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 Interpretation
“Standard type” is being interpreted as a common dimension, chemistry, connecting element(s), or storage capacity of a battery in light of at least paragraph 0034 of the specification: “In a further embodiment of the system for supplying a delivery vehicle with electric energy, the replaceable battery modules are of a similar standard type, i.e. the battery modules used have similar dimensions, similar connections, i.e. connecting elements, and preferably also a similar electric storage capacity.”
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(s) is/are:
In claim 1, the “control device” in the limitation “a control device, which is designed to ascertain a likely energy requirement” invokes 112(f) as “control device” is a term that does not have definite structure which enables the ascertaining of an energy requirement.
In claim 4, the “charging device” in the limitation “a charging device, which is designed to charge replaceable battery modules” invokes 112(f) as “charging device” is a term that does not have definite structure which enables the charging of battery modules.
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.
Regarding the control device, a review of the specification (paragraph 0025) shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure to these claim limitations:
“The control device comprises at least one programmable unit, e.g. a processor or micro-controller, and has a memory and interfaces for receiving the relevant data for the subsequent journey in each case and for transmitting ascertained control demands to the delivery vehicle and the supply vehicle. In one embodiment of the system, the control device is arranged on board the delivery vehicle. In another embodiment, the control device is arranged on board the supply vehicle. And in a further embodiment, the control device is arranged separately from both the delivery vehicle and the supply vehicle. Provision is made for the interfaces to be configured for wireless communication with the respective remote vehicles of the system, wherein the vehicles likewise each have necessary corresponding interfaces for wireless communication.” (Emphasis added.)
Regarding the charging device, a review of the specification (paragraph 0030) shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure to these claim limitations:
“The charging device may comprise, for example, a battery which is carried on board the supply vehicle, for example a high-voltage battery with a high storage capacity, which thus serves as a mobile charging station and charges the replaceable battery modules on board during the journey or even when stationary. The charging device may also additionally or instead comprise a photovoltaic system with a solar panel on board the supply vehicle, for example.” (Emphasis added.)
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8, 11-14, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prosser et al. US 20120303397 A1 (hereinafter Prosser) in view of Price et al. US 20230373571 A1 (hereinafter Price), Arya et al. US 20250206155 A1 (hereinafter Arya), Lowe et al. US 20230174008 A1 (hereinafter Lowe), Delp US 20180257498 A1 (hereinafter Delp), and Droege US 20160328669 A1 (hereinafter Droege).
Regarding claims 1 and 18, Prosser teaches a system for supplying a vehicle with electric energy (Abstract), comprising:
a vehicle (Abstract “service vehicle”), wherein the vehicle has a first plurality of receiving units for replaceable battery modules for supplying the delivery vehicle with electric energy (Figure 2C shows a vehicle with a plurality of battery module storage locations on board the vehicle);
a supply vehicle for delivering replaceable battery modules to meeting points with the vehicle (Abstract discloses a resupply vehicle for delivering battery modules between a storage location and/or a service vehicle); and
a control device (paragraph 0097 discloses a controller that performs the method), which is designed to:
provide a first prompt to the supply vehicle to deliver a set of replaceable battery modules to a subsequent meeting point, which is the starting point of a subsequent delivery route of the vehicle (paragraph 0097 discloses a controller routes a resupply vehicle to a service vehicle; examiner understands that any point in which replacement of a battery occurs can be considered an "initial start point of a subsequent delivery route of the delivery vehicle");
Prosser does not teach that the vehicle is an electrically drivable delivery vehicle for making a plurality of successive delivery journeys, in each case for transporting consignments on a respective delivery route from a starting point of the delivery route to recipients of the consignments.
Price teaches that the vehicle is an electrically drivable delivery vehicle (paragraph 0002 discloses an electric delivery vehicle) for making a plurality of successive delivery journeys, in each case for transporting consignments on a respective delivery route from a starting point of the delivery route to recipients of the consignments (paragraph 0003 discloses delivery trucks delivery a variety of cargo) wherein the delivery vehicle has a first plurality of receiving units for replaceable battery modules for supplying the delivery vehicle with electric energy (Figure 4 shows battery packs 400A and 400B slotted into place behind two removable side panels seen better in Figure 2 210).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Prosser to incorporate the teachings of Price. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function, but in the very combination itself, that is in the substitution of the delivery vehicle of Price for the service vehicle of Prosser. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result of a drivable vehicle renders the claim obvious.
Prosser does not teach that the control device; comprising a processor, memory, and interfaces; is further designed to ascertain a likely energy requirement of the delivery vehicle for a subsequent delivery journey of the plurality of successive delivery journeys, taking into account a subsequent delivery route and a likely total weight of the delivery vehicle after loading consignments to be delivered on the subsequent delivery route at the starting point of the subsequent delivery route.
Arya teaches that the control device; comprising a processor, memory, and interfaces (paragraphs 0061-0062 disclose a controller comprising a processor, a memory, and interfaces which performs the method); is further designed to ascertain a likely energy requirement of the delivery vehicle for a subsequent delivery journey of the plurality of successive delivery journeys, taking into account a subsequent delivery route and a likely total weight of the delivery vehicle after loading additional consignments to be delivered on the subsequent delivery route at the starting point of the subsequent delivery route (paragraph 0017 discloses that a power requirement to complete a route is determined based on weight of the vehicle and payload and information regarding the route).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Prosser to incorporate the teachings of Arya with a reasonable expectation of success to ensure that an energy providing system is capable of performing the required mission to prevent unnecessary potential delays or downtime.
Prosser does not explicitly teach that the set of replaceable battery modules has a total charge level at the subsequent meeting point which covers at least the likely energy requirement.
Lowe teaches that the set of replaceable battery modules has a total charge level at the subsequent meeting point which covers at least the likely energy requirement (paragraph 0054 discloses that a number/charge level of batteries is determined based on meeting the required energy for a trip).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Prosser to incorporate the teachings of Lowe with a reasonable expectation of success to reduce cost of ownership so that driver is not transporting more battery capacity than is needed as disclosed in Lowe (paragraph 0027).
Prosser does not teach determining, after providing the first prompt to the supply vehicle, that a current total charge level of replaceable battery modules on the delivery vehicle is insufficient for the delivery vehicle to reach the first subsequent meeting point; and providing a second prompt to the supply vehicle to deliver the set of replaceable battery modules to a second subsequent meeting point, which is different from the first subsequent meeting point and is a revised starting point of the subsequent delivery route of the delivery vehicle.
Delp teaches determining, after providing the first prompt to the supply vehicle (Figure 4 420-430 disclose dispatching a resupply carriage to travel to a rendezvous point), that a current total charge level of replaceable battery modules on the delivery vehicle is insufficient for the delivery vehicle to reach the first subsequent meeting point (Figure 4 440 discloses determining if a rendezvous point is beyond a current range of a vehicle); and providing a second prompt to the supply vehicle to deliver the set of replaceable battery modules to a second subsequent meeting point, which is different from the first subsequent meeting point and is a revised starting point of the subsequent delivery route of the delivery vehicle (Figure 4 450 discloses updating the rendezvous point; see also paragraphs 0045-0046; examiner understands that any new and different rendezvous point can be considered a “revised starting point of the subsequent delivery route of the delivery vehicle”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Prosser to incorporate the teachings of Delp such that a determination can be made that the vehicle of Prosser cannot reach the rendezvous point wherein a new point can be subsequently determined as taught by Delp. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to ensure that a vehicle does not become stranded when traveling to a rendezvous point as disclosed in Delp (paragraph 0046).
Prosser does not teach that the supply vehicle is further for delivering consignments, providing the first prompt to the supply vehicle to further deliver a set of additional consignments to the first subsequent meeting point, and providing the second prompt to the supply vehicle to further deliver the set of additional consignments to the second subsequent meeting point.
Droege teaches that the supply vehicle is further for delivering consignments (Abstract discloses a supply vehicle can pick up packages and delivery them), providing the first prompt to the supply vehicle to further deliver a set of additional consignments to the first subsequent meeting point, and providing the second prompt to the supply vehicle to further deliver the set of additional consignments to the second subsequent meeting point (Abstract discloses coordinating with a supply vehicle to transfer packages to a delivery vehicle at a rendezvous location; see also paragraphs 0011-0012; examiner understands this would be applicable to delivering consignments to any scheduled meeting point).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Prosser to incorporate the teachings of Droege such that the resupply vehicle taught by Prosser can further include a region for storing consignments that can be transferred, according to Droege, to a battery receiving service vehicle of Prosser wherein rerouting to a secondary location can occur according to Delp as detailed above such that delivery occurs at any scheduled rendezvous location as taught by Droege. This modification would be done with a reasonable expectation of success to reduce restocking downtime of the delivery vehicle.
Regarding claim 2, the modified Prosser reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Prosser does not teach that the supply vehicle has a cargo area for receiving the set of additional consignments to be delivered on the subsequent delivery route of the delivery vehicle.
Droege teaches that the supply vehicle has a cargo area for receiving the set of additional consignments to be delivered on the subsequent delivery route of the delivery vehicle (Abstract discloses having a supply vehicle pick up packages; it is inherent that a vehicle holding packages has some area that the packages can be received at whether that be on a roof rack, inside a cargo box region, on passenger seats, on a trailer bed, on the vehicle hood, in a vehicle’s trunk, in a vehicle’s frunk, and so on).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Prosser to incorporate the teachings of Droege with a reasonable expectation of success to reduce restocking downtime of the delivery vehicle.
Regarding claim 3, the modified Prosser reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above. Prosser further teaches that the supply vehicle has a second plurality of receiving units for replaceable battery modules (Figure 2C 202 shows a plurality of battery module storage locations aboard a resupply vehicle; this Figure can represent both resupply and service vehicles structure as Figure 5A shows both the resupply vehicle 504 and the service vehicle 502 are configured similarly).
Regarding claims 4 and 19, the modified Prosser reference teaches all of claims 1 and 18 as detailed above. Prosser further teaches that the supply vehicle has a charging device, which is designed to charge replaceable battery modules with electric energy during a journey of the supply vehicle and when the supply vehicle is stationary (paragraph 0096 discloses that the resupply vehicle can charge battery modules on board; paragraphs 0107-108 and paragraphs 0170-0172 provide extra detail of charging battery modules with an alternator receiving energy from onboard batteries and/or solar panels; examiner understands these segments indicate that the batteries can be charged any time the alternator is receiving power regardless of whether the vehicle is moving or not).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Prosser reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above. Prosser further teaches that the supply vehicle has a fuel cell device and is designed to generate electric energy via the fuel cell device to charge the replaceable battery modules (paragraph 0108 discloses charging a battery module utilizing an alternator; paragraph 0171-0172 discloses that the alternator may be connected to a fuel cell which can send energy to the alternator).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Prosser reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above. Prosser further teaches that the supply vehicle is designed to deliver replaceable battery modules to at least one further delivery vehicle (Figure 5A shows a resupply vehicle 504 which transports batteries to a service vehicle 502; paragraph 0098 discloses 504 and 502 to be "vehicles" indicating that the drawn singular vehicles of 504 and 502 are meant to each symbolize multiple vehicles).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Prosser reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above. Prosser further teaches at least one further vehicle (Figure 5A 502 shows a service vehicle; paragraph 0098 discloses 502 to be "vehicles" indicating that the drawn singular vehicle is meant to symbolize multiple vehicles).
Prosser does not teach that the at least on further vehicle at least one further electrically drivable delivery vehicle for making a further plurality of successive delivery journeys, in each case for transporting further consignments on a respective further delivery route from a further starting point of the further delivery route to recipients of the further consignments.
Price further teaches that that the at least on further vehicle at least one further electrically drivable delivery vehicle for making a further plurality of successive delivery journeys, in each case for transporting further consignments on a respective further delivery route from a further starting point of the further delivery route to recipients of the further consignments (paragraph 0002 discloses an electric delivery vehicle; paragraph 0003 discloses delivery trucks delivery a variety of cargo).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Prosser to incorporate the further teachings of Price. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function, but in the very combination itself, that is in the substitution of the delivery vehicles of Price for the service vehicles of Prosser. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result of a drivable vehicle renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 12, the modified Prosser reference teaches all of claim 11 as detailed above. Prosser further teaches at least one further supply vehicle for delivering further replaceable battery modules to further meeting points with the delivery vehicle and/or the at least one further delivery vehicle (Figure 5A shows a resupply vehicle 504 which transports batteries to a service vehicle 502; paragraph 0098 discloses 504 and 502 to be "vehicles" indicating that the drawn singular vehicles of 504 and 502 are meant to each symbolize multiple vehicles).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Prosser reference teaches all of claim 12 as detailed above. Prosser further teaches that the control device is designed to manage the assignment of the replaceable battery modules to vehicles of the system (Figure 23 discloses a second-level controller manages vehicles in an area; Figure 20 2004 shows an example of the second-level controller managing service and resupply vehicle interaction to restock the service vehicle with battery modules).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Prosser reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above. Prosser further teaches that the delivery vehicle has, in addition to the first plurality of receiving units for replaceable battery modules for supplying the delivery vehicle with electric energy, at least one additional receiving unit for replaceable battery modules (Figure 2C shows at least 4 battery module storage locations on a vehicle; one of ordinary skill could split these storage locations into a first group of at least two storage locations and an additional group of at least one storage location however desired).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prosser as modified by Price, Arya, Lowe, Delp, and Droege as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Sawada et al. US 20210135255 A1 (hereinafter Sawada).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Prosser reference teaches all of claim 5 as detailed above.
Prosser does not teach that the supply vehicle is a fuel cell vehicle (FCEV) and is itself powered by the fuel cell device or a further fuel cell device.
Sawada teaches that the supply vehicle is a fuel cell vehicle (FCEV) and is itself powered by a further fuel cell device (Abstract discloses a fuel cell powered electric vehicle).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Prosser to incorporate the teachings of Sawada. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function, but in the very combination itself, that is in the substitution of the FCEV of Price for the internal combustion engine resupply vehicle of Prosser. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result of a drivable vehicle renders the claim obvious.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prosser as modified by Price, Arya, Lowe, Delp, and Droege as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Alobaidi et al. US 20240170976 A1 (hereinafter Alobaidi).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Prosser reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Prosser does not explicitly teach that the replaceable battery modules are of a similar standard type.
Alobaidi teaches that the replaceable battery modules are of a standard type (paragraph 0054 discloses swappable battery packs may have the same chemistry, age, impedance, temperature, or state of health).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Prosser to incorporate the teachings of Alobaidi with a reasonable expectation of success to improve predictability of combined battery function.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prosser as modified by Price, Arya, Lowe, Delp, and Droege as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chaudoy et al. FR 3149243 A1 (hereinafter Chaudoy; a translated copy has been provided which the examiner relies upon).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Prosser reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Prosser does not explicitly teach that the set of replaceable battery modules can be operated in a voltage range of less than 60 volts.
Chaudoy teaches the set of replaceable battery modules can be operated in a voltage range of less than 60 volts (translated page 3 paragraph 9 "the nominal voltage of the removable battery modules is 48 volts").
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Prosser to incorporate the teachings of Chaudoy with a reasonable expectation of success to allow for easy handling without need for special precautions as disclosed in Chaudoy (translated page 3 paragraph 9).
Claim(s) 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prosser as modified by Price, Arya, Lowe, Delp, and Droege as applied to claims 1 and 18 above, and further in view of Wyrobek et al. US 10328805 B1 (hereinafter Wyrobek).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, the modified Prosser reference teaches all of claims 1 and 18 as detailed above.
Prosser does not teach that the control device is designed to create the set of replaceable battery modules taking into account an optimization of a life of the replaceable battery modules.
Wyrobek teaches that the control device is designed to create the set of replaceable battery modules taking into account an optimization of a life of the replaceable battery modules (Abstract discloses selecting batteries to optimize battery life and performance based on predicted performance degradation).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Prosser to incorporate the teachings of Wyrobek with a reasonable expectation of success to minimize battery capacity degradation and improve efficiency as disclosed in Wyrobek (column 1 lines 32-35).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prosser as modified by Price, Arya, Lowe, Delp, and Droege as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamakado WO 2022202285 A1 (hereinafter Yamakado; a translated copy has been provided which the examiner relies upon).
Regarding claim 15, the modified Prosser reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Prosser does not teach that the delivery vehicle has a cargo area for receiving the consignments and at least one of the first plurality of receiving units for replaceable battery modules is arranged in the cargo area.
Yamakado teaches that the delivery vehicle has a cargo area for receiving the consignments (Abstract discloses a cargo area to receive cargo; translated page 6 paragraph 2 also details loading cargo in the area) and at least one of the first plurality of receiving units for replaceable battery modules is arranged in the cargo area (Abstract discloses a connector for a battery inside of a cargo area of the vehicle).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Prosser to incorporate the teachings of Yamakado with a reasonable expectation of success to make removal of a battery easier by allowing a battery to be removed during unloading as disclosed in Yamakado (translated page 6 paragraph 3).
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prosser as modified by Price, Arya, Lowe, Delp, and Droege as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chung KR 101143593 B1 (hereinafter Chung; a translated copy has been provided which the examiner relies upon).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Prosser reference teaches all of claim 15 as detailed above.
Prosser does not teach at least one transport device, wherein the at least one transport device is designed to be received in the cargo area and has an integrated battery module unit, which has a first interface to be received in the at least one of the first plurality of receiving units for replaceable battery modules, which is arranged in the cargo area.
Yamakado teaches at least one transport device (Abstract discloses a cart), wherein the at least one transport device is designed to be received in the cargo area (Abstract discloses cart is received in the cargo area) and has an integrated battery module unit (Abstract discloses a battery mounted on the cart), which has a first interface to be received in the at least one of the first plurality of receiving units for replaceable battery modules, which is arranged in the cargo area (Abstract discloses that the battery can interface with the connector inside of the cargo area).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Prosser to incorporate the teachings of Yamakado with a reasonable expectation of success to make removal of a battery easier by implementing a movable cart containing the battery that can be unloaded with cargo as disclosed in Yamakado (translated page 6 paragraph 3).
Prosser does not teach that the at least one transport device is for consignments.
Chung teaches that the at least one transport device is for consignments translated page 2 paragraph 3 discloses that the trolley is configured for transporting small packages.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Prosser to incorporate the teachings of Chung with a reasonable expectation of success to reduce strain on workers when unloading cargo.
Regarding claim 17, the modified Prosser reference teaches all of claim 16 as detailed above.
Prosser does not teach that the integrated battery module unit comprises at least one battery module installed in the transport device in a fixed manner.
Chung teaches that the integrated battery module unit comprises at least one battery module installed in the transport device in a fixed manner (Abstract discloses a battery fixed on to the frame).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Prosser to incorporate the teachings of Chung with a reasonable expectation of success to prevent the battery from falling due to jostling of the cart and therefore preventing battery damage.
Response to Amendment
Claim amendments filed 3/23/2026 have been received and fully considered and overcome the 112(b) rejection of record detailed in the Office Action dated 3/30/26. These/this rejection have/has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-10, filed 3/23/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 18 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Prosser, Price, Arya, Lowe, Delp, and Droege.
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Siegel et al. US 20150370251 A1 discloses a drone that rendezvous with a vehicle and constantly updates a rendezvous location based on traffic.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ashley Tiffany Schoech whose telephone number is (571)272-2937. The examiner can normally be reached 4:45 am - 3:15 pm PT Monday - Thursday.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at 571-270-7429. 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.
/A.T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights