DETAILED ACTION
Applicant submitted remarks in response to the latest Office action on 28 July 2026. Therein, Applicant amended claims 1, 6, 8, 13 and 14. Applicant did not cancel any claims. Claims 15-18 were newly added. The submitted claims have been entered and are considered below.
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 .
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant's amendments and related arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 for claims 1-7 and 9-14 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant first asserts that the prior art of record does not disclose considering vertical position and external pressure in determining abnormality. Examiner does not agree.
A teaching from Jayaraj discloses a pressure sensor for measuring “the pressure of the surrounding environment” (see para. 0062). Additionally, Jayaraj teaches that “the location of the vehicle (country, altitude, etc.)” is an external factor considered (see para. 0045). Because both are disclosed as factors, it is interpreted that both may be considered together.
Second, Applicant further asserts that the prior art of record does not make its determination based on a combination of battery variation information and environmental variation information. Examiner does not agree.
As discussed above, Jayaraj discloses the consideration of environmental variation factors (see at least para. 0045), further the inclusion of “surrounding environment” considerations (see at least para. 0064) also is a factor for teaching environmental factors. Relatedly, Jayaraj discloses the use of “internal sensing elements” (see at least paras. 0061-0063). Addressing the combination of the battery and environmental variation data, Jayaraj discloses that they are combined and considered in Fig. 1, #108 and #110, internal sensing elements and external sensing elements are combined with external factors, #112, to monitor the abnormality determination.
It is also noted that the claims at issue do not define a “large amount of variation in vertical position and external pressure”. It is noted that these features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The rejection is maintained.
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 1, 2, 5 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jayaraj, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0014673).
For claim 1, Jayaraj discloses an abnormality sign diagnosis device for an electric moving object, which is an electric submarine or an electric flight vehicle configured to move in a horizontal direction (see paras. 0038-0040, battery anomalies monitored; para. 0041, operates vehicle), the abnormality sign diagnosis device comprising: a determination unit configured to determine presence or absence of an abnormality sign of a battery (see Fig. 3, #102, para. 0040), which is provided to the electric moving object (see Fig. 3, network), based on a combination of battery variation information (see paras. 0061-0064), which is variation information of the battery (see paras. 0061-0064), and environmental variation information (see paras. 0072-0073), which is variation information of an environmental parameter (see paras. 0072-0073); and an output unit configured to output information related to the abnormality sign (see para. 0053), wherein the environmental variation information includes variation information of a position of the electric moving object in the vertical direction (see para. 0073, external factors related to location, see also para. 0084) and/or an external pressure of the electric moving object in the vertical direction.
Jayaraj does not explicitly disclose that the vehicle moves in a horizontal and vertical direction. However, one of ordinary skill in the art is aware that a vehicle, such as a well known automobile may move along a road. The road inherently turns and rolls; the inclines and declines of the road move the vehicle in the vertical (altitude from sea level, see para. 0084) direction. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing that a vehicle is capable to move in a horizontal and vertical direction based on the motivation to improve a system and method for mitigating an emergency event related to the battery of an electric vehicle based on the severity of the abnormalities and/or defects of the battery (see para. 0003).
With reference to claim 2, Jayaraj further teaches wherein the battery variation information includes variation information of at least one of a temperature, a charging and discharging current, a dimension, an internal pressure, or a gas concentration of the battery (see paras. 0061-0064).
Regarding claim 5, Jayaraj further discloses wherein the determination unit is configured to use a plurality of pieces of the battery variation information and a plurality of pieces of the environmental variation information to determine the abnormality sign (see paras. 0061-0064, 0071-0073).
Claims 13 and 14 define subject matter and elements that are substantially similar to the subject matter and elements defined in claim 1. Accordingly, the rejection and reasoning outlined above for claim 1 is applicable to reject claims 13 and 14.
Pertaining to claim 15, Jayaraj discloses wherein the abnormality sign diagnosis device is configured to determine that the abnormality sign arises, when the battery variation information is out of a predetermined range (see paras. 0077-0082), and the position of the electric moving object in the vertical direction and/or the external pressure of the electric moving object is within a predetermined range (see para. 0089).
Referring to claim 16, Jayaraj further teaches wherein the abnormality sign diagnosis device is configured to determine that the abnormality sign does not arise, when the battery variation information is within a predetermined range (see paras. 0077-0082), and the abnormality sign diagnosis device is configured to determine that the abnormality sign does not arise, when the position of the electric moving object in the vertical direction and/or the external pressure of the electric moving object is out of a predetermined range (see para. 0089).
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jayaraj, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0014673) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Feng, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0151808).
Referring to claim 3, Jayaraj does not explicitly disclose the prediction and timing. A teaching from Feng discloses a prediction unit configured to, when the determination unit determines that the abnormality sign arises, predict an abnormality occurrence timing based on the battery variation information (see paras. 0059-0061), wherein the output unit is configured to output the abnormality occurrence timing as output information when the abnormality sign arises (see paras. 0049). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Jayaraj with the teachings of Feng based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve a safety prevention and control system and control method of a power battery pack for an electric vehicle (see para. 0002).
With reference to claim 4, Jayaraj does not explicitly disclose the claimed limitation. However, Jayaraj discloses that the device as a display for conveying information to the user. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the abnormality timing would have been relayed to the user via a display based on the motivation to improve a system and method for mitigating an emergency event related to the battery of an electric vehicle based on the severity of the abnormalities and/or defects of the battery (see para. 0003).
Claims 6, 12, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jayaraj, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0014673) in view of Foland (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0206772).
For claim 6, Jayaraj discloses the substantially similar limitations as those defined in claim 1. However, Jayaraj does not explicitly disclose the navigation management device. A teaching from Foland discloses a navigation management device configured to manage navigation of the electric moving object and perform predetermined control for ensuring safety of the navigation based on the information related to the abnormality sign (see para. 0029). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Jayaraj with the teachings of Foland based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve a computing device and method for predicting battery temperature in an electric aircraft. (see para. 0001).
With regards to claim 12, Foland further teaches wherein the navigation management device is configured to determine navigation permission based on a determination result of the abnormality sign of the battery (see para. 0029, updated flight plan input by user).
Pertaining to claim 17, Jayaraj discloses wherein the abnormality sign diagnosis device is configured to determine that the abnormality sign arises, when the battery variation information is out of a predetermined range (see paras. 0077-0082), and the position of the electric moving object in the vertical direction and/or the external pressure of the electric moving object is within a predetermined range (see para. 0089).
Referring to claim 18, Jayaraj further teaches wherein the abnormality sign diagnosis device is configured to determine that the abnormality sign does not arise, when the battery variation information is within a predetermined range (see paras. 0077-0082), and the abnormality sign diagnosis device is configured to determine that the abnormality sign does not arise, when the position of the electric moving object in the vertical direction and/or the external pressure of the electric moving object is out of a predetermined range (see para. 0089).
Claims 7 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jayaraj, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0014673) and Foland (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0206772) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Feng, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0151808).
Referring to claim 7, Jayaraj does not explicitly disclose the prediction and timing. A teaching from Feng discloses when the abnormality sign arises, predict an abnormality occurrence timing based on the battery variation information and output the abnormality occurrence timing (see paras. 0059-0061). Foland discloses the navigation management device is configured to perform the predetermined control based on the abnormality occurrence timing (see para. 0029). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Jayaraj with the teachings of Feng based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve a safety prevention and control system and control method of a power battery pack for an electric vehicle (see para. 0002).
Pertaining to claim 9, Foland discloses wherein the navigation management device is configured to perform the predetermined control based on the abnormality occurrence timing and i) a cruising distance in a case where the navigation is continued by other batteries excluding the battery determined to have the abnormality sign among the plurality of batteries or ii) a remaining power amount of the other batteries (see para. 0029, citing incorporated by reference 17/582,673, now Patent No. 11,562,653, col. 9:26-45).
With reference to claims 10 and 11, Feng discloses an abnormality occurrence timing (see paras. 0059-0061) and Foland teaches control and updating based on abnormality occurrence timing and a remaining power amount of the other batteries (see para. 0029, citing incorporated by reference 17/582,673, now Patent No. 11,562,653, col. 9:26-45). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing that, based on the teachings noted above in the prior art combination, that the remaining power amount would dictate continuing the navigation or to replan a navigation based on the motivation to improve a safety prevention and control system and control method of a power battery pack for an electric vehicle (see para. 0002).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is allowed.
Conclusion
Examiner previously stated at the end of the previous rejection that Applicant is considered to have implicit knowledge of the entire disclosure once a reference has been cited. The cited figures, columns and lines should not be considered the only relevant teachings. The entire reference must be taken as a whole. This includes any teachings within the reference that were not explicitly cited in the previous Office action. Any new citation of additional teachings of the previously cited art is not a new ground of rejection. Taking the references as a whole, the art supports the new rejection of the currently amended claims.
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 ADAM D TISSOT whose telephone number is (571)270-3439. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at (571) 272-1206. 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.
/ADAM D TISSOT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights