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 .
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs / columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants’ definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 6 recites “. . . to be the second work machine . . ..” This is interpreted to mean “is designated to function as a second machine for the purposes of donating electrical charge.”
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.
Claims 1-20 are 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.
The term “present” in claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 10-13, and 19-20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “present” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
While the recited limitations are provided the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, the scope of the claim is rendered indefinite. For the purposes of the prior art rejection below this term has been interpreted as any vehicle that could reach the vehicle requiring a charge
Claims 2-17 are rejected due to dependency on a previously rejected claim. Correction or clarification is required.
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 1-16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasutaka (JP 6420120 B2 ) in view of Ropel et al. (US 20240140217 A1) (the combination of which will be referred to as 'combination Yasutaka' hereinafter). As regards the individual claims:
Regarding claim 1, Yasutaka teaches a system for
managing a work machine, the system comprising a processor, (Yasutaka: ¶ 009; a management station terminal system of a construction machine) wherein the processor acquires an amount of charge remaining of a battery of each of a plurality of work machines at a work site, (Yasutaka: ¶ 009; a state of the battery read from the battery state storage unit) determines whether a first work machine including a battery that needs to be charged is present, (Yasutaka: ¶ 009; A work amount plan storage unit in which a change in the amount of work indicating the work amount of the construction machine is stored as a work amount plan, and a time required for work of the construction machine based on the work amount plan stored in the work amount plan storage unit A required power amount calculation unit that calculates a time change of a required power amount that indicates a change in the amount of power accompanying the elapse of time) determines whether a second work machine including a battery capable of charging the battery of the first work machine is present, and (Yasutaka: ¶ 014; it is possible to estimate the number of exchanges and the replacement time of the towed vehicle according to the work amount plan in the predetermined period of the construction machine, and to charge the charged towed vehicle so as to be in time for the replacement time)
To the extent Yasutaka is silent about or does not explicitly teach: outputs a charging command to charge the battery of the first work machine to the second work machine when the first work machine and the second work machine are determined to be present. Ropel does teach:
outputs a charging command to charge the battery of the first work machine to the second work machine when the first work machine and the second work machine are determined to be present. (Ropel: ¶ 130; the system-implemented method 1100 can comprise automatically initiating, by the system (e.g., communication component 816), a broadcast of a request for the charge upon obtaining the notification.).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Ropel with the teachings of Yasutaka because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of "a more efficient process to realizing electric charge transfer between electric vehicles" (Ropel: ¶ 165).
Regarding claim 2, as detailed above, combination Yasutaka teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Yasutaka further teaches:
wherein the processor determines a first work machine having an amount of charge remaining of the battery equal to or less than a threshold to be the first work machine including the battery that needs to be charged. (Yasutaka: ¶ 009; A battery utilization plan calculation unit that calculates a replacement frequency and a replacement time of the towed vehicle based on a state of the battery read from the battery state storage unit as a battery use plan necessary for the plurality of towed vehicles)
Regarding claim 3, as detailed above, combination Yasutaka teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Yasutaka further teaches:
wherein the processor determines, based on a scheduled work and an amount of charge remaining of the battery of each of the plurality of work machines, (Yasutaka: ¶ 009; A work amount plan storage unit in which a change in the amount of work indicating the work amount of the construction machine is stored as a work amount plan, and a time required for work of the construction machine based on the work amount plan stored in the work amount plan storage unit A required power amount calculation unit that calculates a time change of a required power amount that indicates a change in the amount of power accompanying the elapse of time) whether the first work machine including the battery that needs to be charged is present. (Yasutaka: ¶ 009; based on a state of the battery read from the battery state storage unit as a battery use plan necessary for the plurality of towed vehicles . . . towed to the construction machine and tow the towed towed tow by the construction machine in place of the charged towed tower)
Regarding claim 4, as detailed above, combination Yasutaka teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 3. Yasutaka further teaches:
wherein the processor determines the work machine determined to use up an amount of charge remaining of the battery by end of the scheduled work to be the first work machine including the battery that needs to be charged. (Yasutaka: ¶ 009; A work amount plan storage unit in which a change in the amount of work indicating the work amount of the construction machine is stored as a work amount plan, and a time required for work of the construction machine based on the work amount plan stored in the work amount plan storage unit A required power amount calculation unit that calculates a time change of a required power amount that indicates a change in the amount of power accompanying the elapse of time)
Regarding claim 5, as detailed above, combination Yasutaka teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 4. Yasutaka further teaches:
wherein the processor determines, based on time or load required for the scheduled work, (Yasutaka: ¶ 009; A work amount plan storage unit in which a change in the amount of work indicating the work amount of the construction machine is stored as a work amount plan, and a time required for work of the construction machine based on the work amount plan stored in the work amount plan storage unit A required power amount calculation unit that calculates a time change of a required power amount that indicates a change in the amount of power accompanying the elapse of time) whether the first work machine including the battery that needs to be charged is present. (Yasutaka: ¶ 009; based on a state of the battery read from the battery state storage unit as a battery use plan necessary for the plurality of towed vehicles . . . towed to the construction machine and tow the towed towed tow by the construction machine in place of the charged towed tower)
Regarding claim 6, as detailed above, combination Yasutaka teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Ropel further teaches:
wherein the processor determines a work machine including a battery with an amount of charge remaining exceeding the amount of charge remaining of the battery of the first work machine to be the second work machine (Ropel: ¶ 122; determining, by the system (e.g., communication component 816) if another electric vehicle is available to execute an electric charge transfer with the broadcasting electric vehicle) including the battery capable of charging the battery of the first work machine. (Ropel: ¶ 123; one or more conditions can comprise charge speed, whether a battery cell of the battery system to be charged (e.g., battery system 850) is available within one or more thresholds to receive the charge, whether the electric vehicles proposing to participate can facilitate meeting to execute the electric charge transfer, and/or whether the charge transferring vehicle has adequate charge to transfer.)
Regarding claim 7, as detailed above, combination Yasutaka teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Ropel further teaches:
wherein the processor determines a second work machine (Ropel: ¶ 122; determining, by the system (e.g., communication component 816) if another electric vehicle is available to execute an electric charge transfer with the broadcasting electric vehicle) having an amount of charge remaining of the battery equal to or more than a threshold to be the second work machine including the battery capable of charging the battery of the first work machine. (Ropel: ¶ 123; one or more conditions can comprise charge speed, whether a battery cell of the battery system to be charged (e.g., battery system 850) is available within one or more thresholds to receive the charge, whether the electric vehicles proposing to participate can facilitate meeting to execute the electric charge transfer, and/or whether the charge transferring vehicle has adequate charge to transfer.)
Regarding claim 8, as detailed above, combination Yasutaka teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Yasutaka further teaches:
wherein the processor determines, based on a scheduled work and an amount of charge remaining of the battery of each of the plurality of work machines, whether the second work machine including the battery capable of charging the battery of the first work machine is present. (Yasutaka: ¶ 009; A work amount plan storage unit in which a change in the amount of work indicating the work amount of the construction machine is stored as a work amount plan, and a time required for work of the construction machine based on the work amount plan stored in the work amount plan storage unit A required power amount calculation unit that calculates a time change of a required power amount that indicates a change in the amount of power accompanying the elapse of time) (Yasutaka: ¶ 014; it is possible to estimate the number of exchanges and the replacement time of the towed vehicle according to the work amount plan in the predetermined period of the construction machine, and to charge the charged towed vehicle so as to be in time for the replacement time)
Regarding claim 9, as detailed above, combination Yasutaka teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 8. Yasutaka further teaches:
wherein the processor determines a work machine determined to still have an amount of charge remaining of the battery at end of the scheduled work to be the second work machine (Yasutaka: ¶ 009; A work amount plan storage unit in which a change in the amount of work indicating the work amount of the construction machine is stored as a work amount plan, and a time required for work of the construction machine based on the work amount plan stored in the work amount plan storage unit A required power amount calculation unit that calculates a time change of a required power amount that indicates a change in the amount of power accompanying the elapse of time)
And Ropel teaches: including the battery capable of charging the battery of the first work machine. (Ropel: ¶ 123; one or more conditions can comprise charge speed, whether a battery cell of the battery system to be charged (e.g., battery system 850) is available within one or more thresholds to receive the charge, whether the electric vehicles proposing to participate can facilitate meeting to execute the electric charge transfer, and/or whether the charge transferring vehicle has adequate charge to transfer.)
Regarding claim 10, as detailed above, combination Yasutaka teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 9. Ropel further teaches:
wherein the processor determines, based on time or load required for the scheduled work, whether the second work machine including the battery capable of charging the battery of the first work machine is present. (Ropel: ¶ 123; one or more conditions can comprise charge speed, whether a battery cell of the battery system to be charged (e.g., battery system 850) is available within one or more thresholds to receive the charge, whether the electric vehicles proposing to participate can facilitate meeting to execute the electric charge transfer, and/or whether the charge transferring vehicle has adequate charge to transfer.)
Regarding claim 11, as detailed above, combination Yasutaka teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. To the extent Yasutaka does not explicitly teach or is silent regarding:
wherein the processor causes, when a plurality of the second work machines are present, the second work machine having the largest amount of charge remaining of the battery to charge the battery of the first work machine.
Yasutaka does teach a system in which the amount of battery remaining in the secondary unit is considered (Yasutaka: ¶ 066; example of the selection algorithm of the first towed vehicle, a towed vehicle with a large amount of electric power that can be outputted at the time of S 604 where the state parameters of the battery 10 of each towed vehicle 400 is read . . is selected), and optimizing if the ideal amount of charge is the most, least, or most closely matched to the required to complete the work process is a mere optimization of an ideal value under MPEP § 2144.05.II.A. Therefore a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been taught wherein the processor causes, when a plurality of the second work machines are present, the second work machine having the largest amount of charge remaining of the battery to charge the battery of the first work machine. from Yasutaka’s teachings.
Regarding claim 12, as detailed above, combination Yasutaka teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Yasutaka further teaches:
wherein the processor acquires a position of the first work machine and a position of the second work machine and when a plurality of the second work machines are present, determines, based on the position of the first work machine and the positions of the second work machines, the second work machine to charge the battery of the first work machine. (Yasutaka: ¶ 070; traveling time of the carrying vehicle 200 in the outgoing route 500 A from the charging facility 2 to the work site 1 can be calculated from, for example, the travel distance in the outbound route and the actual traveling speed of the traveling vehicle 200 in the past . The reference point of the travel distance on the side of the work site 1 (the target arrival point of the outbound route of the transport vehicle 200) may be based on a predetermined point within the work site)
Regarding claim 13, as detailed above, combination Yasutaka teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Yasutaka further teaches:
comprising a storage storing a work plan for each of the plurality of work machines, wherein the processor calculates, based on the work plan, a predicted value of power usage of the second work machine (Yasutaka: ¶ 009; A work amount plan storage unit in which a change in the amount of work indicating the work amount of the construction machine is stored as a work amount plan, and a time required for work of the construction machine based on the work amount plan stored in the work amount plan storage unit A required power amount calculation unit that calculates a time change of a required power amount that indicates a change in the amount of power accompanying the elapse of time) and when a plurality of the second work machines are present, determines, based on the predicted value of the power usage, the second work machine to charge the battery of the first work machine. (Yasutaka: ¶ 014; it is possible to estimate the number of exchanges and the replacement time of the towed vehicle according to the work amount plan in the predetermined period of the construction machine, and to charge the charged towed vehicle so as to be in time for the replacement time)
Regarding claim 14, as detailed above, combination Yasutaka teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 13. To the extent Yasutaka does not explicitly teach or is silent regarding:
wherein the processor causes the second work machine having the smallest predicted value of the power usage to charge the battery of the first work machine.
Yasutaka does teach a system in which the amount of battery remaining in the secondary unit is considered (Yasutaka: ¶ 066; example of the selection algorithm of the first towed vehicle, a towed vehicle with a large amount of electric power that can be outputted at the time of S 604 where the state parameters of the battery 10 of each towed vehicle 400 is read . . is selected), and optimizing if the ideal amount of charge is the most, least, or most closely matched to the required to complete the work process is a mere optimization of an ideal value under MPEP § 2144.05.II.A. Therefore a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been taught wherein the processor causes the second work machine having the smallest predicted value of the power usage to charge the battery of the first work machine. from Yasutaka’s teachings.
Regarding claim 15, as detailed above, combination Yasutaka teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 13. Yasutaka further teaches:
wherein the processor calculates, based on the work plan, a predicted value of the amount of charge remaining of the battery when work of the second work machine ends (Yasutaka: ¶ 009; A work amount plan storage unit in which a change in the amount of work indicating the work amount of the construction machine is stored as a work amount plan, and a time required for work of the construction machine based on the work amount plan stored in the work amount plan storage unit A required power amount calculation unit that calculates a time change of a required power amount that indicates a change in the amount of power accompanying the elapse of time) and when a plurality of the second work machines are present, determines, based on the predicted value of the amount of charge remaining of the battery, the second work machine to charge the battery of the first work machine. (Yasutaka: ¶ 014; it is possible to estimate the number of exchanges and the replacement time of the towed vehicle according to the work amount plan in the predetermined period of the construction machine, and to charge the charged towed vehicle so as to be in time for the replacement time)
Regarding claim 16, as detailed above, combination Yasutaka teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 15. To the extent Yasutaka does not explicitly teach or is silent regarding:
wherein the processor causes the second work machine including the battery with the largest predicted value of the amount of charge remaining to charge the battery of the first work machine.
Yasutaka does teach a system in which the amount of battery remaining in the secondary unit is considered (Yasutaka: ¶ 066; example of the selection algorithm of the first towed vehicle, a towed vehicle with a large amount of electric power that can be outputted at the time of S 604 where the state parameters of the battery 10 of each towed vehicle 400 is read . . is selected), and optimizing if the ideal amount of charge is the most, least, or most closely matched to the required to complete the work process is a mere optimization of an ideal value under MPEP § 2144.05.II.A. Therefore a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been taught wherein the processor causes the second work machine including the battery with the largest predicted value of the amount of charge remaining to charge the battery of the first work machine. from Yasutaka’s teachings.
Regarding claim 19, Yasutaka teaches a method for
managing a work machine, the method comprising: (Yasutaka: ¶ 009; a management station terminal system of a construction machine) acquiring an amount of charge remaining of a battery of each of a plurality of work machines at a work site; (Yasutaka: ¶ 009; a state of the battery read from the battery state storage unit) determining whether a first work machine including the battery that needs to be charged is present; (Yasutaka: ¶ 009; A work amount plan storage unit in which a change in the amount of work indicating the work amount of the construction machine is stored as a work amount plan, and a time required for work of the construction machine based on the work amount plan stored in the work amount plan storage unit A required power amount calculation unit that calculates a time change of a required power amount that indicates a change in the amount of power accompanying the elapse of time) determining whether a second work machine including a battery capable of charging the battery of the first work machine is present; and (Yasutaka: ¶ 014; it is possible to estimate the number of exchanges and the replacement time of the towed vehicle according to the work amount plan in the predetermined period of the construction machine, and to charge the charged towed vehicle so as to be in time for the replacement time)
To the extent Yasutaka is silent about or does not explicitly teach: outputting a charging command to charge the battery of the first work machine to the second work machine when the first work machine and the second work machine are determined to be present. Ropel does teach:
outputting a charging command to charge the battery of the first work machine to the second work machine when the first work machine and the second work machine are determined to be present. (Ropel: ¶ 130; the system-implemented method 1100 can comprise automatically initiating, by the system (e.g., communication component 816), a broadcast of a request for the charge upon obtaining the notification.).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Ropel with the teachings of Yasutaka because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of "a more efficient process to realizing electric charge transfer between electric vehicles" (Ropel: ¶ 165).
Regarding claim 20, Yasutaka teaches a
work machine comprising a processor, (Yasutaka: ¶ 009; a management station terminal system of a construction machine) wherein the processor acquires an amount of charge remaining of a batter of another work machine at a work site, (Yasutaka: ¶ 009; a state of the battery read from the battery state storage unit)
determines whether another work machine including a battery that needs to be charged is present, and (Yasutaka: ¶ 009; A work amount plan storage unit in which a change in the amount of work indicating the work amount of the construction machine is stored as a work amount plan, and a time required for work of the construction machine based on the work amount plan stored in the work amount plan storage unit A required power amount calculation unit that calculates a time change of a required power amount that indicates a change in the amount of power accompanying the elapse of time) outputs, upon determining that the other work machine including the battery that needs to be charged is present, (Yasutaka: ¶ 014; it is possible to estimate the number of exchanges and the replacement time of the towed vehicle according to the work amount plan in the predetermined period of the construction machine, and to charge the charged towed vehicle so as to be in time for the replacement time)
To the extent Yasutaka is silent about or does not explicitly teach: a charging command to charge the batter of the other work machine. Ropel does teach:
a charging command to charge the batter of the other work machine. (Ropel: ¶ 130; the system-implemented method 1100 can comprise automatically initiating, by the system (e.g., communication component 816), a broadcast of a request for the charge upon obtaining the notification.).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Ropel with the teachings of Yasutaka because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of "a more efficient process to realizing electric charge transfer between electric vehicles" (Ropel: ¶ 165).
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination Yasutaka as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Nasr et al. (US 20230234464 A1).
Regarding claim 17, as detailed above, combination Yasutaka teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. To the extent Yasutaka is silent about or does not explicitly teach:
wherein the processor transmits the charging command to an in-vehicle controller of the second work machine. Nasr does teach:
wherein the processor transmits the charging command to an in-vehicle controller of the second work machine. (Nasr: ¶ 118; vehicle 10 is configured to communicate with another vehicle (e.g., another vehicle 10). In such a configuration, the vehicle 10 may approach the second vehicle, or the second vehicle may approach the vehicle 10. The second vehicle may transfer electrical energy to the vehicle 10 (e.g., to charge the batteries 50)).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Nasr with the teachings of Yasutaka because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of optimizing fleet mix to allow competition of work tasks (Nasr: ¶ 146).
Regarding claim 18, as detailed above, combination Yasutaka teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. To the extent Yasutaka is silent about or does not explicitly teach:
wherein the second work machine charges, based on the charging command received, the battery of the first work machine by wire. Nasr does teach:
wherein the second work machine charges, based on the charging command received, the battery of the first work machine by wire. (Nasr: ¶ 118; vehicle 10 is configured to communicate with another vehicle . . . may communicate electrical energy with the second vehicle 10 through the connectors 420 and/or through the charging coils 410.).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Nasr with the teachings of Yasutaka because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of optimizing fleet mix to allow competition of work tasks (Nasr: ¶ 146).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure Takasu et al. (US 20220405673 A1)which discloses an “information processing apparatus is provided that generates use plan information of batteries for performing each step included in tasks by electrical machines capable of sharing batteries.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES PALL whose telephone number is (571)272-5280. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:30 - 18:30.
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 on 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 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/C.P./ Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights