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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 lines 9-10 read "between the second battery, and a reference battery of specification set in advance, based on the battery information" which appears to be a punction error and should read "between the second battery and a reference battery of specification set in advance based on the battery information" to improve clarity. The current utilization of commas makes it confusing when the “when…” phrase starts and ends. Examiner took reference from claim 9 regarding recommended correction.
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 11 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claim 11 is 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 11 recites the limitation "the replacement" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 7, and 9-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. CN 111257771 A (hereinafter Liu; a translated copy has been provided by the examiner which the examiner relies upon) in view of Hwang KR 101251812 B1 (hereinafter Hwang; a translated copy has been; a translated copy has been provided by the examiner which the examiner relies upon) and Tashiro et al. US 20160193940 A1 (hereinafter Tashiro).
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 11;
Liu teaches
A vehicle (Abstract “vehicle”) comprising:
a display that performs notification of vehicle information regarding the vehicle (¶ 0021 discloses outputting an alarm to an instrument panel);
an electronic control unit (Abstract discloses a controller to perform the method) that controls the display (¶ 0021 discloses the controller outputs an alarm to the instrument panel), wherein the electronic control unit is configured to:
acquire battery information from a battery installed as a power supply in the vehicle (Abstract discloses a battery sensor obtains information about a replacement battery and inputs it into the controller), and
perform, after a first battery installed in the vehicle is replaced with a second battery (Abstract discloses determining consistency of replacement batteries), when a difference in characteristics is found between the second battery and a reference battery of specifications set in advance based on the battery information acquired from the second battery (¶ 0020 discloses comparing battery parameters to reference values at four charge levels), notification of information indicating that there is the difference in the characteristics before and after the replacement, using the display (¶ 0020-0021 discloses determining that the difference indicates battery is incompatible and providing an alarm in response to the mismatch).
Liu does not teach
a second electronic control unit that switches, in response to determining that the replacement of a battery pack has been performed, a system main relay from a disconnected state to a connected state.
Hwang teaches
a second electronic control unit that switches, in response to determining that the replacement of a battery pack has been performed, a system main relay from a disconnected state to a connected state (Figure 2 and ¶ 0033-0038 discloses that, when replacing a battery pack, main and sub relays are switched off by a vehicle power management system wherein, after a battery is replaced, the control is cancelled and the vehicle can be driven normally implying that the relays are switched on; see also ¶ n0009 where a vehicle control unit controls the operation of the relays during battery exchanging operations).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Liu to incorporate the teachings of Hwang such that the system of Liu can further include the relays and vehicle control unit of Hwang wherein relays are powered off during battery exchange and can be powered on normally after the exchange as taught by Hwang. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to prevent damage to parts of the vehicle when a battery exchange is being performed as taught by Hwang (¶ 0035).
Liu does not teach
a second electronic control unit that switches a system main relay from a disconnected state to a connected state in accordance with a SMR command received from a vehicle body.
Tashiro teaches
a second electronic control unit that switches a system main relay from a disconnected state to a connected state in accordance with a SMR command received from a vehicle body (¶ 0031 discloses that a controller switches SMRs from an off state to an on state based on an ignition switch).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Liu to incorporate the teachings of Tashiro such that, as part of the normal driving operation after battery replacement as detailed in Hwang, relays are switched on in accordance to an ignition switch signal as taught by Tashiro. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to prevent excess battery discharging when the vehicle is not being driven.
Regarding claims 2 and 10, the modified Liu reference teaches all of claims 1 and 9 as detailed above.
Liu further teaches that
after the second battery is connected to the vehicle as the power supply, when a magnitude in difference between a value indicating a characteristic of the reference battery that is set in advance and a value indicating the characteristic of the second battery that is set in advance is greater than a threshold value (¶ 0020 discloses determining that the difference between battery parameters and reference values is outside of an error range indicating incompatibility), the electronic control unit performs notification of information indicating that there is the difference in the characteristics, using the display (¶ 0021 discloses providing an alarm in response to the mismatch).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Liu reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Liu further teaches that
when a magnitude in difference between a first voltage of the reference battery and a second voltage of the second battery is greater than a threshold value (¶ 0020 discloses determining that the difference between battery parameters and reference values is outside of an error range indicating incompatibility; ¶ 0004 discloses battery information includes voltage information), in a state in which the reference battery and the second battery are at a same state of charge (¶ 0020 discloses comparing parameters at four charge levels), the electronic control unit performs notification of information indicating that there is the difference in the characteristics, using the display (¶ 0021 discloses providing an alarm in response to the mismatch).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Liu reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Liu further teaches that
the specifications set in advance include specifications of a first battery (¶ 0019 discloses determining whether the replacement battery is the same model as the original battery installed at the factory; examiner understands this “original battery” to be equivalent to the first battery before replacement).
Regarding claims 12-14, the modified Liu reference teaches all of claims 1, 9, and 11 as detailed above.
Liu further teaches that
the electronic control unit is further configured to:
receive a replacement completion signal (¶ 0036 discloses various methods of notifying a controller that a battery has been replaced); and
determine, in response to the replacement completion signal, that the battery pack has been replaced in accordance with the replacement completion signal (¶ 0036 “The controller 1 then determines that the battery has been replaced”).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu as modified by Hwang and Tashiro as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhou et al. CN 102205800 B (hereinafter Zhou; a translated copy has been provided by the examiner which the examiner relies upon).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Liu reference teaches all of claim 2 as detailed above.
Liu further teaches that
when the vehicle is started for a first time after the battery is replaced with the second battery (¶ 0012 discloses that comparison between parameters occurs after battery has been fully charged implying comparison occurs during first time starting the vehicle after the battery has been fully charged following the vehicle start), and the magnitude of the difference is greater than the threshold value (¶ 0020), the electronic control unit further uses the display to indicate information that there is the difference in the characteristics (¶ 0021 discloses providing an alarm in response to the mismatch).
Liu does not teach that
the electronic control unit uses the display to cause the display device to display an image including information indicating that there is the difference in the characteristics.
Zhou further teaches that
the control device uses the notification device to cause the display device to display an image including information indicating that there is the difference in the characteristics (¶ 0053 discloses a driver touch screen that displays a highlighted image indicating that a battery is abnormal or malfunctioning).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Liu to incorporate the teachings of Zhou. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function, but in the very combination itself, that is in the substitution of the touch screen of Zhou for the instrument panel of Liu. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result of displaying battery abnormality information renders the claim obvious.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu as modified by Hwang and Tashiro as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matsuoka JP 2020114121 A (hereinafter Matsuoka; a translated copy has been provided by the applicant which the examiner relies upon).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Liu reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Liu further teaches that
the electronic control unit performs notification of information indicating that there is the difference in the characteristics, using the display (¶ 0021 discloses providing an alarm in response to the mismatch).
Liu does not teach that
when a supplier of the reference battery and a supplier of the second battery are different, the control device performs notification of information indicating that there is the difference in the characteristics, using the notification device.
Matsuoka teaches that
when a supplier of the reference battery and a supplier of the second battery are different (¶ 0020 discloses determining if a replacement battery is genuine and thus made by the same manufacturer of the vehicle), the electronic control unit performs notification of information indicating that there is the difference in the characteristics, using the display (¶ 0022 discloses providing a warning of the battery being non-genuine).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Liu to incorporate the teachings of Matsuoka such that a difference in manufacturer of a new battery can also be checked after installation according to Matsuoka wherein the alarm of Liu can occur following determination of a non-genuine battery. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve accuracy of faulty battery detection that may prevent a vehicle from being properly driven as disclosed in Matsuoka (¶ 0019 and Abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 4 and 8 contain the allowable subject matter indicated in the Office Action dated 4/15/2026.
Response to Amendment
Claim amendments filed 7/14/2026 have been received and fully considered and overcome the 112(f) interpretations, 112(b) rejections, 101 rejections, and most of the claim objections of record detailed in the Office Action dated 4/15/2026. These/this objections, interpretations, and rejections have/has been withdrawn. Examiner notes that a claim objection regarding the punctuation in claim 11 is still outstanding, not addressed by the amendments, and thus is maintained.
Specification amendments filed 7/14/2026 have been received and fully considered and overcome the drawing objections of record detailed in the Office Action dated 4/15/2026. These/this objections have/has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-12, filed 7/14/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 9, and 11 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the claim amendments filed 7/14/2026. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Liu as modified by Hwang and Tashiro.
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Takao US 20230311706 A1 discloses activating a main relay when driving a vehicle.
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 Ashley Tiffany Schoech whose telephone number is (571)272-2937. The examiner can normally be reached 4:45 am - 3:15 pm PT Monday - Thursday.
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.
/A.T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights