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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed 8/27/25 has been considered and placed of record. The initialed copy is attached herewith.
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 2-7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17 and 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.
Re claims 2, 9 and 16, the limitations “desired route” and “desired route” are indefinite because the adjective “desired” is subjective.
Re claim 3, the limitation “the desired route” is indefinite for the reason sets forth for claim 2 and also lacks proper antecedent basis. The limitation “the car” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Re claims 4 and 5, they are indefinite for depending directly or indirectly on indefinite claims.
Re claims 6 and 13, the limitation “the fast cells” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Re claims 7 and 14, the limitations “the drive mode,” “the routing information,” “the tire pressure” and “the user” all lack proper antecedent basis.
Re claims 10 and 17, the limitation “the desired route” is indefinite for the reason sets forth for claims 9 and 16. The limitation “the car” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Re claim 20, the limitations “the fast cells,” “the drive mode,” “the routing information,” “the tire pressure” and “the user” all lack proper antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-4, 8-11 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sarkar et al. (US 2013/0229153A1).
Re claims 1, 8 and 15, the reference discloses a method having, inter alia, the steps of: receiving, by adaptive charging system, one or more factors that impact usage of a battery (beginning of para 8); determining, by the system, a cell allocation scheme based on the one or more factors (middle of para 8); and displaying, by the system, the cell allocation scheme comprising an adjustment to the battery and number of cells impacted by the adjustment to the battery (para 55-58). Claims 8 and 15 are non-transitory codes using a CPU to process the method steps of claim 1.
Re claims 2, 9 and 16, the reference further discloses factors including route and driving mode (beginning of para 61).
Re claims 3, 10 and 17, the reference further discloses other factors may include weather, driving distance ect. (para 8 and 61).
Re claims 4, 11 and 18, the reference further discloses cell allocation includes fast cells and normal cells (see end of para 10).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 5-7, 12-14, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarkar et al. (US 2013/0229153A1).
Re claims 5, 12 and 19, the reference is silent on having to identify the cells to be swapped out. Official notice is taken of the fact that having to ID cells for replacement would prevent from having to replace the entire pack. It would have been well within the skill of one versed in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have identify specific cells for replacement in order to avoid having to replace the entire battery pack.
Re claims 6, 13 and 20, the reference is silent on having to identify the fast cells. Official notice is taken of the fact that having to ID fast cells would allow the CPU to track the type of cells in the pack for references. It would have been well within the skill of one versed in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have identify fast cells to track the specific type of cells in the pack in order to employ the specific cells for specific tasks.
Re claims 7, 14 and 20, the reference is silent on adjusting drive mode, tire pressure info and route info and alerting a user to the adjustment. Official notice is taken of the fact that having the CPU to adjust factors including drive mode, route info and tire pressure would ensure the system is working at an optimal condition. In addition, alerting the user would allow the user to the condition of the charger and/or the vehicle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to the Examiner at the below-listed number. The Examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thu from 7:00am-5:00pm.
The Examiner’s SPE is Drew Dunn and he can be reached at 571.272.2312. The fax number for the organization where this application is assigned is 571.273.8300.
/EDWARD TSO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859 571.272.2087
Prosecution Insights