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 .
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on March 24, 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending and are examined below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority to Japanese Patent Application No. JP 2024-051172, filed March 27, 2024.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 2, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlier et al., US 20240123839 A1, in view of Morton et al., US 20230261331 A1, hereinafter referred to as Carlier, and Morton, respectively.
As to claim 1, Carlier discloses a battery control system for an electric vehicle, the battery control system comprising:
a plurality of battery packs each including:
a battery module including a plurality of battery cells (Plurality of cells – See at least Abstract);
a controller configured or programmed to control discharge of the battery module and output internal information on a state of the battery pack including the controller therein (First and second battery BMS – See at least ¶80 and Fig. 10); and
a battery housing to accommodate the battery module and the controller (Housing – See at least Abstract); wherein
the plurality of battery packs include an authorized battery pack having authority to output electric power to drive an electric motor that generates drive power for the electric vehicle, and an unauthorized battery pack not having the authority (Battery authentication, i.e., “authorization” – See at least ¶43 and 77);
the controllers of the plurality of battery packs are configured or programmed to mutually transmit/receive the internal information (Communication – See at least ¶80 and Fig. 10); and
[a] controller is configured or programmed to change the authorized battery pack to another battery pack among the plurality of battery packs based on the internal information (Battery authentication, i.e., “authorization” – See at least ¶43 and 77 and Fig. 10).
Carlier fails to explicitly disclose it is the battery pack controller that authorizes the given battery pack. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Carlier and include the feature of it is the battery pack controller that authorizes the given battery pack as claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, because the claimed invention is merely reassigning a computing function performed by a “main controller” of Carlier to a battery-specific controller, and Morton teaches it is well-known and routine in the art of battery packs for a battery pack to include modular software components that monitor and control battery systems to perform decentralized control distributed across a plurality of battery packs (See at least ¶29-33 of Morton).
Claims 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 because the claims are directed to nearly identical subject matter but for minor differences.
As to claim 2, Carlier discloses the internal information includes information representing presence/absence of the authority (Battery authentication, i.e., “authorization” – See at least ¶43 and 77).
As to claim 15, Carlier fails to explicitly disclose the internal information mutually transmitted/received between the plurality of battery packs includes a same type of information on the plurality of battery packs. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Carlier and include the feature of the internal information mutually transmitted/received between the plurality of battery packs includes a same type of information on the plurality of battery packs, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Morton teaches it is well-known and routine in the art of battery packs for a vehicle to be equipped with a plurality of identical battery packs (See at least ¶29-33 of Morton).
As to claim 16, Carlier fails to explicitly disclose the plurality of battery packs are attachable to, and detachable from, the electric vehicle. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Carlier and include the feature of the plurality of battery packs are attachable to, and detachable from, the electric vehicle, with a reasonable expectation of success, because the claim is merely duplicating the detachable battery of Carlier a plurality of times (Detachable second battery – See at least Abstract).
As to claim 18, Carlier discloses the electric vehicle is an electrically assisted bicycle (Battery driven bicycle – See at least Abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-14 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lail Kleinman whose telephone number is (571)272-6286. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Fadey Jabr can be reached at (571)272-1516. 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.
/LAIL A KLEINMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights