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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Applicants’ filing on December 16, 2025. Claims 1-13 were previously pending, of which claims 1, 3-5 and 13 have been amended, no claims have been cancelled, and no claims have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-13 are currently pending and are being examined below.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Applicant's remarks, see pages 8-14 filed December 16, 2025; Applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. §112(f) Interpretations, applicant’s amendment to the claims have not addressed the condition of a means plus function interpretation of a controller, therefore the interpretation is maintained by the examiner.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) Rejection , applicant’s amendment has removed the indefinite language recited in the rejection. Therefore, the rejection to the claims are withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments regarding U.S.C. §102(a)(1)/USC 103 Rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e. compare the voltage difference between battery packs with a reference value) are clearly defined in the prior art and maintained for the rejection below in view of the amended claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, the new limitations from the amended claims aren’t sufficient to overcome the prior art. Therefore, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)/103 are maintained, as presented in the Final Office Action below.
Claim Interpretation
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 discloses 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 discloses 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:
“controller” in claims 1-10. A review of the specification shows that it is a circuit that controls the opening/closing of the external and internal relays of the internal circuits 222 of the battery packs 22 in [0059].
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, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations 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 § 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.
Claims 1-2, 4-6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Crosman et al., US 2023/0182620 A1 (Hereinafter, “Crosman”).
Regarding Claims 1, 4, 5 and 13, Crosman discloses an electric working machine (100) comprising: an electric device (120); electric circuitry electrically connected to the electric device; battery packs (230) to be connected to the electric device via the electric circuitry, each of the battery packs including a positive output terminal (242) and a negative output terminal (234); and a controller (250); See at least Fig.1-2 and [0012-0021].
wherein the controller (252) is configured or programmed to include: battery management systems provided so as to correspond to the battery packs, respectively, and each of which is configured or programmed to measure a voltage between the positive output terminal and the negative output terminal of the battery packs; and See [0024], “the system controller circuit 252 receives offline voltages of the battery packs 230. Each pack controller circuit 250 determines the offline voltage of its battery pack 230.”
an electronic control unit configured or programmed to compare the voltage of one of the battery packs and the voltage of another of the battery packs, the voltages being transmitted from the battery management systems, to calculate a voltage difference between the one of the battery packs and the another of the battery packs; See [0026], “At block 308 in the example of FIG. 3, the system controller circuit 252 compares the voltages by sorting them in order from highest to lowest.”
the controller is configured or programmed to include a driving mode in which the controller drives the electric device using electricity supplied from one or more of the battery packs and a charging mode in which the controller charges one or more of the battery packs; See Fig.2-3. and [0023], “For example, the command to go online may be received when an “ON” switch of the machine is activated indicating that the battery system 120 is in the discharging state (driving mode). In another example, the command to go online may be received when a charging system is connected (e.g., plugged in) and the connection to the charger indicates that the battery system is to be placed online in the charging state.”
the controller is configured or programmed to, in the driving mode, if a voltage difference is greater than a predetermined reference, connect only one of the battery packs having a highest voltage to the electric device to drive the electric device; See at least Fig.2 and [0026], “ To bring the battery pack 230 online for discharging, the pack controller circuit 250 connects the battery string 232 having the highest offline voltage to the battery bus 236 and the load bus 244.” Also [0029], “If the offline battery voltage of this next battery pack 230 is less than the predetermined discharge threshold voltage, the offline voltage of the battery pack 230 is too low (predetermined reference voltage between the battery packs is too high) and inrush current may occur if the battery pack is brought online. The system controller circuit 252 waits to send the command to go online and continues to monitor the load voltage. The online battery packs will discharge when driving the load.”
the controller is configured or programmed to, in the charging mode, if a voltage difference between the battery packs is greater than a predetermined reference, determine only one of the battery pack having a lowest voltage as being a battery pack to be charged, and perform a charging process to charge the one of the battery packs. See at least Fig.3-4 and [0030], “FIG. 3, the left side of the flow diagram is for the charging state.” And [0031], “controller circuit 252 commands the pack controller circuit 250 of the battery pack with the lowest offline voltage to go online.“ Also [0032], “The pack controller circuit 250 may bring other battery strings 232 online for charging as described elsewhere herein regarding FIG. 4.” Also [0034], “If the offline battery voltage is not within the predetermined threshold voltage threshold (predetermined reference voltage between the battery packs is too high), the offline voltage of the battery pack 230 may be too high for charging … The online battery packs will charge.”
Regarding Claim 2, Crosman discloses the following limitation dependent on Claim 1:
wherein the controller is configured or programmed to, after connecting only one of the battery packs having the highest voltage to the electric device to start driving the electric device, if the voltage difference between the one of the battery packs and another of the battery packs decreases below the predetermined reference, connect the one of the battery packs and the another of the battery packs to the electric device to drive the electric device. See at least Fig.3 and [0028], “At block 310, system controller circuit 252 checks whether the next offline battery pack with the next highest offline battery voltage should go online … If the offline battery voltage is within this threshold of the load voltage, the system controller circuit 252 sends a command to the pack controller circuit 250 of this next offline battery pack to go online. In response, the pack controller circuit 250 connects one or more of its battery strings 232 to the battery bus 236 and connects the battery bus 236 to the load bus 244.”
Regarding Claim 6, Crosman discloses the following limitation dependent on Claim 5:
wherein the controller is configured or programmed to, after determining only one of the battery packs having the lowest voltage as being the battery pack to be charged and starting the charging process, if the voltage difference between the one of the battery packs and another of the battery packs decreases below the predetermined reference, determine the one of the battery packs and the another of the battery packs as being battery packs to be charged and perform the charging process to charge the one of the battery packs and the another of the battery packs. See at least [0033], “If all the battery packs 230 are not online for charging, the method 300 loops back to block 316 and the system controller circuit 252 compares the offline voltages of the remaining offline battery packs. At block 320, the next offline battery pack with the next lowest offline battery voltage is brought online if that next offline voltage is not too high that in-rush currents would occur. The offline battery voltage of the candidate offline battery pack is compared to a predetermined charge threshold voltage. If the offline battery voltage is within the threshold of the battery system voltage, the system controller circuit 252 sends a command for the next offline battery pack 230 to be brought online. The pack controller circuit 250 of that battery pack 230 connects one or more of its battery strings 232 to the battery bus 236 and connects the battery bus 236 to the load bus 244 or a separate system level charging bus (not shown).”
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.
Claims 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crosman, in view of Smolenaers et al., US 2020/0298722 A1 (Hereinafter, “Smolenaers”).
Regarding Claims 7 and 8, Crosman does not disclose the charging interface. However, Smolenaers teaches following limitation dependent on Claims 1 and 5:
further comprising a charging inlet connectable to a charger and electrically connected to the battery packs via the electric circuitry; wherein the controller is configured or programmed to operate in the charging mode when the charger is connected to the charging inlet. See at least [0040], “A charging port 4 is mounted to the body of the car 1 for connecting selectively with an external energy source, which in this embodiment is the charging station 25 which operates at an external voltage V.sub.C and is able to act in different modes to output either a regulated or unregulated DC voltage. In modes where the charging station 25 outputs a regulated DC voltage, the charging station 25 is responsible for supplying to the car 1 either a regulated charging current or a regulated charging voltage to be directly applied to the battery pack 3, or to be voltage translated or further regulated on board by the car 1.” Also [0041], “The car 1 also includes a controller 15 for interlinking battery pack 3, machines 7 and 8 and the charging station 25 via port 4.”
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Crosman’s device with the charging outlet limitation disclosed in Smolenaers with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide charging options for the battery system, see Smolenaers [0004-0005].
Regarding Claims 9 and 10, Crosman does not disclose the charging interface. However, Smolenaers teaches following limitation dependent on Claims 7 and 8:
wherein the electric circuitry includes external relays corresponding to the respective battery packs to open and close respective circuits connecting the respective corresponding battery packs to the charging inlet; and the controller is configured or programmed to, in the charging mode, bring one or more of the external relays that correspond to one or more of the battery pack that are to be charged to a closed state, and bring one or more of the external relays that correspond to one or more of the battery pack that are not to be charged to an open state. See at least [0066], “The switching mechanism 16 may also include a switch 48 for selectively connecting and disconnecting power rails 41 and 43 to and from each other, responsive to control signals from module 20. Switch 48 is implemented in this embodiment as a bidirectional switching device in the form of a single throw single pole switch with two IGBTs in series having common emitters with free-wheeling body diodes. In other embodiments, another form of unidirectional or multidirectional switch may be used, such as back-to-back MOSFETs, relays, contactors, mechanical switches, or other such devices.” Further, in [0067], “The switching mechanism 16 may also include an optional bypass switch 64 on an optional dedicated bypass circuit 60, in order to operate the controller such that motor inductance or drive circuits of controller 17 are not used. This is functionally equivalent to the operation of switching mechanism 16 closing switch 90 and switch 48, however, dedicated bypass circuit 60 is illustrated for the sake of practical example. For example, in some embodiments, the controller may allow an external DC source (such as an external DC charger) to bypass controller 17 to allow direct charging of the batteries.”
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Crosman’s device with the charging outlet limitation disclosed in Smolenaers with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide charging options for the battery system, see Smolenaers [0004-0005].
Regarding Claim 11 and 12, Crosman does not disclose the charging interface. However, Smolenaers teaches following limitation dependent on Claims 1 and 5:
further comprising a working device to perform work, wherein the electric device is operable to drive the working device directly or indirectly. See at least [0046], “In some embodiments the interlocked switching mechanisms of 16 or otherwise are controlled directly or indirectly by the external charging station 16, and whereby the control of which constitutes a charging data. The communication of charging data is discussed in further detail below in reference to FIG. 2.”
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Crosman’s device with the charging outlet limitation disclosed in Smolenaers with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide charging options for the battery system, see Smolenaers [0004-0005].
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crosman, in view of Hagiwara et al., JP2024087301A (Hereinafter, “Hagiwara”).
Regarding Claim 3, Crosman does not explicitly disclose notifications. However, Hagiwara teaches the following limitation dependent on Claim 1:
further comprising a notifier to provide a notification to a user; wherein the controller is configured or programmed to, if the voltage difference is greater than the predetermined reference, cause the notifier to provide the notification indicating that charging is required for one or more of the battery packs. See at least [0141-0160], “When the power storage amount is equal to or less than the second predetermined threshold, the controller 12 notifies all the battery packs 2 having the power storage amount equal to or less than the second predetermined threshold as the recommended battery packs 2.”
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Crosman’s device with the notification limitation disclosed in Hagiwara with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to notify a user of recommended battery pack(s) to be charged, see Hagiwara [0008].
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 BRIAN KEITH PALMARCHUK whose telephone number is (571)272-6261. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 AM - 5 PM EST.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/B.K.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights