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 § 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 7 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 7 recites the limitation "the transmission destination notified from the server" in Lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 7 establishes antecedent basis for the step of confirming a transmission destination of the position information of the battery device with the server, but not a transmission destination “notified” from the server.
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 1-7 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 stolen 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).).
Pan does not explicitly teach:
The battery device has been removed from the electric vehicle due to disconnection between the battery device and the electric vehicle.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the lithium battery pack to be either removed from, i.e. disconnected from the vehicle, or tampered with based on the detection of vibration sensor 109 sensing the vibration of the electric vehicle lithium battery pack. Such a modification would not change the principal operation of the system, as a whole, and would yield predictable results.
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 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.
Claim 6, Pan further teaches:
The battery device according to claim 1, wherein the communication unit stores the 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.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the 4G communication module 104 to store, at least temporarily, the vibration information and the GPS information prior to transmitting the information to the remote server.), and transmits the stored position information to the server in a case where the battery device is not mounted again on the electric vehicle until a predetermined time elapses after 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.” It is within the scope of the teachings of Pan for the stolen lithium battery pack to not be mounted again after it has been previously violently stolen. As per the limitation of a predetermined time elapses, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, for the transmitting of alarm information from the 4G communication module to be performed within a predetermined amount of time. Such a modification would avoid the second controller to be always on, which would save power and extend service life of the components (see Pan, Page 5).).
Claim 7, Pan further teaches:
The battery device according to claim 2, wherein the communication unit confirms a transmission destination of the position information of the battery device with the server, and transmits the position information of the battery device to the transmission destination notified from the server (Pan, Pages 4-5: “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…” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the 4G communication module to be configured to, i.e. confirmed to, communicate with the remote server, such that the remote server can effectively synchronize the relevant information with the intelligent user terminal. Such a modification would ensure that the system of Pan operates for its intended function and would yield predictable results.).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan (CN211364327U, machine translation provided herewith) in view of Mase (U.S. 2012/0078444 A1).
Claim 8, Pan teaches:
The battery device according to claim 4, the communication unit transmits the position information of the battery device to the server (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).).
Pan does not specifically teach:
Wherein the detection unit detects attachment of the battery device to the electric vehicle other than the electric vehicle, and the communication unit transmits the position information of the battery device to the server in a case where the detection unit detects the attachment.
Mase teaches:
Wherein the detection unit (Mase, Fig. 1: 10) detects attachment of the battery device to the electric vehicle other than the electric vehicle (Mase, Paragraphs [0050-0052], After battery 12 is installed in the vehicle, the on-vehicle unit 10 identifies battery 12 as a stolen battery.), and the communication unit transmits the position information of the battery device to the server in a case where the detection unit detects the attachment (Mase, Paragraph [0053], The communication device 21 transmits to external server 20 a notification regarding the fact of being a stolen battery to the on-vehicle unit 10, i.e. position information of the stolen battery.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system in Pan by integrating the teaching of an on-vehicle unit, as taught by Mase.
The motivation would be to prevent invalid use of a stolen battery (see Mase, Paragraph [0003]).
Claim 9, Pan in view of Mase further teaches:
The battery device according to claim 8, wherein the detection unit confirms with the server, via the communication unit, whether an electric vehicle to which the battery device is attached is the electric vehicle (Mase, Paragraphs [0050-0052], The on-vehicle device 10, in the case of a stolen battery, confirms that the electric vehicle on which the stolen battery is installed is not “the electric vehicle”, i.e. the original electric vehicle to which the stolen battery belongs.).
Claim 10, Pan further teaches:
The battery device according to claim 5.
Pan does not specifically teach:
Wherein the controller further sets activation of a drive device of the electric vehicle other than the electric vehicle to be disabled.
Mase teaches:
Wherein the controller further sets activation of a drive device of the electric vehicle other than the electric vehicle to be disabled (Mase, Paragraph [0029], If the verifying device 11 determines that the battery 12 is stolen, the travel controller 17 disables the vehicle from traveling. The travel controller 17 is able to stopping driving of the electric motor (see Mase, Paragraph [0037]).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system in Pan by integrating the teaching of an on-vehicle unit, as taught by Mase.
The motivation would be to prevent invalid use of a stolen battery (see Mase, Paragraph [0003]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection, necessitated by the Applicant’s amendment.
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 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