DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 3 be found allowable, claim 4 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 5 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 5 recites “the charging and discharging control unit are provided in a cloud”. While a review of the specification indicates that the applicant is trying to claim that the functions the device are performed via a cloud service, this is not what is claimed. Claim 5 literally recites that the control unit is in a cloud.
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) 1-4 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takahashi (U.S. Publication No. 20130030739). Takahashi teaches a secondary battery deterioration degree determination device (¶14), comprising: a charging and discharging control unit, in a state where a plurality of secondary batteries are connected to each other to form a battery pack, that performs a charging and discharging operation of the battery pack while voltages of the secondary batteries are individually measured (¶¶ 2 and 69); a battery characteristic acquisition unit that acquires a battery characteristic related to transition in a battery state over a predetermined voltage section for at least some of the plurality of secondary batteries (¶ 24); and a determination unit that determines a deterioration degree of the secondary battery of at least some of the plurality of secondary batteries based on the battery characteristic or a battery characteristic relationship value calculated based on the battery characteristic (¶¶ 70-71), wherein the plurality of secondary batteries forming the battery pack include a secondary battery that is set with the predetermined voltage section for acquiring the battery characteristic different from a voltage section of another secondary battery of the plurality of secondary batteries (see batteries in fig. 6).
Regarding claim 2, ¶69 teaches the plurality of secondary batteries forming the battery pack include secondary batteries that are set with a voltage section common to each other as the predetermined voltage section for acquiring the battery characteristic.
Regarding claims 3-4, fig. 6 shows the charging and discharging control unit is configured to allow the voltages of the plurality of secondary batteries to deviate from a preset normal use range (to range CH2. See also ¶81) in the charging and discharging operation of the battery pack.
Regarding claims 6-7, ¶¶ 11, 57, 92 and 191-193 teach the battery pack is for a vehicle, and the charging and discharging control unit is configured to perform the charging and discharging operation in a state where the battery pack is mounted on the vehicle.
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (U.S. Publication No. 20130030739) in view of Kosugi (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0195590). Takahashi teaches the salient features of the claimed invention except for the determination unit, and the charging and discharging control unit are provided in a cloud, and the battery pack is configured to be connectable to the cloud through a scan tool having a communication function. Kosugi teaches in paragraph 91 that it was known to use a battery system provided in a cloud, and the battery pack is configured to be connectable to the cloud. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the features of Kosugi for the purpose of portability and versatility.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER E MAHONEY whose telephone number is (571)272-2122. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Stephanie Bloss can be reached at 571-272-3555. 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 E MAHONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights