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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/16/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
It repeats information given in the title. Specifically, the first sentence of the abstract, “Example battery security systems and methods are described.” repeats the title nearly verbatim.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 0037 of the specification references “battery monitoring module 308.” It seems clear this is a clerical error, and should be corrected so as to refer to “battery monitoring module 408” as shown in figure 4.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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:
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;
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
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:
Claim 1:
“a battery module [means] coupled to the control system and configured to control access to energy stored in a battery core [function]”
“a battery operation manager [means] configured to control operation of the battery module [function]”
“a security manager [means] configured to control security of the battery module [function]”
Claim 3:
“a battery state monitor [means] configured to monitor a current state of the battery core. [function]”
Claim 4:
“a battery security manager [means] configured to restrict access to the battery module [function]”
Claim 7:
“a battery state manager [means] configured to control the operation of the battery core. [function]”
Claim 8:
“a battery safety protection module [means] configured to control the safe operation of the battery core. [function]”
Claim 9:
“a security manager [means] configured to control access to energy stored in the battery core [function]”
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.
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:
amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or
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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1, 3, 4, and 7-9:
Claim 1 limitations, “… a battery module coupled to the control system and configured to control access to energy stored in a battery core …”, “… a battery operation manager configured to control operation of the battery module …”, and “… a security manager configured to control security of the battery module …”, lack sufficient written description in the specification and claims. No specific physical structures of the claimed “modules” or “managers” are explicitly described.
Limitations in claims 3, 4, and 7-9 reciting various modules, managers, and monitors are similarly insufficient.
These rejections could be overcome by amending the claim language such that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is not invoked for these limitations.
Regarding claims 2, 5, 6, and 10:
They are dependent on one or more rejected claims, and thus inherit those rejections. This rejection could be overcome by overcoming the rejection(s) to any claims upon which these claims depend, or by amending the claims such that they are no longer dependent on any rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1-10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 3, 4, and 7-9:
Claim 1 limitations, “… a battery module coupled to the control system and configured to control access to energy stored in a battery core …”, “… a battery operation manager configured to control operation of the battery module …”, and “… a security manager configured to control security of the battery module …”, lack sufficient written description in the specification and claims. No specific physical structures of the claimed “modules” or “managers” are explicitly described.
Limitations in claims 3, 4, and 7-9 reciting various modules, managers, and monitors are similarly insufficient.
Applicant may:
Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding claim(s) 18:
Claim 18 recites, “… updating the battery status to deactivated …”. The claim(s) are indefinite because the element of updating the battery status lacks antecedent basis. It is unclear where or how the battery status is being updated as neither this claim nor any claim on which this claim depends provides an antecedent recitation of a “battery status” which is directly updatable. This rejection can be overcome by amending the claim(s) such that it is clear where the claimed battery status is maintained and by what method it is updated.
Regarding claims 2, 5, 6, and 10:
They are dependent on one or more rejected claims, and thus inherit those rejections. This rejection could be overcome by overcoming the rejection(s) to any claims upon which these claims depend, or by amending the claims such that they are no longer dependent on any rejected claim.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by WANG et al (Doc ID US 20190280343 A1).
Regarding claim 1:
WANG teaches:
An apparatus comprising: a control system configured to manage access to at least one battery ([0017] "Referring to FIG. 1, a first embodiment of a verification system 100 for battery power supply … includes a carrier device 1 and a power supply device 2."); and
a battery module coupled to the control system and configured to control access to energy stored in a battery core, the battery module further comprising: a battery operation manager configured to control operation of the battery module ([0021] "... The carrier microcontroller 13 is configured to … enable the battery microcontroller 23 of the power supply device 2 to control the battery 21 to supply the electrical energy to the carrier device 1 …"); and
a security manager configured to control security of the battery module, wherein controlling security of the battery module includes at least one of storing security keys, storing tokens, retrieving security keys, retrieving tokens, validating security keys, validating tokens, or communicating with the control system for validation of the battery module ([0026] "In sub-step 612, the battery microcontroller 23 of the power supply device 2 determines whether the unique carrier identifier matches one of said at least one reference carrier identifier stored in the storage medium 22 of the power supply device 2.").
Regarding claim 2:
WANG teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein controlling operation of the battery module includes at least one of charging the battery core, discharging the battery core, or determining a mode of operation of the battery module ([0030] "In step 62, the carrier microcontroller 13 generates a power supply instruction and transmits the power supply instruction to the power supply device 2 so as to … supply the electrical energy to the carrier device 1.").
Regarding claim 4:
WANG teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the control system includes a battery security manager configured to restrict access to the battery module based on received security credentials ([0041] "… when it is determined by the carrier microcontroller 13 that the unique carrier identifier does not match any of said at least one reference carrier identifier, the flow of procedure proceeds to sub-step 715." and [0046] "In step 73, the carrier microcontroller 13 controls the power controller 12 to … prevent the battery microprocessor 23 from providing the electrical energy of the battery 22 to the carrier device 1 …").
Regarding claim 5:
WANG teaches:
The apparatus of claim 4, wherein the battery security manager further controls operation of the battery module by instructing the battery module to be in a first mode of operation or a second mode of operation based on received security credentials (Fig. 5 and [0044]-[0046], teach two modes of operation: "Establishing electrical connection"; and "Refraining from establishing electrical connection …").
Regarding claim 6:
WANG teaches:
The apparatus of claim 5, wherein: the first mode of operation allows the battery module to operate with reduced functionality when security credentials have not been received or validated ([0046] "In step 73, the carrier microcontroller 13 controls the power controller 12 to refrain from establishing the electrical connection between the carrier device 1 and the power supply device 2 so as to prevent the battery microprocessor 23 from providing the electrical energy of the battery 22 to the carrier device 1 ..."); and
the second mode of operation allows the battery module to operate with full functionality after security credentials have been received and validated ([0045] "In step 72, the carrier microcontroller 13 controls the power controller 12 to establish the electrical connection between the carrier device 1 and the power supply device 2 so as to enable the battery microcontroller 23 to provide the electrical energy of the battery 21 to the carrier device 1 ...").
Regarding claim 7:
WANG teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the battery module includes a battery state manager configured to control the operation of the battery core ([0030] "In step 62, the carrier microcontroller 13 generates a power supply instruction and transmits the power supply instruction to the power supply device 2 so as to … supply the electrical energy to the carrier device 1.").
Regarding claim 9:
WANG teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the battery module includes a security manager configured to control access to energy stored in the battery core based on instructions from the control system ([0030] "In step 62, the carrier microcontroller 13 generates a power supply instruction and transmits the power supply instruction to the power supply device 2 so as to … supply the electrical energy to the carrier device 1.").
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 3, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WANG et al (Doc ID US 20190280343 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WARTENBERG et al (Doc ID US 20160240894 A1).
Regarding claim 3:
WANG teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1,
WARTENBERG teaches the following limitation(s) not taught by WANG:
further comprising a battery state monitor configured to monitor a current state of the battery core ([0030] "… the cell monitoring units 5 are designed to determine currently prevailing characteristics of the respective battery cell 2, in particular the state of charge (SOC) of a battery cell 2 and/or the state of health (SOH) of a battery cell 2.").
Monitoring the state of a managed battery is a known technique in the art, as demonstrated by WARTENBERG. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery security management of WANG with the battery state monitor of WARTENBERG with the motivation to keep the system appraised of current information regarding the managed battery. It is obvious to apply different procedures based on different operating states of a battery.
Regarding claim 8:
WANG teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1,
WARTENBERG teaches the following limitation(s) not taught by WANG:
wherein the battery module includes a battery safety protection module configured to control the safe operation of the battery core ([0029] "… Furthermore, the battery management system 1 comprises a further functional unit 6 which is designed here to control and/or regulate the temperature of the battery modules 3.").
Monitoring the safety of a managed battery is a known technique in the art, as demonstrated by WARTENBERG. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery security management of WANG with the battery safety monitor of WARTENBERG with the motivation to ensure that the managed battery stays within safe operating parameters. It is obvious to take steps to ensure battery safety when operating parameters are being adjusted.
Regarding claim 10:
WANG teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1,
WARTENBERG teaches the following limitation(s) not taught by WANG:
wherein the battery operation manager is further configured to deactivate a particular battery by communicating a deactivate signal to the particular battery ([0041] "... The reception of the disconnect signal by the coupling unit 9 instigates a switching procedure in the coupling unit 9, whereby the battery module 3 … is electrically bypassed and is disconnected from the battery system as a result.").
Deactivating a battery via a signal is a known technique in the art, as demonstrated by WARTENBERG. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery security management of WANG with the battery deactivation signal of WARTENBERG with the motivation to have the capability to disconnect a battery from supplying power in the event of a problem or unauthorized user.
Claims 11-13, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WANG et al (Doc ID US 20190280343 A1), and further in view of FUJIYAMA (Doc ID US 20240022085 A1).
Regarding claim 11:
WANG teaches:
receiving a security key associated with the battery module ([0025] "In sub-step 611, the carrier microcontroller 13 transmits the unique carrier identifier of the carrier device 1 to the power supply device 2.");
attempting to validate the security key associated with the battery module ([0026] "In sub-step 612, the battery microcontroller 23 of the power supply device 2 determines whether the unique carrier identifier matches one of said at least one reference carrier identifier stored in the storage medium 22 of the power supply device 2."); and
changing operation of the battery module to a second mode of operation responsive to validation of the security key, wherein the second mode of operation allows the battery module to operate with full functionality ([0045] "In step 72, the carrier microcontroller 13 controls the power controller 12 to establish the electrical connection between the carrier device 1 and the power supply device 2 so as to enable the battery microcontroller 23 to provide the electrical energy of the battery 21 to the carrier device 1 ...").
FUJIYAMA teaches the following limitation(s) not taught by WANG:
A method comprising: powering-on a battery module that has a battery security option activated ([0056] "When the battery 14 is attached to the holder of the device 16, the communication unit 82 of the control circuit 56 communicates with the control device 20a of the device 16 to acquire at-use authentication identification information …");
setting operation of the battery module in a first mode of operation that allows the battery module to operate with reduced functionality ([0057] "The discharging control unit 86 places the battery 14 in a discharging prohibition state … until the device authentication unit 84 authenticates that the device 16 is an authorized device.");
Validating a received code before allowing a battery to supply power is a known technique in the art, as demonstrated by WANG. Further, maintaining a reduced state in a battery until activated by an authentication is a known technique in the art, as demonstrated by FUJIYAMA. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery activation through a received value of WANG with the unauthenticated, reduced functionality battery of FUJIYAMA with the motivation to make the default state of a battery the disabled state, so that it cannot be used until the user or device it is attached to provides authentication.
Regarding claim 12:
The combination of WANG and FUJIYAMA teaches:
The method of claim 11, wherein the first mode of operation includes at least one of limiting the battery module’s voltage, limiting the battery module’s current, or limiting functions that the battery module can perform (WANG [0046] "In step 73, the carrier microcontroller 13 controls the power controller 12 to refrain from establishing the electrical connection between the carrier device 1 and the power supply device 2 so as to prevent the battery microprocessor 23 from providing the electrical energy of the battery 22 to the carrier device 1 ...").
Regarding claim 13:
The combination of WANG and FUJIYAMA teaches:
The method of claim 11, wherein the second mode of operation includes providing full battery module voltage, providing full battery module current, and allowing the battery module to perform all available functions (WANG [0045] "In step 72, the carrier microcontroller 13 controls the power controller 12 to establish the electrical connection between the carrier device 1 and the power supply device 2 so as to enable the battery microcontroller 23 to provide the electrical energy of the battery 21 to the carrier device 1 ...").
Regarding claim 15:
The combination of WANG and FUJIYAMA teaches:
The method of claim 11, wherein changing operation of the battery module to a second mode of operation is initiated by a battery state manager (WANG [0021] "... The carrier microcontroller 13 is configured to … enable the battery microcontroller 23 of the power supply device 2 to control the battery 21 to supply the electrical energy to the carrier device 1 …").
Regarding claim 16:
The combination of WANG and FUJIYAMA teaches:
The method of claim 11, wherein validation of the security key associated with the battery module is implemented by a security manager (WANG [0026] "In sub-step 612, the battery microcontroller 23 of the power supply device 2 determines whether the unique carrier identifier matches one of said at least one reference carrier identifier stored in the storage medium 22 of the power supply device 2.").
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WANG et al (Doc ID US 20190280343 A1) and FUJIYAMA (Doc ID US 20240022085 A1) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of WARTENBERG et al (Doc ID US 20160240894 A1).
Regarding claim 14:
The combination of WANG and FUJIYAMA teaches:
The method of claim 11,
WARTENBERG teaches the following limitation(s) not taught by the combination of WANG and FUJIYAMA:
further comprising deactivating the battery module responsive to receiving a deactivation signal from a control system ([0041] "... The reception of the disconnect signal by the coupling unit 9 instigates a switching procedure in the coupling unit 9, whereby the battery module 3 … is electrically bypassed and is disconnected from the battery system as a result.").
Deactivating a battery via a signal is a known technique in the art, as demonstrated by WARTENBERG. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery security management of WANG and FUJIYAMA with the battery deactivation signal of WARTENBERG with the motivation to have the capability to disconnect a battery from supplying power in the event of a problem or unauthorized user.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WARTENBERG et al (Doc ID US 20160240894 A1), and further in view of MARTIN (Doc ID US 20060146478 A1).
Regarding claim 17:
WARTENBERG teaches:
A method comprising: identifying details associated with a battery that needs to be deactivated ([0041] "… In particular, the cell monitoring units 5 are designed to collect and evaluate data relating to ... a group 2 of battery cells 2. In particular, the cell monitoring units 5 are designed to detect a fault event, for example an excessively high battery cell voltage value ...");
communicating a deactivate signal to a control system that is managing the battery to be deactivated ([0041] "... On detecting a fault event, the cell monitoring units 5 ... generate a disconnect signal and transmit the disconnect signal ... to the coupling unit 9.");
determining whether the battery to be deactivated is powered-up ([0030] "… the cell monitoring units 5 are designed to determine currently prevailing characteristics of the respective battery cell 2, in particular the state of charge (SOC) of a battery cell 2 and/or the state of health (SOH) of a battery cell 2.");
responsive to determining that the battery is powered-up, sending the deactivate signal to the battery to be deactivated ([0041] "... The reception of the disconnect signal by the coupling unit 9 instigates a switching procedure in the coupling unit 9, whereby the battery module 3 … is electrically bypassed and is disconnected from the battery system as a result."); and
MARTIN teaches the following limitation(s) not taught by WARTENBERG:
responsive to determining that the battery is not powered-up, sending the deactivate signal to the battery at multiple future intervals until the battery responds to the deactivate signal ([0005] "If it does not respond in the appropriate time, the shut down command is repeated until the projector does shut down.").
Assessing battery details, and sending a deactivation signal to the battery are known techniques in the art, as demonstrated by WARTENBERG. Further, continuing to send a signal until confirmation is received that the signal was received is a known technique in the art, as demonstrated by MARTIN. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery deactivation method of WARTENBERG with the repeating signal of MARTIN with the motivation to ensure the battery is disabled once the deactivation signal is sent. This prevents the battery from continuing to provide power after something unforeseen interferes with the reception of a single deactivation signal.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WARTENBERG et al (Doc ID US 20160240894 A1) and MARTIN (Doc ID US 20060146478 A1) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of WILLGERT et al (Doc ID US 20150357684 A1).
Regarding claim 18:
The combination of WARTENBERG and MARTIN teaches:
The method of claim 17,
WILLGERT teaches the following limitation(s) not taught by the combination of WANG and MARTIN:
further comprising updating the battery status to deactivated in response to receiving a confirmation of the deactivate signal from the battery ([0046] "… activation of the end of life circuit 350 may further cause activation of a … status change for the battery (e.g., to a disabled status).").
Updating a battery’s status after being enabled or disabled is a known technique in the art, as demonstrated by WILLGERT. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery deactivation method of WARTENBERG and MARTIN with the battery status update of WILLGERT with the motivation to track whether any battery being currently managed is either enabled or disabled at any given time.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WARTENBERG et al (Doc ID US 20160240894 A1) and MARTIN (Doc ID US 20060146478 A1) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of HUGGINS et al (Doc ID US 20200313453 A1).
Regarding claim 19:
The combination of WARTENBERG and MARTIN teaches:
The method of claim 17,
HUGGINS teaches the following limitation(s) not taught by the combination of WANG and MARTIN:
further comprising reactivating the deactivated battery by sending a new security key to the deactivated battery ([0027] "… The electrical key may transmit a code (e.g., an identifier) to the electrical lock, which compares the received key to a pre-stored code to verify the received key, and enables/disables the pack 100 based on the verification …").
Reactivating a battery after receiving a code is a known technique in the art, as demonstrated by HUGGINS. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery deactivation method of WARTENBERG and MARTIN with the battery reactivation condition of HUGGINS with the motivation to provide a method for an authenticated user or device to make use of a battery that is in a current “deactivated” status.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON BINCZAK whose telephone number is (703)756-4528. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0800-1700.
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, Alexander Lagor can be reached on (571) 270-5143. 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.
/BB/Examiner, Art Unit 2437
/BENJAMIN E LANIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2437