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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
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:
The “first monitoring section” in claims 1-7 and 9-11, disclosed in Par. [0007-0015; 0086-0088; 0097-0103; 0107-0109; 0111; 0115; 0124; 0131; 0139; 0143-0151] of the instant application.
The “second monitoring section” in claims 1-7 and 9-11, disclosed in Par. [0015; 0086-0088; 0097-0098; 0106-0108; 0151] of the instant application.
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: (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 § 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 3, 4, and 8 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.
Claims 3, 4, and 8 recite the limitation "the energy source.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claims do not previously introduce an “energy source” and its intended metes and bounds are ambiguous. The specification provides at least for an “energy source” being the electrical supply to a primer mover from the vehicle battery (See instant application, Par. [0041]); however, claim 3 recites, “the first monitoring section is configured or programmed to restrict replenishment of the storage with the energy source.” This causes confusion since the claim appears to suggest that something external to the battery is the “energy source.” Par. [0053] discusses that the package capable of storing the “energy source” may be replaced with a different means for storing energy, such as a hydrogen tank. This appears to be an alternative definition of the “energy source” as being the stored energy for use by something external to the battery (or hydrogen tank).
Since the preceding claims fail to provide antecedent basis to clearly establish the metes and bounds of “the energy source” and the definitions in the specification appear to be in conflict, the scope of these claims cannot be readily ascertained and are therefore deemed indefinite.
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 1 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant-admitted prior art, JP2008042985, in view of Applicant-admitted prior art, WO2020121496.
Regarding claim 1, JP2008042985 discloses a monitoring system comprising: a storage to store energy (At least where JP2008042985 discloses a “battery pack, 26/battery, 29”) to drive a working machine; and a monitoring computer (At least where JP2008042985 discloses “ROM 36/Battery ECU 34/EEPROM 43/CPU 35”) configured or programmed to include an area setter configured or programmed to set an area for the storage (At least where JP2008042985 discloses that “the CPU 35 performs chargeable area determination processing for determining whether or not charging is possible by determining whether or not the current position (state value) of the hybrid vehicle 1 is within a designated area (usage permission range)”), and a first monitoring section configured or programmed to monitor the storage by providing a notification for the storage or a restriction for the storage in a case where the storage is not located in the set area (At least where JP2008042985 discloses the situation where charging is prohibited “outside the designated area” based on recognition from CPU 35).
JP2008042985 discloses the monitoring system being aboard an electric vehicle, but does not expressly discuss that the monitoring system is on a “working machine.”
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have recognized that batteries are used across an array of vehicle types (electric vehicles for personal travel, such as an automobile, as well as construction equipment and working machines). A skilled artisan would have readily recognized that the monitoring system of JP2008042985 could be readily applied to any type of electric vehicle to realize the same benefits of JP2008042985 of providing an antitheft device to any battery-powered vehicle. Further, Applicant has not positively recited the “working machine” such that it receives patentable weight.
Nevertheless, WO2020121496 is relied upon to teach monitoring power permission within a working machine (At least where WO2020121496 discloses “a power supply device that supplies electric power to a work machine”).
As noted above, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified the environment/protected platform of JP2008042985 to be a working vehicle, as taught by WO2020121496, in order to provide the antitheft benefits of JP2008042985 to a wider range of electrically powered vehicles to improve security integrity across numerous types of vehicles.
Regarding claim 3, the primary reference, JP2008042985 discloses that the storage is attachable to and detachable (At least where JP2008042985 contemplates that “Even if the battery pack 26 is stolen from the vehicle body of the hybrid vehicle 1, the battery pack 26 cannot be charged if the current position of the battery pack 26 is outside the designated area. Therefore, even if the battery pack 26 is stolen, if the battery pack 26 is out of the designated area, it cannot be used as usual”) from the working machine; and the first monitoring section is configured or programmed to restrict replenishment of the storage with the energy source in a case where the storage that is not mounted on the working machine is not located in the set area (At least where JP2008042985 discloses the situation where charging is prohibited “outside the designated area” based on recognition from CPU 35 and that “the switch SW is turned off” in instances where “the battery pack 26 is stolen and removed from the vehicle” as well as being “outside of the designated area.”).
Regarding claim 4, the primary reference, JP2008042985 discloses that the storage is attachable to and detachable (At least where JP2008042985 contemplates that “Even if the battery pack 26 is stolen from the vehicle body of the hybrid vehicle 1, the battery pack 26 cannot be charged if the current position of the battery pack 26 is outside the designated area. Therefore, even if the battery pack 26 is stolen, if the battery pack 26 is out of the designated area, it cannot be used as usual”) from the working machine; and the first monitoring section is configured or programmed to restrict supply of the energy source to the working machine in a case where the storage mounted on the working machine is not located in the set area (At least where JP2008042985 discloses, “When the battery 29 is charged by the hybrid ECU 23, the CPU 35 limits the charging of the battery 29 if the current position of the hybrid vehicle 1 obtained by the GPS module 52 is outside the designated area” and that the CPU 35 “performs chargeable area determination processing for determining whether or not charging is possible by determining whether or not the current position (state value) of the hybrid vehicle 1 is within a designated area (usage permission range)”).
Regarding claim 5, the previous combination of JP2008042985/WO2020121496 discloses that the storage is attachable to and detachable (At least where JP2008042985 contemplates that “Even if the battery pack 26 is stolen from the vehicle body of the hybrid vehicle 1, the battery pack 26 cannot be charged if the current position of the battery pack 26 is outside the designated area. Therefore, even if the battery pack 26 is stolen, if the battery pack 26 is out of the designated area, it cannot be used as usual”) from the working machine; but did not expressly discuss the subject matter recited in claim 5.
Nevertheless, WO2020121496 teaches that the first monitoring section is configured or programmed to restrict attachment and detachment of the storage to and from the working machine in a case where the storage mounted on the working machine is not located in the set area (At least where WO2020121496 discloses prohibition of removal of the energy storage when “the distance between the current position of the vehicle 120 and the predetermined stop location is larger than the predetermined value”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified the previous combination of JP2008042985/WO2020121496 to disallow battery removal outside of a set area, as taught by WO2020121496, in order to increase antitheft capabilities to ensure that energy storage removal is limited to expected conditions.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant-admitted prior art, JP2008042985, in view of Applicant-admitted prior art, WO2020121496 and in further view of Applicant-admitted prior art, JP2020529663.
Regarding claim 2, the primary reference, JP2008042985 discloses that the storage is attachable to and detachable (At least where JP2008042985 contemplates that “Even if the battery pack 26 is stolen from the vehicle body of the hybrid vehicle 1, the battery pack 26 cannot be charged if the current position of the battery pack 26 is outside the designated area. Therefore, even if the battery pack 26 is stolen, if the battery pack 26 is out of the designated area, it cannot be used as usual”) from the working machine, but does not expressly discuss a notification.
Nevertheless, JP2020529663 teaches that the first monitoring section is configured or programmed to provide the notification for the storage in a case where the storage that is not mounted on the working machine is not located in the set area (At least where JP2020529663 discusses that the “monitoring circuit 120/220” can be configured to send an alert when tracking the battery and making a determination that the battery has moved “outside of the default geofence area.”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified the monitoring system of JP2008042985 to provide a notification, as taught by JP2020529663, in order to provide a warning to an operator/owner that the battery has been stolen so that remedial/response action can be taken sooner.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-11 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Pat. 11,954,947 to Kaechi discloses a monitoring system for a working vehicle to determine if the vehicle is in the predetermined area, supplies notifications when the vehicle is outside of the area, and cuts power after a 2nd notification.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brodie Follman whose telephone number is (571)270-1169. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm EST M-F.
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.
/BRODIE J FOLLMAN/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669