the first second-life battery on a trailer that is electrically connected to the tractor.
GIBBS discloses an auxiliary power source for a vehicle (equivalent to a tractor) including positioning a battery system on a trailer that is electrically connected to the vehicle (see page 1, “battery trailers”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first second-life battery of MICHELINI et al. be positioned on a trailer that is electrically connected to the tractor, for the predictable result of increasing the range of the tractor (as disclosed by GIBBS, page 1, “to cure EV range angst”).
Regarding Claim 5 as best understood, MICHELINI et al. discloses the method of Claim 4, described in detail above, but does not explicitly disclose positioning the first second-life battery and the second second-life battery on a trailer that is electrically connected to the tractor.
GIBBS discloses an auxiliary power source for a vehicle (equivalent to a tractor) including positioning a battery system on a trailer that is electrically connected to the vehicle (see page 1, “battery trailers”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first second-life battery and the second second-life battery of MICHELINI et al. be positioned on a trailer that is electrically connected to the tractor, for the predictable result of increasing the range of the tractor (as disclosed by GIBBS, page 1, “to cure EV range angst”).
Regarding Claim 9 as best understood, MICHELINI et al. discloses a system for providing power to a tractor with a second-life battery (Abstract), comprising: a testing system configured to: define a target state-of-health (SOH) range, the target SOH range being below an acceptable SOH value for powering an electric vehicle and above an acceptable SOH value for powering a tractor (page 1, “need to be replaced once certain automotive requirements are reached…state of health (SOH)”; page 3, “SECOND-LIFE APPLICATIONS”, “following criteria were considered to evaluate”); conduct SOH testing on a plurality of second-life batteries previously used on electric vehicles (page 1, “need to be replaced once certain automotive requirements are reached…state of health (SOH)”); and select a first second-life battery from the plurality of second-life batteries that meets the target SOH range (page 4, “second-life applications determined previously”; page 5, “Potential second-life applications”, “Hybrid trucks”, “Tractors”). However, MICHELINI et al. does not explicitly disclose a trailer configured to hold the selected first second-life battery, the trailer having an electrical connection to the tractor to provide power from the selected first second-life battery to the tractor.
GIBBS discloses an auxiliary power source for a vehicle (equivalent to a tractor) including positioning a battery system on a trailer that is electrically connected to the vehicle (see page 1, “battery trailers”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of MICHELINI et al., a trailer configured to hold the selected first second-life battery, the trailer having an electrical connection to the tractor to provide power from the selected first second-life battery to the tractor, for the predictable result of increasing the range of the tractor (as disclosed by GIBBS, page 1, “to cure EV range angst”).
Regarding Claim 10 as best understood, MICHELINI et al. as modified by GIBBS above discloses the testing system is further configured to select a second second-life battery from the plurality of second-life batteries that meets the target SOH range (MICHELINI et al., page 1, “Using batteries in a second life”).
Regarding Claim 11 as best understood, MICHELINI et al. as modified by GIBBS above discloses the trailer is configured to provide power to the tractor from the second second-life battery through the electrical connection (MICHELINI et al., page 5, “Potential second-life applications”, “Hybrid trucks”, “Tractors”).
Regarding Claim 12 as best understood, MICHELINI et al. as modified by GIBBS above discloses the tractor is a fully electric tractor (MICHELINI et al., page 5, “Potential second-life applications”, “Tractors”).
Regarding Claim 13 as best understood, MICHELINI et al. as modified by GIBBS above discloses the tractor is a hybrid-electric tractor (MICHELINI et al., page 5, “Potential second-life applications”, “Hybrid trucks”).
Regarding Claim 14 as best understood, MICHELINI et al. as modified by GIBBS above discloses the trailer is configured to provide power from the selected first second-life battery to the tractor through the electrical connection in addition to another power supply being used on the tractor (MICHELINI et al., page 5, “Potential second-life applications”, “Hybrid trucks”).
Regarding Claim 15 as best understood, MICHELINI et al. as modified by GIBBS above discloses the system of Claim 9, described in detail above, but does not explicitly disclose the target SOH range has an upper limit of 90% and a lower limit of 70% of normal operating battery health. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the target SOH range have an upper limit of 90% and a lower limit of 70% of normal operating battery health, 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 routing skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 16 as best understood, MICHELINI et al. as modified by GIBBS above discloses the system of Claim 9, described in detail above, but does not explicitly disclose the target SOH range has an upper limit of 95% and a lower limit of 60% of normal operating battery health. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the target SOH range have an upper limit of 95% and a lower limit of 60% of normal operating battery health, 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 routing skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 17 as best understood, MICHELINI et al. as modified by GIBBS above discloses the second-life battery is a lithium ion battery (MICHELINI et al., page 1, “lithium-ion batteries”).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MICHELINI et al. (NPL citation number 3 on the IDS filed 11/29/2023) in view of GIBBS (NPL citation number 2 on the IDS filed 11/29/2023) as applied to Claim 9 above, and further in view of ZEILER et al. (US 2023/0180657 A1).
Regarding Claim 18 as best understood, MICHELINI et al. as modified by GIBBS above discloses the system of Claim 9, described in detail above, but does not explicitly disclose the second-life battery is a nickel-metal hydride battery.
ZEILER et al. discloses an electric tractor (see ABSTRACT) that utilizes a nickel-metal hydride battery (see paragraph [0064], “nickel-metal hydride”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the system of MICHELINI et al. as modified by GIBBS include a nickel-metal hydride battery as the second-life battery, since the simple substitution of one known battery means for an equivalent other battery means yields predictable results.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MICHELINI et al. (NPL citation number 3 on the IDS filed 11/29/2023).
Regarding Claim 20 as best understood, MICHELINI et al. discloses the method of Claim 19, described in detail above, but does not explicitly disclose the target SOH range has an upper limit of 90% and a lower limit of 70% of normal operating battery health. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the target SOH range have an upper limit of 90% and a lower limit of 70% of normal operating battery health, 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 routing skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
MOORE et al. (US 2023/0311682 A1) discloses a delivery charger for an electric vehicle (see ABSTRACT).
HALL et al. (US 2022/0209546 A1) discloses an energy storage system employing second-life batteries (see ABSTRACT).
HALL et al. (US 11,289,921) discloses an energy storage system employing second-life batteries (see ABSTRACT).
HINTERBERGER et al. (US 2018/0034114 A1) discloses a battery cell monitoring system for motor vehicles (see ABSTRACT).
AN et al. (US 2017/0355269 A1) discloses an extended range electric tractor (see ABSTRACT).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWIN YOUNG whose telephone number is (571)272-4781. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 6:00 pm (CST).
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, Jacob S Scott can be reached at (571)270-3415. 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.
EDWIN YOUNG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3655
/Edwin A Young/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655