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 .
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ishibashi (US 2012/0146588, cited by the applicant).
Ishibashi teaches a charge control system (100) comprising a power integration unit (105) serving as a charger, a plurality of battery modules (110a, 110b) that are electrically connected to the charger, and a communication line (108) that allows for mutual communication between the plurality of battery modules, each of the plurality of battery modules including a battery (112), a control unit (113) serving as a disconnector configured to disconnect power supply from the charger to the battery, and a battery controller (111) configured to control the battery modules, wherein the communication line allows for transmission and reception of operation information regarding the disconnector between the battery modules (paragraph 0059), and based on the operation information provided via the communication line, the battery controller (111) causes the disconnector of one battery module from among the plurality of battery modules to provide power supply to the battery belonging to the one battery module and causes the disconnector of a rest of the plurality of battery modules to disconnect power supply to the battery belonging to the rest of the plurality of battery modules, thereby performing control such that the charger charges the battery belonging to the one battery module without concurrently charging the battery belonging to the rest of the plurality of battery modules (i.e., the battery packs are charged in sequentially according to the priority, paragraphs 0098-0099)(see figs. 1-4; paragraphs 0050-0082).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishibashi in view of Mitsuoka et al. (EP 4089876).
The teachings of Ishibashi have been discussed above.
Although, Ishibashi teaches the charge control system having the battery modules, he fairly suggests that the battery modules have an identical identifier.
However, Mitsuoka teaches a charging apparatus comprising a plurality of battery modules (4(1)-4(n)) wherein the plurality of battery modules comprising same CAN IDs (fig. 2) (see figs. 1, 2; paragraphs 0015-0026).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the teachings of Mitsuoka to the teachings of Ishibashi in order to reuse battery modules by using the same CAN IDs.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Suzuki et al. (US 11418051) teaches a power supplying system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEUNG H LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2401. The examiner can normally be reached 7-4:00PM.
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, Steven Paik can be reached at 571-272-2404. 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.
/SEUNG H LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights