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 .
Priority
Application 19/034,634 was filed on January 23, 2025 and claims priority to Japanese Patent Application No. 2024-1033 82 filed on June 26, 2024.
Status of the Claims
Claims 6-8 are currently pending. Claims 1-5 were cancelled in the reply filed March 30, 2026 and claims 6-8 were added.
Response to Arguments
112(f):
Applicant's amendments overcome the invocation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) and it is withdrawn.
101:
Applicant's amendments overcome the rejection made under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and it is withdrawn. Examiner notes that causing the lock mechanism to be unlocked in response to receiving the unlock permission information integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
103:
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejections made under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Claim Objections
Claims 6-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 recites, “in response to receiving the registration information, the first processor is configured to send registration completion information including the second battery identifier to the second processor” (emphasis added). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, claim 6 is interpreted to read, “in response to receiving the registration information, the first processor is configured to send registration completion information including the second battery identifier to a second processor” (emphasis added). Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 7 and 8 are objected to by virtue of dependency on claim 6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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.
Claim 8 is 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.
Claim 8 recites, “wherein the battery is configured to drive the vehicle” (emphasis added). This limitation is not supported by the specification. Applicant states that support for claims 6-8 “may be found in the specification as originally filed, for example, at paragraphs [0016], [0020], [0026]-[0029], [0036], and [0039]-[0044]” (Remarks, p. 4). Applicant’s specification teaches: “The battery 100 is a battery for driving the vehicle 10” [0015]. However, it does not contain any description that would convey to a person skilled in the relevant art that the battery is configured to drive the vehicle. Examiner notes that using a battery “for driving” a vehicle (e.g. powering the vehicle) is not the same as having a battery “configured to drive” (e.g. controlling or steering) the vehicle. There are no other sections of Applicant’s specification that teach the amended limitations. Therefore, claim 8 fails to comply with the written description requirement.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0316633 to Kalligeros et al. (Kalligeros) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0248535 to Ikui (Ikui).
As to claim 6, Kalligeros teaches, a battery mounted on a vehicle, the battery including a battery processor and a lock mechanism configured to lock the battery to the vehicle (“In an aspect of the invention, there is provided a cloud-connectable e-vehicle comprising a holster for receiving a battery, locking means for locking and unlocking the battery at the holster …” and “… In an embodiment, the battery assembly comprises of a plurality of Lithium-ion cells (industry standard, for example 20-30 cells would be appropriate), a PCB (BMS or Battery Monitoring System including a microprocessor) and supporting plastics/wiring …” [0004 and 0090-0092]);
a first server including a first memory and a first processor (“In a further aspect of the invention, there is provided a network server comprising one or more processors configured to receive a request to unlock a battery locked to an e-vehicle …” and “… The cloud computing service 140 comprises one or more servers 141 running the backend software service for managing the battery sharing scheme across the elements of the system 100 …” and “… FIG. 6 shows an example of a processor 610 associated with a memory 620 …” [0016 and 0069 and 0205-0211]);
a second server including a second memory and a second processor, the second server being configured to store registered battery information (“… The cloud computing service 140 comprises one or more servers 141 running the backend software service for managing the battery sharing scheme across the elements of the system 100 …” and “… Each battery 112-1 . . . 112-N may have a unique identifier such as a serial number. This is used to track information relating to the battery at both the cloud service 150 and the Pushpod/battery swap station 120-1 . . . 120-N.” and “… The database 1410 includes a number of interrelated modules that store data relating to elements of the system 100. These include an inventory database 1411 that includes data regarding the fleet of vehicles 110-1 . . . 110-N and batteries 112-1 . . . 112-N in the system 100 …” and “… FIG. 6 shows an example of a processor 610 associated with a memory 620 …” [0069 and 0094 and 0132 and 0205-0211] Examiner notes Fig. 1 showing two instances of server 141);
wherein the battery processor is configured to send an unlock request signal that requests unlock of the lock mechanism to the second server (“… In an embodiment, the app, which is connected over the air to the vehicle, pings a signal to the vehicle to release the battery, which in turns pings a signal to the battery to unlock …” and “… at step 406 the user may request ejection of the battery 112-1 from the e-vehicle cage 111-1 via the app …” [0092 and 0170-0171]),
the unlock request signal including a first battery identifier (“… Each battery 112-1 . . . 112-N may have a unique identifier such as a serial number. This is used to track information relating to the battery at both the cloud service 150 and the Pushpod/battery swap station 120-1 . . . 120-N” and “… As well as being potentially linked with a slot 1411-8, each battery record may be linked to one or more battery transactions 1413-2 of the batter ledger 1413-1 via the battery identifier (‘battery_id’). Accordingly, the location and ownership of a battery is recorded in the inventory 1411 and transactions involved in swapping a battery are recorded in the battery events ledge 1413” and “The next screen will be a notification to the user to go to the Pushpod 120-1 and scan a QR code at the front of the Pushpod 120-1 …” [0094 and 0163-0166 and 0172-0174]),
the first processor is configured to receive registration information for tracking a location of the battery from a user (“… The battery may communicate its unique serial number to the Pushpod, which allows tracking of that particular battery” and “… a UUID identifying the user that is the owner (i.e. a tenant user) of the battery referred to (‘owner_id’) …” [0075 and 0135-0145] Examiner notes that, per paragraph [0030] of Applicant’s specification, tracking a location of the battery includes tracking ownership of the battery);
and register the registration information in the first memory, the registration information including a second battery identifier (“… Each battery transaction record includes an id that is a timestamp UUID (‘timestamp:UUID’) indicating the time at which the transaction referred to by the record took place. There are fields for: [0136] a battery identifier ‘battery_id’ (an internal UUID identifier for each battery in the system) …” and “Each slot record 1411-8 includes a device id (‘owner_id’) which is a Pushpod id or cage id that links the slot with a respective Pushpod 1411-6 or cage 1411-7 device record. Further, it includes a battery identifier field (‘battery_id’) which is able to link a battery of the system to the slot via a battery record 1411-9 …” [0135-0145 and 0164-0166]),
the second processor is configured to: in response to receiving the unlock request signal from the battery processor, determine whether the first (“… The cloud service authenticates the user and authorizes the release of the battery by send a message over the cloud to the vehicle (e.g. adaptor/holster). The vehicle adaptor having been authorized to release the battery activates the electro-mechanical latch and releases the battery to enable the swap” and “… If the user is authorized/permitted to do so (e.g. by the Json Web Token), at step 408, the cloud service communicates with the cage of the e-vehicle (e.g. wirelessly through the internet) with a request (authorization data) to release the battery …” [0091-0092 and 0170-0171] Examiner notes that Kalligeros [0069] teaches a cloud computing service that comprises one or more servers that perform the claimed functions),
and in response to the determination that the first (“… The cloud service authenticates the user and authorizes the release of the battery by send a message over the cloud to the vehicle (e.g. adaptor/holster). The vehicle adaptor having been authorized to release the battery activates the electro-mechanical latch and releases the battery to enable the swap” and “… At step 409, the cage having received the authorization, releases/unlocks the battery by activating the relevant servo motors to release the locking mechanism for the battery …” [0091-0092 and 0170-0171]);
and the battery processor is further configured to cause the lock mechanism to be unlocked in response to receiving the unlock permission information (“… The vehicle adaptor having been authorized to release the battery activates the electro-mechanical latch and releases the battery to enable the swap” and “… The Pushpod 120-1 having received the instruction from the cloud server 140, then at step 417, activates the servo motors at the slot 121-1 corresponding to the reserved battery and unlocks and ejects the battery 112-2 …” [0091-0092 and 0170-0173]).
While Kalligeros teaches, determine whether the first identifier included in the unlock request signal matches the second identifier registered in the second memory, Kalligeros does not teach that the first and second identifiers are battery identifiers. However, Ikui teaches that the first and second identifiers are battery identifiers (“… Subsequently, the replacement device controller 140 may determine whether or not the used battery 510u accommodated in the battery accommodator 120-1H is a removable battery 510 capable of being replaced on the basis of the information of the battery IDs of the removable batteries 510 included in the available battery list L …” and “… More specifically, the processor 144 combines the battery ID output from the information acquirer 143 with the battery ID of the removable battery 510 included in the available battery list L stored in the replacement device storage 130 and determines whether or not the used battery 510u accommodated in the battery slot 120 is a removable battery 510 capable of being replaced at the battery replacement device 100” and “… More specifically, the processor 144 reads the available battery list L from the replacement device storage 130 and sequentially compares battery IDs included in the read available battery list L with the battery ID output from the information acquirer 143” [0096-0097 and 0102 and 0129-0130]). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the 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 battery identifiers of Ikui for the identifiers of Kalligeros. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so for the benefit of providing better tracking of a battery.
Kalligeros does not teach, in response to receiving the registration information, the first processor is configured to send registration completion information including the second battery identifier to the second processor; in response to receiving the registration completion information, register information including the second battery identifier as the registered battery information in the second memory. However, Ikui teaches, in response to receiving the registration information, the first processor is configured to send registration completion information including the second battery identifier to the second processor (“… More specifically, the operation server 200 updates the available battery list L by registering the battery ID of the removable battery 510 to be added in the available battery list L when a removable battery 510 capable of being replaced at the battery replacement device 100 is newly added through an operation of the terminal (not shown) by the manager or the like …” [0080-0082]);
in response to receiving the registration completion information, register information including the second battery identifier as the registered battery information in the second memory (“… Thereby, the battery replacement device 100 acquires the available battery list L from the operation server 200 via the network NW …” [0080-0082]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, in response to receiving the registration information, the first processor is configured to send registration completion information including the second battery identifier to the second processor; in response to receiving the registration completion information, register information including the second battery identifier as the registered battery information in the second memory, as taught by Ikui with the battery registration system of Kalligeros. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so for the benefit of providing better tracking of a battery.
As to claim 8, Kalligeros in view of Ikui teaches all of the limitations of claim 6 as discussed above. Kalligeros further teaches, wherein the battery is configured to drive the vehicle (“… The batteries 112-1 . . . 112-N are receivable by the holsters 111-1 . . . 111-N of the e-vehicle in order to provide power to the e-vehicle 110-1 …” and “… However, it will be understood that the entity at the e-vehicle that releases the battery may be a holster at the e-vehicle without the capability to charge a native battery but rather to directly power the vehicle itself …” [0069 and 0176]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0316633 to Kalligeros et al. (Kalligeros) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0248535 to Ikui (Ikui) and in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0101247 to Kamijima (Kamijima).
As to claim 7, Kalligeros in view of Ikui teaches all of the limitations of claim 6 as discussed above. Kalligeros further teaches, wherein the registration information further includes first information indicating a date on which the battery was removed from the vehicle, second information indicating a former owner of the battery, (“… By storing these events we can easily trace back ownership, system health, faults, user events and much more at any point in time …” and “… Battery transaction records 1413-2 are associated to a ledger 1413-1. Each battery transaction record includes an id that is a timestamp UUID (‘timestamp:UUID’) indicating the time at which the transaction referred to by the record took place … a UUID identifying the user that is the owner (i.e. a tenant user) of the battery referred to (‘owner_id’) …” [0126-0129 and 0135-0145]).
Kalligeros in view of Ikui does not teach, wherein the registration information further includes third information indicating a purpose for which the battery was removed. However, Kamijima teaches, wherein the registration information further includes third information indicating a purpose for which the battery was removed (“… As illustrated in FIG. 2, the battery log database 217 stores, for all the batteries that have been registered, the product number of the terminal in which the battery is used (terminal product number) …” and “… Furthermore, for example, the use history of the battery replacement service is recorded in the contract management server 240” [0021 and 0030]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein the registration information further includes third information indicating a purpose for which the battery was removed, as taught by Kamijima with the battery registration system of Kalligeros in view of Ikui. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Kamijima that doing so would enable component replacement at lower cost with less labor of a user as compared with the prior art [0008].
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 STEPHANIE S WALLICK whose telephone number is (703)756-1081. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. 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.
/S.S.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/RUPANGINI SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights