DETAILED ACTION
In the response filed 3 June 2025; claims 2-3 were cancelled, claims 1 and 5 were amended, and claims 6-13 added. The double patenting rejections of claims 1-5 are removed due to the divergent subject matter in the amended claims, however they may need to be reinstituted in the future if the claims converge back again. The 35 USC 112 rejection of claim 5 is removed due to amendment. The 35 USC 102 rejections of claims 1, 4, and 5 are maintained. 35 USC 102 rejections of claims 6-13 are added. 35 USC 112 rejections of claims 6 and 10 are added.
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 Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10, line 3, “grater” should be –greater--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 6 and 10 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.
With regards to both claims 6 and 10, it is unclear to the examiner what “a first charging opportunity that the charging facility is usable in the first time zone” entails. As described in claim 1, the movable part is in the accommodating state when in the first time zone, i.e. the charger is underground in the first time zone and therefore would never be usable in the first time zone. Accordingly, it is unclear how a first charging opportunity would ever exist.
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.
Claim(s) 1, and 4-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Freeling-Wilkinson (US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0324661).
In reference to claim 1, Freeling-Wilkinson teaches a charging facility comprising:
a movable part (Figures 1, 2, charging potion 101) including a power transmitting unit configured to transmit power to a vehicle (Figures 1, 3, charging outlet for connection to a vehicle 104);
an elevating device configured to move the movable part up and down (Figures 4, 5, scissor jack 114 moves the charging portion up and down) between an accommodated state in which the movable part is accommodated under the ground (Figure 4 showing the charging portion down when the jack is compressed) and an exposed state in which the movable part is exposed on the ground (Figures 5 showing the charging potion up when the jack is extended); and
a control device configured to control the elevating device (Figures 1, 2, controller 112), wherein
the control device is further configured to control the elevating device such that the movable part maintains the accommodated state for a first time zone and the movable part maintains the exposed state for a second time zone different from the first time zone (Paragraph [0006] controller being configured to determine whether a predetermined period of time has elapsed since the most recent charging from the charging outlet ceased and cause the retraction mechanism to move the charging portion to the retracted position if the predetermined period of time is determined to have elapsed since the most recent electrical supply from the outlet, the first time zone being considered the time after the predetermined period has elapsed and the 2nd time zone being during the predetermined period which are mutually exclusive from one another), and
the control device, in the first time zone, is further configured to ignore a user operation so as to control the elevating device to maintain the accommodated state (Paragraph [0071] “some factors may fully override other factors, for example, if the weather is deemed too hot for safe operation this may override the user’s input preferred time” The examiner interprets this to mean that if it is too hot for safe operations and a user tried to enter a time to charge, the system would ignore it and stay in the retracted state).
In reference to claim 4, Freeling-Wilkinson teaches wherein the first and second time zones are determined based on a condition of congestion around the charging facility (Paragraph [0069] the timing periods can be based on the time of day to risk of collisions with vehicles or pedestrians which is considered a condition of congestion).
In reference to claim 5, Freeling-Wilkinson teaches method for controlling a charging facility, the charging facility configured to move a movable part (Figures 1, 2, charging potion 101) that moves the movable part up and down (Figures 4, 5, scissor jack 114 moves the charging portion up and down) between an accommodated state in which the movable part is accommodated under the ground (Figure 4 showing the charging portion down when the jack is compressed) and an exposed state in which the movable part is exposed on the ground (Figures 5 showing the charging potion up when the jack is extended), the movable part including a power transmitting unit that transmits power to a vehicle (Figures 1, 3, charging outlet for connection to a vehicle 104)the method comprising:
ignoring a user operation so as to maintain the movable part in the accommodated state for a first time zone (Paragraph [0071] “some factors may fully override other factors, for example, if the weather is deemed too hot for safe operation this may override the user’s input preferred time” The examiner interprets this to mean that if it is too hot for safe operations and a user tried to enter a time to charge, the system would ignore it and stay in the retracted state); and
maintaining the movable part in the exposed state for a second time zone different from the first time zone (Paragraph [0006] controller being configured to determine whether a predetermined period of time has elapsed since the most recent charging from the charging outlet ceased and cause the retraction mechanism to move the charging portion to the retracted position if the predetermined period of time is determined to have elapsed since the most recent electrical supply from the outlet, the first time zone being considered the time after the predetermined period has elapsed and the 2nd time zone being during the predetermined period which are mutually exclusive from one another).
In reference to claim 6, Freeling-Wilkinson teaches a second charging opportunity that the charging facility is usable in the second time zone is larger than a first charging opportunity that the charging facility is usable in the first time zone (Paragraphs [0063-0071] as described above in the 112 rejections the first charging opportunity does not exist or is zero because the charger cannot change in the retracted state and therefore the second charging opportunity would always be greater than the first charging opportunity).
In reference to claim 7, Freeling-Wilkinson teaches wherein the control device is configured to set the first time zone and the second time zone based on results of the first and the second charging opportunities learned from a charging frequency during a predetermined past period (Paragraph [0063-64] time zones can be derived based upon the behavior of a large number of users).
In reference to claim 8, Freeling-Wilkinson teaches wherein in the first time zone and when the movable part is in the accommodated state, despite that the user operation is an operation to raise the movable part, the control device is configured to ignore the user operation and control the elevating device to maintain the movable part in the accommodated state (Paragraph [0071] “some factors may fully override other factors, for example, if the weather is deemed too hot for safe operation this may override the user’s input preferred time” The examiner interprets this to mean that if it is too hot for safe operations and a user tried to enter a time to charge, the system would ignore it and stay in the retracted state).
In reference to claim 9, Freeling-Wilkinson teaches the first and second time zones are determined based on a condition of congestion around the charging facility (Paragraph 0069, time of day due to increased risk of collisions with vehicles or pedestrians which is considered congestion).
In reference to claim 10, Freeling-Wilkinson teaches a second charging opportunity that the charging facility is usable in the second time zone is greater than a first charging opportunity that the charging facility is usable in the first time zone (Paragraphs [0063-0071] as described above in the 112 rejections the first charging opportunity does not exist or is zero because the charger cannot change in the retracted state and therefore the second charging opportunity would always be greater than the first charging opportunity).
In reference to claim 11, Freeling-Wilkinson teaches wherein the control device is configured to set the first time zone and the second time zone based on results of the first and the second charging opportunities learned from a charging frequency during a predetermined past period (Paragraph [0063-64] time zones can be derived based upon the behavior of a large number of users).
In reference to claim 12, Freeling-Wilkinson teaches wherein the first and second time zones are determined based on a number of pedestrians around the charging facility (Paragraph 0069, time of day due to increased risk of collisions with pedestrians).
In reference to claim 13, Freeling-Wilkinson teaches the first and second time zones are determined based on a number of times the movable part is moved up and down in accordance with a charging opportunity, and an increase or decrease of pedestrians around the charging facility per season (Paragraph 0071, factors may influence the period of time in combination, including Paragraph 0064 number of times the part is moved up and down in accordance with a charging opportunity and Paragraph 0069, time of day due to increased risk of collisions with pedestrians).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks filed 3 June 2025, with respect to the double patenting rejections of claims 1-5 and the 35 USC 112 rejection of claim 5 have been fully considered and are persuasive. These of rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 3 June 2025 with respect to the 35 USC 102 rejections of claims 1, 4, and 5 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Freeling Wilkinson fails to teach the added limitation of “the control device, in the first time zone, is further configured to ignore a user operation so as to control the elevating device to maintain the accommodated state”. The examiner disagrees. As stated in Paragraph 0071, Freeling Wilkinson discloses “some factors may fully override other factors, for example, if the weather is deemed too hot for safe operation this may override the user’s input preferred time”. The examiner interprets this to mean if that if it is too hot for safe operations and a user tried to enter a time to charge, the system would ignore it and stay in the retracted state. It would not make sense to extend the charging system during times when it is not safe to operate.
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 BRANDON BOWERS whose telephone number is (571)272-1888. The examiner can normally be reached Flex M-F 7am-6pm.
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, Jack Chiang can be reached at (571) 272-7483. 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.
/B.B/Examiner, Art Unit 2851
/JACK CHIANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2851