DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Prosecutorial Standing 2 . This communication is in response to the Preliminary Amendment filed on 07.28.2025 . Claims 3, 6, 8, 9, 12 and 13 have been amended. Therefore, c laims 1- 13 will be subject to further examination and evaluation in due course, and will be presented for examination, as detailed below . Oath /Declaration 3 . The Applicant’ s oath/declaration has been reviewed by the Examiner and is found to conform to the requirements prescribed in 37 C.F.R. 1.63 . Information Disclosure Statement 4 . As required by M.P.E.P. 609(C) , the Applicant’s submission of the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) dated 12.22.2023 is acknowledged by the Examiner. The cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims. As required by M.P.E.P 609 C (2) , a copy of the PTOL-1449 initialed, signed and dated by the Examiner is attached to the instant Office action. Priority / Filing Date 5 . Applicants ’ claim for priority of F oreign A pplication, C hina 2022114613053 filed on 11.21.2022 is acknowledged. The Examiner takes the FA date of 11.21.2022 into consideration. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 6. 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. 7. 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 . 8. Claims 1-9 , 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asai et al., Pub. No.: US 2023/0118311 in view of I sono et al., WO 2005007444 . As per claim s 1 , 12, and 13 , Asai discloses a method for capacity calculation of a battery module [ see at least the abstract (e.g., a battery characteristic relationship value calculated based on the battery characteristic ) , as illustrated in FIG.1 (e.g., block 6), and presented below ] , comprising: selecting a reference battery from the battery module based on historical charge and discharge parameters of each battery in the battery module [ see at least ¶0096 (e.g., the battery pack includes the multiple secondary batteries having the usage history, and the battery pack can be provided in which the total capacity is estimated by using the discharging voltage characteristic of the multiple secondary batteries and the difference in the deterioration degree of each of the multiple secondary batteries, which is determined based on the corresponding total capacity, is within a predetermined range ) ] , wherein the reference battery meets preset charge and discharge conditions, and acquiring remaining batteries from the battery module except the reference battery [ see at least ¶0058 (e.g., the charging and discharging control unit 71 can perform discharging until any one of the secondary batteries 21 to 26 forming the battery pack 2 reaches a preset discharging target voltage VP or perform charging until a preset charging target voltage is reached , as shown in FIG. 4 , and presented below ) ] ; obtaining a relative capacity of each of the remaining batteries relative to the reference battery [ see at least ¶0054 (e.g., corresponding correspondence relationship can be created by machine learning using the measurement-purpose secondary battery, or created based on the actual measurement value obtained by performing an accelerated deterioration test by using the measurement-purpose secondary battery, or created by a calculation formula that logically derives the correspondence relationship between the battery characteristic and the total capacity in a predetermined voltage section by using the model of the secondary battery ) ] ; determining a target capacity which meets a preset capacity condition selected as the relative capacity of said remaining battery compared to the reference battery [ see at least ¶0072 (e.g., in a step S2 shown in FIG. 6 (see below) , discharging is performed until the open circuit voltage of at least one of the secondary batteries 21 to 26 reaches the discharging target voltage VP. Accordingly, the remaining capacity of each of the secondary batteries 21 to 26 is discharged ) ] ; and obtaining an increasable capacity of the battery module based on the target capacity [ see at least ¶61 (e.g., battery states of the secondary batteries 21 to 26 forming the battery pack 2 are not always uniform, and the variation in the battery states increases with the use of the battery pack 2. Therefore, the voltage transition in the same voltage section also differs according to the deterioration state. The corresponding voltage transition, for example, can be calculated based on at least one of the section capacity of the secondary batteries 21 to 26 in the predetermined voltage section, the ratio of the voltage change of the secondary batteries 21 to 26 with respect to the capacity change of the secondary batteries 21 to 26 in the predetermined voltage section, and the ratio of the voltage change of the secondary batteries 21 to 26 with respect to the elapsed time in the predetermined voltage section ) ]. Asai discloses all elements per claimed invention as explained above. Asai does not explicitly discloses wherein the increasable capacity of the battery module represents a capacity which the battery module can release after the battery module performs a power replenishment operation compared to the capacity the battery module can release before the power replenishment operation. However, Isono discloses wherein the increasable capacity of the battery module represents a capacity which the battery module can release after the battery module performs a power replenishment operation compared to the capacity the battery module can release before the power replenishment operation [ see at least disclosure of the invention (e.g., in a case where the supply part is formed as an energy generation part (e.g., a power system) ), and a replenishment system that replenishes energy to a storing part in a case where the supply part of the moving body is formed as the storing part ]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teaching of Isono in order to provide an improved and useful moving energy management apparatus and moving energy management method [ Isono : disclosure of the invention ] . As per claim 2 , Asai discloses wherein selecting the reference battery from the battery module based on historical charge and discharge parameters of each battery in the battery module further comprises a step of choosing the reference battery which is a first to reach a charging cut-off [ see at least the rejection of claim 1 above. In light of the preceding examination, claim 2 is hereby rejected on grounds substantially similar to those articulated in the rejection of claim 1. As detailed in the prior rejection, the rationale and basis for rejecting claim 1 are applicable to claim 2 . For a comprehensive understanding of the rejection grounds, reference is made to the detailed explanation provided in the rejection of claim 1, which is incorporated herein by reference ] . As per claim 3 , Asai discloses wherein obtaining the relative capacity of each of the remaining batteries relative to the reference battery further comprises a step of: obtaining a chargeable capacity and a dischargeable capacity relative to the reference battery of each of the remaining batteries based on first historical charge and discharge parameters of the reference battery and second historical charge and discharge parameters of each of the remaining batteries; wherein the relative capacity of each of the remaining batteries relative to the reference battery is calculated as a difference between the chargeable capacity and the dischargeable capacity of each of the remaining batteries [ see at least the rejection of claim 1 above. In light of the preceding examination, claim 3 is hereby rejected on grounds substantially similar to those articulated in the rejection of claim 1. As detailed in the prior rejection, the rationale and basis for rejecting claim 1 are applicable to claim 3 . For a comprehensive understanding of the rejection grounds, reference is made to the detailed explanation provided in the rejection of claim 1, which is incorporated herein by reference ] . As per claim 4 , Asai discloses wherein obtaining a chargeable capacity and a dischargeable capacity of each of the remaining batteries relative to the reference battery based on first historical charge and discharge parameters of the reference battery and second historical charge and discharge parameters of each of the remaining batteries further comprises: obtaining, for each of the remaining batteries, a charging cut-off voltage and charging cut-off time when the reference battery reaches the charging cut-off; obtaining a charging voltage of said remaining battery at the charging cut-off time of the reference battery; obtaining a charging time when the reference battery reaches the charging voltage of said remaining battery; and obtaining a charging current of said remaining battery between the charging time and the charging cut-off time; wherein the chargeable capacity of said remaining battery is calculated based on the charging time, the charging cut-off time and the charging current of said remaining battery [ see at least the rejection of claim 1 above. In light of the preceding examination, claim 4 is hereby rejected on grounds substantially similar to those articulated in the rejection of claim 1. As detailed in the prior rejection, the rationale and basis for rejecting claim 1 are applicable to claim 4 . For a comprehensive understanding of the rejection grounds, reference is made to the detailed explanation provided in the rejection of claim 1, which is incorporated herein by reference ] . As per claim 5 , Asai discloses wherein obtaining a chargeable capacity and a dischargeable capacity of each of the remaining batteries relative to the reference battery based on first historical charge and discharge parameters of the reference battery and second historical charge and discharge parameters of each of the remaining batteries further comprises: obtaining a discharge cut-off voltage and discharge cut-off time for each of the remaining batteries, when said remaining battery reaches the discharge cut-off; obtaining a discharge voltage of the reference battery at the discharge cut-off time of said remaining battery; determining whether the discharge cut-off voltage of said remaining battery is greater than the discharge voltage of the reference battery; if not, obtaining a discharge time of said remaining battery when said remaining batter reaches the discharge voltage; obtaining a discharge current of said remaining battery between the discharge time and the discharge cut-off time; and calculating the dischargeable capacity of said remaining battery, based on the discharge time, the discharge cut-off time and the discharge current of said remaining battery [ see at least the rejection of claim 1 above. In light of the preceding examination, claim 5 is hereby rejected on grounds substantially similar to those articulated in the rejection of claim 1. As detailed in the prior rejection, the rationale and basis for rejecting claim 1 are applicable to claim 5 . For a comprehensive understanding of the rejection grounds, reference is made to the detailed explanation provided in the rejection of claim 1, which is incorporated herein by reference ] . As per claim 6 -9 , Asai discloses wherein determining the target capacity which meets the preset capacity condition selected as the relative capacity of said remaining battery compared to the reference battery of said remaining battery further comprises: obtaining a first capacity which meets a first preset capacity condition among the dischargeable capacities of the remaining batteries; and obtaining a second capacity which meets a second preset capacity condition among the relative capacities of the remaining batteries; wherein obtaining the increasable capacity of the battery module based on the target capacity comprises: calculating the increasable capacity of the battery module based on the first capacity and the second capacity [ see at least the rejection of claim 1 above. In light of the preceding examination, claim s 6-9 is hereby rejected on grounds substantially similar to those articulated in the rejection of claim 1. As detailed in the prior rejection, the rationale and basis for rejecting claim 1 are applicable to claim s 6-9 . For a comprehensive understanding of the rejection grounds, reference is made to the detailed explanation provided in the rejection of claim 1, which is incorporated herein by reference ] . 9 . Claim 10 , which are parallel to claim 1 in terms of scope, limitations, and share similar characteristics, as discussed and examined above. Consequently, they are rejected based on the same logical and underlying reasoning, and justification that apply to claim 1. The similarity between these claims necessitates the same grounds for rejection, as explained in detail above [ note the discussion of claim 1 ]. 1 0 . Claim 1 1 , which are parallel to claim 1 in terms of scope, limitations, and share similar characteristics, as discussed and examined above. Consequently, they are rejected based on the same logical and underlying reasoning, and justification that apply to claim 1. The similarity between these claims necessitates the same grounds for rejection, as explained in detail above [ note the discussion of claim 1 ]. Conclusion 1 1 . The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The PTO-1449 form has been reviewed and considered. 1 2 . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Enter examiner's name" \* MERGEFORMAT Garcia Ade whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-5586 . The examiner can normally be reached on FILLIN "Work schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Florian Zeender can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 517-272-6790 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. 1 3 . Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /Garcia Ade/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627 FILLIN "Stamp?" \* MERGEFORMAT GARCIA ADE Primary Examiner Art Unit 3687 /GA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627