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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pan (CN211364327U, machine translation provided herewith).
Claim 1, Pan teaches:
A battery device (Pan, Figs. 1 and 2) mounted on an electric vehicle (Pan, Pages 4-5, The lithium battery packs of electric vehicles are collectively a battery device. The battery packs includes at least the battery information collection modules 103, first controller 101, second controller 102, vibration sensor 109, and 4G communication module 104 connected thereto.), the battery device comprising:
a detection unit (Pan, Fig. 2: 109) that detects that the battery device has been removed from the electric vehicle (Pan, Page 5: “The vibration sensor 109 is used to monitor the vibration of the electric vehicle lithium battery pack… When the external vibration is greater than the threshold, judge whether the lithium battery pack of the electric vehicle has been violently stolen”.); and
a communication unit (Pan, Fig. 1: 104) that transmits, to a server, position information of the battery device when the detection unit detects that the battery device has been removed from the electric vehicle (Pan, Page 5: “when it [the vibration sensor 109] detects that the electric vehicle lithium battery pack is vibrated by an external force, it sends vibration information to the second controller 102 so that the second controller 102 uploads to the remote server through 4G communication module 104.” The 4G communication module and the GPS positioning module are integrated in order to “pass the real-time updated GPS location [to] retrieve the stolen lithium battery pack”. Furthermore, the remote server is configured to upload “the working status, health status and location information of the lithium battery pack” (see Pan, Page 8).).
Claim 2, Pan further teaches:
The battery device according to claim 1, wherein
the communication unit transmits the position information of the battery device to at least one of a communication terminal of a user of the electric vehicle, a security company, and the police (Pan, Page 8, “The remote server uploads the working status, health status and location information of the lithium battery pack, and synchronizes relevant information to the intelligent terminal user through the remote server”. Thus, the data transmitted to the remote server via the 4G communication module is further presented to a smart/intelligent terminal of the user. Additionally, the user “can remotely turn off the lithium battery pack output through the smart terminal” (see Pan, Page 5).).
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 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan (CN211364327U, machine translation provided herewith).
Claim 3, Pan further teaches:
The battery device according to claim 1, wherein
the communication unit transmits the position information of the battery device after the detection unit detects that the battery device has been removed from the electric vehicle (Pan, Page 5, After an external force is sensed by the vibration sensor, a determination is made as to whether the lithium battery pack of the electric vehicle has been violently stolen, “and send alarm information to the remote server through the 4G communication module. Prevent the theft of lithium batty packs for the electric vehicles.” Wherein information provided to the server includes “working status, health status and location information” (see Pan, Page 8).).
Pan does not explicitly teach:
The communication unit periodically transmits the position information.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to for the 4G communication module to transmit the GPS coordinates of the lithium battery pack a plurality of times, e.g. periodically, in order to provide “real-time updated GPS location” (see Pan, Page 5). Such a modification “effectively solves the problem that the lithium battery pack of shared electric vehicles is not easy to recover and easily causes losses”, i.e. to ensure that the stolen lithium battery pack can be located and recovered easily (see Pan, Page 5).
Claim 4, Pan further teaches:
The battery device according to claim 1, wherein
the communication unit transmits, to the server, position information of the battery device when the battery device is attached to an electric vehicle (Pan, Page 8, The remote server “uploads the working status, health status and location information of the lithium battery pack”.).
Pan does not explicitly teach:
When the battery device is attached to an electric vehicle other than the electric vehicle.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the system of Pan to be capable of communicating position information of the lithium battery pack when the lithium battery pack is attached to an electric vehicle other than the electric vehicle. The system of Pan determines when a lithium battery pack is removed from an electric vehicle based on a vibration sensor sensing a force that is greater than a threshold (see Pan, Page 5). After the lithium battery pack is determined to be stolen, the location of the lithium battery pack can be tracked for purposes of retrieval, i.e. “the real-time updated GPS location retrieves the stolen lithium battery pack” (see Pan, Page 5). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that is within the scope of scenarios of a stolen lithium battery pack to include placing the stolen lithium battery pack within another electric vehicle. The Examiner notes that the claim limitation only requires the condition of the battery device being attached to an electric vehicle other than the electric vehicle and not the detection/determination, e.g. by the battery device, that the battery device is attached to another electric vehicle.
Claim 5, Pan further teaches:
The battery device according to claim 1, further comprising a controller that suppresses, charging or discharging to the electric vehicle (Pan, Page 5, “when the lithium battery pack is stolen, the user can remotely turn off the lithium battery pack output through the smart terminal (the lithium battery pack with the output turned off cannot be discharged but can only be charged).”).
Pan does not explicitly teach:
In a case where the battery device is attached to an electric vehicle other than the electric vehicle.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the system of Pan to be capable of remotely turning off the lithium battery pack when the lithium battery pack is attached to an electric vehicle other than the electric vehicle. The system of Pan determines when a lithium battery pack is removed from an electric vehicle based on a vibration sensor sensing a force that is greater than a threshold (see Pan, Page 5). After the lithium battery pack is determined to be stolen, the user can remotely turn off the lithium battery pack output through the smart terminal (see Pan, Page 5). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that is within the scope of scenarios of a stolen lithium battery pack to include placing the stolen lithium battery pack within another electric vehicle. The Examiner notes that the claim limitation only requires the condition of the battery device being attached to an electric vehicle other than the electric vehicle and not the detection/determination, e.g. by the battery device, that the battery device is attached to another electric vehicle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES J YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5170. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-6:00p M-F.
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, BRIAN ZIMMERMAN can be reached at (571) 272-3059. 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.
/JAMES J YANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights