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 § 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 1-11 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.
Regarding claim 1
The claim limitations attempting to further define the structure of the processor for the apparatus claim are unintelligible. The claim is generally wordy and attempts to define one undefined variable for another undefined variable. Furthermore, the claim attempts to define the method (process) performed by the processor configuration in terms of “in accordance with” and intended use language “for evaluating”. The claimed “process” of “includes a process of estimating the presence or absence of the deterioration in accordance with the evaluation value” is not a function of the processor but rather the desired outcome resulting in an improperly narrative claim.
The claim should be rewritten in proper apparatus form either positively reciting the structure intended to be added or alternatively in terms of the function of the processor. If the function of the processor is claimed, the function must be clear in order to properly understand the intended structure of the processor and structure added to the apparatus claim.
Regarding Claims 2-11
Likewise for the above claims, if the claims are further limiting via function the function must be clear.
Regarding Claims 3 and 4
The claim is improperly narrative “the vehicle is configured to perform external charging…” and “the processor is configured to perform a stop process of stopping the external charging…” The claim should be written as a function of the processor and the object upon which the processor acts to perform the claimed narrative operations.
Because of the great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of the claim(s), it is not proper to reject the present claim(s) 1-11 on the basis of prior art. (See MPEP 2173.06 and In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(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) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakashima US 2010/0072951.
Nakashima teaches:
12. A method for estimating a presence or absence of deterioration of a secondary battery containing a non-aqueous electrolyte, the deterioration being a phenomenon in which an internal resistance of the secondary battery increases due to uneven ion concentration in the non-aqueous electrolyte, the method comprising:
obtaining a voltage value of the secondary battery from a voltage sensor that detects the voltage value (See Step S2. FIG6);
calculating an evaluation value for evaluating a degree of polarization mitigation after charging or discharging of the secondary battery (Step S5, ie Vc); and
estimating the presence or absence of the deterioration in accordance with the evaluation value (see Step S7 and Specification @ [0049, 0056, 0063]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL CAVALLARI whose telephone number is (571)272-8541. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0900-18:30.
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, Rexford Barnie can be reached at (571)272-7492. 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.
/DANIEL CAVALLARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights