DETAILED ACTION
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 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:
“battery swap processing unit” recited in claim 1
“inspection unit” recited in claim 1
“swappability determination unit” recited in claim 2
“notification unit” recited in claim 2
“abnormality determination unit” recited in claim 3
“abnormality elimination unit” recited in claim 3
“imaging unit” recited in claim 5
“acquisition unit” recited in claim 5
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.
The limitation “battery swap processing unit” invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because:
(A) The limitation uses a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function (“unit”).
(B) The generic placeholder is modified by functional language (“configured to execute the battery swap process”).
(C) The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The limitation “inspection unit” invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because:
(A) The limitation uses a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function (“unit”).
(B) The generic placeholder is modified by functional language (“configured to inspect a state of a battery swap portion of the electrified vehicle before the battery swap process”).
(C) The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Due to the invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the limitation “inspection unit” will be interpreted so as to comprise “a camera, a lift-up device, an inspection jig, and a vehicle arrangement unit, wherein the lift-up device comprises a plurality of pressure sensors and lift bars,” as taught by the Specification (paragraphs 32 – 34), or a functional equivalent thereof.
The limitation “swappability determination unit” invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because:
(A) The limitation uses a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function (“unit”).
(B) The generic placeholder is modified by functional language (“configured to determine whether the battery swap process is executable, based on a result of the inspection by the inspection unit”).
(C) The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Due to the invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the limitation “swappability determination unit” will be interpreted so as to comprise “a processor” configured to perform the claimed function, as taught by the Specification (paragraphs 24 – 45), or a functional equivalent thereof.
The limitation “notification unit” invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because:
(A) The limitation uses a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function (“unit”).
(B) The generic placeholder is modified by functional language (“configured to execute a notification process for notifying a user of the electrified vehicle of information”).
(C) The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The limitation “abnormality determination unit” invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because:
(A) The limitation uses a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function (“unit”).
(B) The generic placeholder is modified by functional language (“configured to determine where there is an abnormality in the battery swap portion”).
(C) The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Due to the invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the limitation “abnormality determination unit” will be interpreted so as to comprise “a processor” configured to perform the claimed function, as taught by the Specification (paragraphs 24 – 45), or a functional equivalent thereof.
The limitation “abnormality elimination unit” invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because:
(A) The limitation uses a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function (“unit”).
(B) The generic placeholder is modified by functional language (“configured to execute an abnormality elimination process for eliminating the abnormality in the battery swap portion”).
(C) The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Due to the invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the limitation “abnormality elimination unit” will be interpreted so as to comprise “a water discharge unit,” as taught by the Specification (paragraphs 53 and 39), or a functional equivalent thereof.
The limitation “imaging unit” invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because:
(A) The limitation uses a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function (“unit”).
(B) The generic placeholder is modified by functional language (“configured to capture an image of the battery swap portion”).
(C) The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Due to the invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the limitation “imaging unit” will be interpreted so as to comprise “a camera,” as taught by the Specification (paragraph 32), or a functional equivalent thereof.
The limitation “acquisition unit” invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because:
(A) The limitation uses a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function (“unit”).
(B) The generic placeholder is modified by functional language (“configured to acquire information that is based on a tilt of the battery swap portion”).
(C) The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Due to the invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the limitation “acquisition unit” will be interpreted so as to comprise “a pressure sensor,” as taught by the Specification (paragraph 34), or a functional equivalent thereof.
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 1 – 5 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.
The preamble to claim 1 recites “a battery swap apparatus that executes a battery swap process for swapping out a battery mounted on an electrified vehicle.” It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the preamble to be directed towards the ‘battery swap apparatus,’ wherein the ‘battery swap apparatus’ is configured to ‘execute a battery swap process for swapping out a battery mounted on an electrified vehicle,’ or whether Applicant intends the preamble to be directed towards a ‘battery swap apparatus’ wherein the ‘battery swap apparatus’ positively performs steps of ‘executing a battery swap process for swapping out a battery mounted on an electrified vehicle.’ For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “a battery swap apparatus configured to execute a battery swap process for swapping out a battery mounted on an electrified vehicle.”
Claim 4 recites the limitation “wherein the inspection unit inspects the electrified vehicle ...” Examiner notes that the claim is directed towards “a battery swap apparatus.” Therefore, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to positively require a step of ‘the inspection unit inspecting the electrified vehicle ...’ such that the claim is directed towards a ‘process of operating a battery swap apparatus,’ or whether Applicant intends the limitation to recite functional language of the ‘inspection unit.’ For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “wherein the inspection unit is configured to inspect the electrified vehicle ...”
As explained above, the claim limitations “battery swap processing unit” and “notification unit” each invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed functions and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the functions. Regarding the limitation “battery swap processing unit,” while the Specification provides antecedent basis for the limitation performing the claimed function (paragraph 26), the Specification does not teach the structure required for the limitation to perform the claimed function. Regarding the limitation “notification unit,” the Specification provides antecedent basis for the limitation performing the claimed function (paragraph 8). The Specification further teaches the limitation comprising a “communication unit” (paragraph 25) without teach specific structure of the “communication unit” required to perform the claimed function. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claims 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;
(b) 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
(c) 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:
(a) 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
(b) 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.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 – 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As explained above, the claim limitations “inspection unit” and “notification unit” each invoke interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). As further explained above, the written description does not disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed functions and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the functions. Therefore, the limitations are not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
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) 1 - 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang (Chinese Patent Number CN 114758520 A).
Because Wang is published in Chinese, all citations to Wang will actually refer to U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2023/0339358, which claims priority from Wang.
As to claim 1, Wang teaches a battery swap apparatus that executes a battery swap process for swapping out a battery mounted on an electrified vehicle (abstract), the battery swap apparatus comprising: a battery swap processing unit configured to execute the battery swap process (figure 1, element 100 being the ‘battery swap processing unit’; paragraph 29); and an inspection unit, comprising a lidar sensor or image sensor, configured to inspect a state of a battery swap portion of the electrified vehicle before the battery swap process, the battery swap portion being a portion related to the battery swap process (figure 1, element 105 being the ‘inspection unit’ and ‘lidar sensor/image sensor’; paragraphs 30 and 72). Examiner notes that this can be found because Wang teaches that the inspection unit inspects a position of the electrified vehicle to ensure that the electrified vehicle is positioned within a predetermined parking position (figure 1b, element 104 being the ‘electrified vehicle’ and element 103 being the ‘predetermined parking position’; paragraphs 30 – 33), which includes inspecting and ensuring a position of a ‘battery swap portion’ of the electrified vehicle. Wang further teaches that a first position where the battery swap process is executed by the battery swap processing unit is different from a second position where inspection is executed by the inspection unit (figure 1, elements 100 and 105; paragraph 30, which teaches that the ‘inspection unit’ may be positioned above the ‘battery swap processing unit’).
As to claim 2, Wang further teaches a swappability determination unit, comprising a processor, configured to determine whether the battery swap process is executable, based on a result of the inspection by the inspection unit (paragraphs 49 and 77). Examiner notes that this can be found because Wang teaches that apparatus acts to confirm that the vehicle is positioned within the predetermined parking position, which allows the battery swap process to be executable (paragraph 49), wherein this confirmation is performed via a processor (paragraph 77). Wang further teaches a notification unit configured to execute a notification process for notifying a user of the electrified vehicle of information, wherein when the swappability determination unit determines that the battery swap process is not executable, the notification unit executes the notification process for notifying the user that the battery swap process is not executable, before the electrified vehicle is moved to the first position (paragraph 49). Examiner notes that this can be found because Wang teaches that when the vehicle is not positioned in the predetermined parking position, the apparatus informs the user that the vehicle is not in the predetermined parking position (paragraph 49).
As to claim 3, Wang further teaches an abnormality determination unit, comprising a processor, configured to determine whether there is an abnormality in the battery swap portion, based on a result of the inspection by the inspection unit (paragraph 49 and 77). Examiner notes that this can be found because Wang teaches that the apparatus acts to confirm that the vehicle, including the ‘battery swap portion’ of the vehicle, is or is not positioned within the predetermined parking position (paragraph 49), wherein the confirmation is performed via a processor (paragraph 77). Examiner notes that “abnormality” is commonly defined as “something that deviates from the normal” or “unusual in a problematic way.” Because the positioning of the vehicle, and the ‘battery swap portion,’ outside the predetermined parking position is ‘something that deviates from the normal’ and is ‘unusual in a problematic way,’ it is the position of the Examiner that a position of the vehicle outside of the predetermined parking position is an “abnormality.” Wang further teaches an abnormality elimination unit configured to execute an abnormality elimination process for eliminating the abnormality in the battery swap portion, wherein the abnormality elimination unit executes the abnormality elimination process when the abnormality determination unit determines that there is the abnormality in the battery swap portion (paragraph 49). Examiner notes that this can be found because Wang teaches that when the vehicle, including the ‘battery swap portion,’ is outside the predetermined parking position, the apparatus causes the vehicle, including the ‘battery swap portion,’ to relocate to the predetermined parking position (paragraphs 48 – 49).
As to claim 4, Wang teaches that the inspection unit is configured to inspect the electrified vehicle at the second position while the battery swap process is being executed on another electrified vehicle at the first position (figure 1, element 105; paragraphs 30 – 33).
As to claim 5, Wang teaches that the inspection unit includes an imaging unit, comprising a camera, configured to capture an image of the battery swap portion (figure 1, element 105; paragraphs 30 and 72).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER BESLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:30 am - 7:30 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, Sunil Singh can be reached at (571) 272-3460. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J. BESLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726