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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 22-41 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12067884. Although the claims are not identical they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 22-41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang US Patent No. (9,139,310) referred to hereinafter as Wang.
As per claim 22, Wang teaches a system comprising: a charging station configured to, when electrically connected to a battery onboard an electric aircraft, provide a charge to the battery (see at least abstract, summary, Col.10 L21-L50, Col.17 L3-26, Col.20 L6-Col.21 L50, Fig. 16, 17); and a computing device communicatively coupled to the charging station (see at least abstract, summary, Col.10 L21-L50, Col.17 L3-26, Col.20 L6-Col.21 L50, Fig. 16, 17), the computing device configured to: receive, from a battery sensor communicably coupled to the battery, battery data related to the battery, receive an indication of an establishment of an electrical connection between the battery and the charging station (see at least abstract, summary, Col.10 L21-L50, Col.17 L3-26, Col.20 L6-Col.21 L50, Fig. 16, 17); in response receiving the indication, determine a current state of the battery based on the battery data; and provide the current state of the battery to the charging station (see at least abstract, summary, Col.20 L6-Col.21 L50, Fig. 16, 17).
As per claim 23, Wang teaches a system of claim 22, wherein the current state represents a measure of a health of the battery (see at least abstract, summary, Col.10 L21-L50, Col.17 L3-26, Col.20 L6-Col.21 L50, Fig. 16, 17).
As per claim 24, Wang teaches a system of claim 23, wherein the health of the battery includes a ratio of a current capacity of the battery compared to a capacity at a time of manufacture of the battery (see at least abstract, summary, Col.10 L21-L50, Col.17 L3-26, Col.20 L6-Col.21 L50, Fig. 16, 17).
As per claim 25, Wang teaches a system of claim 22, wherein the charging station is configured to provide power to the battery based on the current state (see at least abstract, summary, Col.10 L21-L50, Col.17 L3-26, Col.20 L6-Col.21 L50, Fig. 16, 17).
As per claim 26, Wang teaches a system of claim 22, wherein the current state includes an expected life of the battery, the computing device further configured to provide the expected life of the battery to the electric aircraft (see at least abstract, summary, Col.10 L21-L50, Col.17 L3-26, Col.20 L6-Col.21 L50, Fig. 16, 17).
As per claim 27, Wang teaches a system of claim 26, wherein the expected life of the battery is provided to the electric aircraft based on a threshold value (see at least abstract, summary, Col.10 L21-L50, Col.17 L3-26, Col.20 L6-Col.21 L50, Fig. 16, 17).
As per claim 28, Wang teaches a system of claim 26, wherein the computing device is further configured to identify a network node, wherein the expected life of the battery is provided to the electric aircraft via the network node (see at least abstract, summary, Col.10 L21-L50, Col.17 L3-26, Col.20 L6-Col.21 L50, Fig. 16, 17).
As per claim 29, Wang teaches a system of claim 28, wherein the network node includes an inter-aircraft network node, a non-aircraft network node, or a wireless communication node.
As per claim 30, Wang teaches a system of claim 28, wherein the network node is a member node of a mesh network (see at least abstract, summary, Col.10 L21-L50, Col.17 L3-26, Col.20 L6-Col.21 L50, Fig. 16, 17).
As per claim 31, Wang teaches a system of claim 22, wherein the current state is determined by processing the battery data through a machine-leaning model (see at least abstract, summary, Col.10 L21-L50, Col.17 L3-26, Col.20 L6-Col.21 L50, Fig. 16, 17).
As per claim 32, Wang teaches a system of claim 31, wherein the machine-leaning model is trained using training data recorded during previous flights of the electric aircraft or other similar electric aircraft (see at least abstract, summary, Col.10 L21-L50, Col.17 L3-26, Col.20 L6-Col.21 L50, Fig. 16, 17).
As per claim 33, Wang teaches a system of claim 22, wherein the battery data includes an internal resistance, a capacity, a state of voltage, a self-discharge, an indication of an ability to accept a charge, a number of charge-discharge cycles, an age, or an average temperature (see at least abstract, summary, Col.10 L21-L50, Col.17 L3-26, Col.20 L6-Col.21 L50, Fig. 16, 17).
As per claim 34, Wang teaches a system of claim 22, wherein the current state includes a state of voltage for the battery (see at least abstract, summary, Col.10 L21-L50, Col.17 L3-26, Col.20 L6-Col.21 L50, Fig. 16, 17).
As per claims 35-41, the limitations of claims 35-41 are similar to the limitations of claims 22-34, therefore they are rejected based on the same rationale.
Conclusion
Please refer to form 892 for cited references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUSSA A SHAAWAT whose telephone number is (313)446-6592. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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.
/MUSSA A SHAAWAT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669