DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This action is in response to the applicant’s preliminary amendment filed on July 31, 2025. Claims 7-13, 15-17 and 19-28 are pending and examined below. Claims 1-6, 14 and 18 have been canceled. Claims 7 and 13 have been amended. Claims 21-28 have been added.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: specification [0032] line 8, the phrase “validation 459” should be –validation 359--. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
Control system 124 described in specification [0024] are not shown in Figure 1 or any other figures;
Table 201 described in specification [0026] are not shown in Figure 2.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. The applicant is advised to rewrite the claim into an independent form to overcome this rejection.
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 13, 15-17 and 19-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alvarez-Troncoso et al., US 7,076,350 B2 in view of Duan et al., US 2015/0360578 A1.
As to claim 13, Alvarez-Troncoso teaches a battery selector comprising (column 2 lines 34-49 and column 7 line 66 – column 8 line 26 and Fig. 1):
A plurality of battery factors, a plurality of electrical load factors, and a plurality of cycling or crank data (column 2 line 34 – column 3 line 19 and column 4 lines 14-17 and Figs. 1-2; e.g. EM system control various electric components such battery state of charge);
A processor configured to receive a user input (column 2 lines 53-56);
a memory operatively connect to a processor, the memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to provide an output (Figs. 1-2 and column 8 claim 1);
the output comprising a battery selection based on the plurality of battery factors, plurality of electrical load factors, the plurality of cycling or crank data, and the user input (abstract and column 2 lines 53-56 and column 7 line 66 – column 8 line 26).
Alvarez-Troncoso does not specifically teach the battery selector comprising a display, and the battery selection is based on the user input. However, Duan teaches these features (¶ 3, 35 and Figs. 1, 9-10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the display and processor taught by Duan into Alvarez-Troncoso’s battery selector for providing better communication interface to the user.
As to claim 15, Alvarez-Troncoso teaches the electrical load factors comprise driver factors (column 2 line 63 – column 3 line 19 and column 6 line 60 – column 7 line 21).
As to claim 16, Alvarez-Troncoso teaches the driver factors comprise driving patterns and driving context (column 2 line 63 – column 3 line 19 and column 3 lines 39-56 and column 4 lines 14-17 and column 4 line 65 – column 5 line 12 and column 7 line 66 – column 8 line 26).
As to claim 17, Alvarez-Troncoso teaches the electrical load factors comprise environmental factors (abstract and column 2 lines 50-56 and column 6 line 60 – column 7 line 6).
As to claim 19, Alvarez-Troncoso in view of Duan teaches a display, wherein the display shows the battery selection (Duan: ¶ 3, 35 and Figs. 1, 9-10; see claim 1 above for obviousness and reason to combine Alvarez-Troncoso and Duan).
As to claim 20, Alvarez-Troncoso teaches the driver factors comprise user input driver factors (column 2 lines 53-56).
As to claim 21, Alvarez-Troncoso teaches the user input may update the electrical load factors (column 2 line 50 – column 3 line 19 and Fig. 1; e.g. user changes the operational mode to parking mode, and smart distribution node switches to a proper power load accordingly).
As to claim 22, Alvarez-Troncoso teaches the battery selection being configured to update based on the an update to the user input (column 2 line 50 – column 3 line 19 and Fig. 1; e.g. user changes the operational mode to parking mode, and smart distribution node switches to a proper power load accordingly).
Claim 23 is rejected based on the rationale as used in claim 13.
As to claim 24, Alvarez-Troncoso teaches a battery selector comprising (column 2 lines 34-49 and column 7 line 66 – column 8 line 26 and Fig. 1):
a battery group having one or more batteries (column 2 lines 48-49 and column 2 line 63 – column 3 line 19 and Fig. 1)’
a battery simulator having:
a plurality of battery factors (column 2 line 34 – column 3 line 19 and Figs. 1-2; e.g. EM system control various electrical components such as battery state of charge);
a plurality of electrical load factors (column 2 line 63 – column 3 line 19 and Fig. 1; e.g. loads 23-24, 26-28); and
a plurality of cycling or crank data (column 2 lines 57-62 and column 4 lines 14-17),
the battery simulator configured to user the user input, the plurality of battery factors, the plurality of electrical load factors, the plurality of cycling or crank data to create a vehicle simulation and performance analysis of the battery group (abstract and column 2 lines 53-56 and column 3 lines 20-55 and column 4 lines 53-60 and column 5 lines 33-40 and column 7 line 66 – column 8 line 26);
the battery selector configured to select a battery from the battery group based on the vehicle simulation and performance analysis (abstract and column 2 lines 53-56 and column 7 line 66 – column 8 line 26).
Alvarez-Troncoso does not specifically teach the battery selector comprising a user interface configured to receive user input data. However, Duan teaches these features (¶ 3, 35 and Figs. 1, 9-10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the user interface taught by Duan into Alvarez-Troncoso’s battery selector for providing better communication interface to the user.
As to claim 25, Alvarez-Troncoso teaches the battery selector is configured to reselect a battery from the battery group based on an update to the user input data (column 2 line 50 – column 3 line 19 and Fig. 1; e.g. user changes the operational mode to parking mode, and smart distribution node switches to a proper power load accordingly).
As to claim 26, Alvarez-Troncoso teaches the electrical load factors are configured to update based on the user input data (column 2 line 50 – column 3 line 19 and Fig. 1; e.g. user changes the operational mode to parking mode, and smart distribution node switches to a proper power load accordingly).
As to claim 27, Alvarez-Troncoso teaches the electrical load factors comprise driver factors (column 2 line 63 – column 3 line 19 and column 6 line 60 – column 7 line 21).
As to claim 28, Alvarez-Troncoso teaches the driver factors comprise user input driver factors, driving patterns and driving context (column 2 lines 53-56 and column 2 line 63 – column 3 line 19 and column 3 lines 39-56 and column 4 lines 14-17 and column 4 line 65 – column 5 line 12 and column 7 line 66 – column 8 line 26).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 7-13, 15-17 and 19-28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over all claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,313,691. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both disclose battery selection based on the load information.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jin et al. (US 2017/0225584 A1) discloses systems and method for state of charge and capacity estimation of a rechargeable battery.
Sanders et al. (US 2017/0005515 A1) discloses renewable energy integrated storage and generation systems with cloud distribution energy management services.
Ishida et al. (US 2014/0210267 A1) discloses charging and discharging of a battery with as less degradation as possible.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mary Cheung whose telephone number is (571) 272-6705. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday, Tuesday and Thursday from 10:00 AM to 7:00 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Christian Chace, can be reached on (571) 272-4190.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceedings is assigned are as follows:
(571) 273-8300 (Official Communications; including After Final Communications labeled “BOX AF”)
(571) 273-6705 (Draft Communications)
/MARY CHEUNG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665 July 24, 2026
Prosecution Insights