DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
Figures 1-3 are objected to because the drawings lack legends which are deemed to be necessary, or the provided legends in the drawings are illegible. According to 37 CFR 1.84(o), suitable legends may be required by the examiner where necessary for understanding of the drawing.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 15-26 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.
Claim 15 recites “the remote device”, however, there is a lack of antecedent basis for this term.
Claim 15 further recites both “cyclically” and “in real time”. It seems that a value is sent either on an interval basis or retrieved in real time, it isn’t clear how both are possible.
Claim 17 recites calculating the battery discharge time interval “at a predetermined residual” and “based on a last received value of the parameter”. It isn’t clear how both of these options can be true, since the battery discharge time interval should be calculated either on the basis of reaching the predetermined percentage or on the basis of the interval. Claim 18 is indefinite for the same reason.
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 15-16, 18-19 and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thannhuber US PGPUB 2020/0389036 in view of Fieldbinder et al. US PGPUB 2022/0102995.
Regarding claim 15, Thannhuber discloses a recharging apparatus for electrically charging an electric battery [fig. 1, 1] comprising:
a battery charger device [fig. 1, charging device 6; par. 44], an electronic control and command unit galvanically connected to the battery charger device [fig. 1, charging device and controller 10; pars. 61, 66 & 69], and
a wireless transmitter operationally connected to the electronic control and command unit [pars. 28-29, 61 & 65-66; fig. 1, communication device 4 (which also may be of the charger, par. 66],
wherein the electronic control and command unit is configured to monitor a value indicative of an operating parameter of the battery when said battery is connected to the battery charger device and to send said value via the wireless transmitter [par. 60 & 66; charging device (with control 6) may have the communication device which transfers the monitored state of charge to the server 8 when the battery pack 2/3 is connected, which sends it to a remote device 9],
wherein the electronic control and command unit is configured to send the value indicative of the operating parameter to the remote device [pars. 65-66], and
wherein the remote device is configured to monitor the received operating parameter value and to display the received operating parameter [fig. 1, a remote device 9 with a display (a smart phone) receives the SOC from the server and displays it; pars. 45-47 & 64-66], wherein the electronic control and command unit is configured to send the value indicative of the operating parameter to the remote device in real time during battery recharging [pars. 7, 13, 31 & 43-44, the user can view the state of charge “at any time”].
Thannhuber does not explicitly disclose sending the value cyclically.
However, Fieldbinder discloses a power tool with battery monitoring which sends the value cyclically [pars. 102 & 132].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thannhuber to further include sending the value cyclically for the purpose of alerting the user, as taught by Fieldbinder (par. 132).
Regarding claim 16, Thannhuber discloses wherein the operating parameter of the battery is at least one between a parameter indicative of the battery temperature and a parameter indicative of the battery charge percentage [par. 60; state of charge].
Regarding claim 18, Thannhuber discloses wherein the operating parameter monitored by the electronic control and command unit is the parameter indicative of the battery charge percentage [par. 60], and wherein the remote device is configured:
to calculate a battery discharge time interval at a predetermined residual percentage based on a last received value of the parameter indicative of the charge percentage [par. 34, 36 & 67; remaining operating time (discharge time interval) is calculated based on various charge percentages and types of devices to be use the device and displayed based on the state of charge], to connect to an additional remote weather forecasting device [par. 32], to monitor the status of the weather forecast for a next day [par. 32 & 63; monitor future dates and determine best weather for lawn mowing], said status being between cloudy, rainy and sunny [par. 32 & 63, weather conditions], and to generate an alert signal when the forecast status for that next day is cloudy or sunny and when the residual charge expected for that day is less than a predetermined percentage [par. 32 & 63; combining the weather with the state of charge to indicate via push notification (alert) if the battery should be charged for an upcoming lawn mowing].
Regarding claim 19, Thannhuber discloses wherein the operating parameter monitored by the electronic control and command unit is the parameter indicative of the battery temperature [par. 31] and the remote device is configured to generate an alert signal when the value of the parameter indicative of the temperature exceeds a predetermined threshold value [par. 31 & 64; errors based upon temperature].
Regarding claim 24, Thannhuber discloses wherein the alert signal is a string of characters indicative of the problem detected [pars. 32 & 64; errors, weather conditions or state of charge] and/or in which it is suggested how to avoid a possible problem [pars. 31 & 64; temperature problems (suggesting to lower the temperature)],
wherein the remote device comprises a digital calendar software [par. 32, electronic diary], and
wherein the remote device is configured to save the string of characters in said digital calendar software as a reminder [par. 31-32; reminder/push notification].
Regarding claim 25, Thannhuber discloses wherein the remote device can be configured to calculate a time interval based on the value of the operating parameter [pars. 34, 36 & 67; remaining charging or operating time based on the state of charge]
or to use a preset time interval, after which it generates the alert signal [pars. 34, 36 & 67; the user is notified of the remaining operating time].
Regarding claim 26, Thannhuber discloses a kit comprising an electric tool, provided with an electric battery adapted to power the electric tool, and the recharging apparatus according to claim 15 for electrically recharging said electric battery [pars. 3, 11, 32, 34, 36 & 45; lawn mower with battery and charger].
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thannhuber US PGPUB 2020/0389036 in view of Fieldbinder et al. US PGPUB 2022/0102995, and further in view of Martinsson US PGPUB 2019/0372370.
Regarding claim 17, Thannhuber discloses wherein the operating parameter monitored by the electronic control and command unit is the parameter indicative of the battery charge percentage [par. 60], and wherein the remote device is configured to calculate a battery discharge time interval at a predetermined residual percentage based on a last received value of the parameter indicative of the charge percentage [par. 34, 36 & 67; remaining operating time (discharge time interval) is calculated based on various charge percentages and types of devices to be use the device and displayed based on the state of charge]
Thannhuber does not explicitly disclose selectively generating an alarm signal based on at least said discharge time interval.
However, Martinsson discloses a power tool with battery monitoring that selectively generates an alarm signal based on at least said discharge time interval [pars. 10 & 19].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thannhuber to further include selectively generating an alarm signal based on at least said discharge time interval for the purpose of informing the user about the battery life, as taught by Martinsson (pars. 10 & 19).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thannhuber US PGPUB 2020/0389036 in view of Fieldbinder et al. US PGPUB 2022/0102995, and further in view of Karner et al. US PGPUB 2019/0036178.
Regarding claim 21, Thannhuber discloses wherein the electronic control and command unit is configured to detect the value of the parameter indicative of the battery temperature while recharging and to send the detected value to the remote device [par. 31, 64 & 66; temperature is detected by the battery and transmitted to server via the charger (the alternative option, par. 6), thus when it is connected the data is detected and transmitted].
Thannhuber does not explicitly disclose wherein the remote device is configured to calculate the average or median temperature while recharging the battery and to generate a preset alert signal when the calculated average or median temperature exceeds a predetermined threshold value.
Thannhuber does not explicitly disclose the parameter is cyclically detected and sent.
However, Karner discloses a battery charging system wherein the remote device is configured to calculate the average or median temperature while recharging the battery and to generate a preset alert signal when the calculated average or median temperature exceeds a predetermined threshold value [pars. 4-6 & 34; if average temperature exceeds some threshold an alert/warning is sent, the monitor circuit may be remote] and the parameter is cyclically detected and sent [par. 42].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thannhuber to further include wherein the remote device is configured to calculate the average or median temperature while recharging the battery and to generate a preset alert signal when the calculated average or median temperature exceeds a predetermined threshold value and the parameter is cyclically detected and sent for the purpose of warning a user and updated the data, as taught by Karner (pars. 4-6, 34 & 42).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20 and 22-23 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With respect to claim 20, the following is an examiner's statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to further teach or suggest “wherein the remote device is configured to generate a preset alert signal when the temperature, in a predetermined time interval starting from the moment in which the battery is connected, exceeds a predetermined threshold value” in combination with all the other elements recited in claim 20.
With respect to claim 22, the following is an examiner's statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to further teach or suggest “wherein the remote device is configured to store the values of the operating parameter during each connection of the battery to the battery charger device, to calculate a median or average value of the operating parameter based on the values acquired during a first set of connections of the battery to the battery charger device, and to generate an alert signal when the average or median value of the operating parameter in a successive connection of the battery deviates from the calculated average or median value by more than a predetermined percentage value” in combination with all the other elements recited in claim 22.
With respect to claim 23, the following is an examiner's statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to further teach or suggest “wherein the remote device can be configured to calculate a time interval lapsed between two successive moments in which the battery has reached a predetermined charge percentage, to repeat this calculation for a predetermined number of successive recharges of the battery, to calculate an average value of the time intervals lapsed between two successive moments in which the battery has reached a predetermined charge percentage of the predetermined number of successive recharges and to generate an alert signal based on this average time interval between two successive moments in which the battery has reached a predetermined charge percentage” in combination with all the other elements recited in claim 23.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Clarke US PGPUB 2017/0331162 discloses a battery state detection method for a power tool.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID V HENZE whose telephone number is (571)272-3317. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 9am to 7pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Julian Huffman can be reached at 571-272-2147. 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.
/DAVID V HENZE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights