Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/10/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
In the communication filed on 02/10/2026, claims 1-2, 5-10, 12-13, 16-19, and 21-26 are pending. Claims 1-2, 5, 7, 9, 12-13, 16, and 18 are amended. Claims 21-26 are new. Claims 3-4, 11, 14-15, and 20 are presently cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended independent claims 1 and 12, as well as their dependent claims, have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 02/23/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
“first charging method”
“second charging method”
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) and/or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
The specification lacks antecedent basis for the following claim terms:
“first charging method”
“second charging method”
Each of the “first charging method” and the “second charging method” is interpreted to be one of either “regular charging” or “quick charging”.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 5-9 introduce a few features twice (“a period of a first time”, “a plurality of charging methods”). It may be that the applicant intended to remove the limitation of lines 5-6 (“selecting a charging method … out of a plurality of charging methods”), as was done for amended claim 12. For examination purposes, it is interpreted that lines 5-6 are essentially redundant and superseded by the new subject matter of amended claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 5-10, 12-13, 16-19, and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Examiner Note: As presently written, the claims are for a machine and a method associated with selecting charging methods, making a plan, and evaluating time and energy constraints associated with a updating a program. However, the machine claims do not claim that the machine is configured to perform charging or updating. Similarly, the method claims do not claim that any actual charging or updating is performed. It is suggested to amend the independent claims to incorporate new limitation(s) to claim what step(s) is/are performed after all the prior selecting, planning, and evaluating steps are completed. Such limitations may help the claims amount to a practical application rather than an abstract idea.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Claims 1-2, 5-10, 21, and 23-24 recite “an information processing device”. Thus, the claims are to a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claims 12-13, 16-19, 22, and 25-26 recite “an information processing method”. Thus, the claims are to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea?
Independent Claim 1 recites:
An information processing device comprising a control unit configured to perform:
acquiring a first amount of charged electric power required for a battery that operates a predetermined device;
selecting a charging method enabling charging with at least the first amount of charged electric power in a period of a first time out of a plurality of charging methods;
determining whether charging with the first amount of charged electric power can be completed by a first charging method of a plurality of charging methods in a period of a first time [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined elements recite mathematic concepts because they are mathematical calculations];
when it is determined that charging cannot be completed by the first charging method, determining whether charging with the first amount of charged electric power can be completed by a second charging method of the plurality of charging methods in the period of the first time [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined elements recite mathematic concepts because they are mathematical calculations];
and when it is determined that charging cannot be completed by the second charging method, making a plan for a next operation schedule without updating of a first program mounted in the predetermined device [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined elements recite mental processes because the human mind can plan the next operation of the predetermined device without updating a program; this limitation lacks the application of the plan, which would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application].
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application?
The elements that are not underlined above are the additional elements.
The examiner finds that the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The examiner further finds that the additional elements merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or merely includes instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea?
The examiner finds that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Independent Claim 12 recites:
An information processing method that is performed by a computer, the information processing method comprising:
acquiring a first amount of charged electric power required for a battery that operates a predetermined device;
determining whether charging with the first amount of charged electric power can be completed by a first charging method of a plurality of charging methods in a period of a first time [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined elements recite mathematic concepts because they are mathematical calculations];
when it is determined that charging cannot be completed by the first charging method, determining whether charging with the first amount of charged electric power can be completed by a second charging method of the plurality of charging methods in the period of the first time [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined elements recite mathematic concepts because they are mathematical calculations];
and when it is determined that charging cannot be completed by the second charging method, making a plan for a next operation schedule without updating of a first program mounted in the predetermined device [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined elements recite mental processes because the human mind can plan the next operation of the predetermined device without updating a program; this limitation lacks the application of the plan, which would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application].
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application?
The elements that are not underlined above are the additional elements.
The examiner finds that the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The examiner further finds that the additional elements merely recite the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or merely includes instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea?
The examiner finds that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding dependent Claims 2 and 13, the examiner finds that each of the following additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use:
wherein the control unit / computer is configured to perform acquiring the first period of time based on either schedule information of the predetermined device or schedule information of a user of the predetermined device.
Regarding dependent Claims 21-22, the examiner further finds that the following underlined elements recite mental processes because the human mind can plan the first plan. This limitation lacks the application of the first plan, which would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
making a first plan including charging of the battery with at least the first amount of charged electric power based on the first charging method or the second charging method and at least updating of the first program.
The examiner further finds that each of the following additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use:
the control unit / computer is configured to further perform:
acquiring information on updating of the first program mounted in the predetermined device, wherein the information includes a data volume of update data used to rewrite the first program;
acquiring the first amount of charged electric power based on the information on updating of the first program;
Regarding dependent Claims 5 and 16, the examiner finds that each of the following additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use:
the control unit / computer is configured to perform acquiring the first amount of charged electric power from the current residual capacity of the battery, a first amount of consumed electric power of the battery which is scheduled to be consumed in operating the predetermined device in a predetermined time, and a second amount of consumed electric power of the battery which is scheduled to be consumed in updating at least the first program.
Regarding dependent Claims 6 and 17, the examiner finds that each of the following additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use:
the first plan additionally includes downloading update data of the first program,
and wherein the control unit / computer is configured to perform acquiring the first amount of charged electric power based on a third amount of consumed electric power of the battery which is scheduled to be consumed in downloading the update data of the first program in addition to the first amount of consumed electric power and the second amount of consumed electric power.
Regarding dependent Claims 7 and 18, the examiner further finds that the following underlined elements recite mental processes because the human mind can plan the first plan. This limitation lacks the application of the first plan, which would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
making the first plan such that the time up to the next start of use of the predetermined device is equal to or greater than the second time.
The examiner further finds that each of the following additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use:
the first period of time is a time up to next start of use of the predetermined device,
and wherein the control unit / computer is configured to further perform:
acquiring a second time required for updating the first program based on the data volume of update data used to rewrite the first program;
Regarding dependent Claims 8 and 19, the examiner further finds that the following underlined elements recite mental processes because the human mind can plan the first plan. This limitation lacks the application of the first plan, which would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
making the first plan such that the time up to the next start of use of the predetermined device is equal to or greater than a sum of the second time and the third time.
The examiner further finds that each of the following additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use:
the control unit / computer is configured to further perform:
acquiring a third time required for downloading update data of the first program based on the data volume of update data used to rewrite the first program;
Regarding dependent Claim 9, the examiner finds that each of the following additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use:
the predetermined device is a vehicle that is able to travel autonomously,
wherein the information processing device is a server that communicates with the vehicle,
and wherein the control unit is configured to perform transmitting the first plan to the vehicle.
Regarding dependent Claim 10, the examiner finds that each of the following additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use:
the predetermined device is a vehicle that is able to travel autonomously,
and wherein the information processing device is a computer that is mounted in the vehicle.
Dependent Claims 23 and 25 recite:
the control unit / computer is configured to further perform:
estimating a time point at which charging with the first amount of charged electric power is completed [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined elements recite mathematic concepts because they are mathematical calculations];
presenting the estimated time point to an operator;
and setting the estimated time point as a next operation start time based on a confirmation from the operator.
The elements that are not underlined above are the additional elements.
The examiner further finds that the additional element the control unit / computer is configured to further perform merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or merely includes instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
The examiner finds that the following additional elements presenting the estimated time point to an operator; and setting the estimated time point as a next operation start time based on a confirmation from the operator do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claim does not provide a practical action that occurs as a result of setting the next operation start time. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Dependent Claims 24 and 26 recite:
the control unit is configured to further perform:
estimating a charging completion time from a required time for charging [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined elements recite mathematic concepts because they are mathematical calculations];
estimating a completion time of updating from a required time for updating the first program [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined elements recite mathematic concepts because they are mathematical calculations];
and notifying an operator that a later time of the charging completion time and the completion time of updating is to be set as a next operation start time.
The elements that are not underlined above are the additional elements.
The examiner further finds that the additional element the control unit / computer is configured to further perform merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or merely includes instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
The examiner finds that the additional element notifying an operator that a later time of the charging completion time and the completion time of updating is to be set as a next operation start time do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claim does not provide a practical action that occurs as a result of setting the next operation start time. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The examiner finds that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
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 1-2 and 12-13 are rejected on the ground of provisional nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1 and 9 of copending application number 17/824,050 (amended claims filed 02/18/2025) in view of Ando et al. (US 2016/0221455 A1).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
The following table compares the instant application and the copending application’s claims. The patentably indistinct claim language is identified with bold text.
Instant Application 17/710,006
Copending 17/824,050
Claim 1
An information processing device comprising a control unit configured to perform:
acquiring a first amount of charged electric power required for a battery that operates a predetermined device;
selecting a charging method enabling charging with at least the first amount of charged electric power in a period of a first time out of a plurality of charging methods;
determining whether charging with the first amount of charged electric power can be completed by a first charging method of a plurality of charging methods in a period of a first time;
when it is determined that charging cannot be completed by the first charging method, determining whether charging with the first amount of charged electric power can be completed by a second charging method of the plurality of charging methods in the period of the first time;
and when it is determined that charging cannot be completed by the second charging method, making a plan for a next operation schedule without updating of a first program mounted in the predetermined device.
Claim 1
An information processing device comprising a control unit configured to perform:
designate the necessary charging capacity based on an amount of electric power of the battery which is scheduled to be consumed in operating of the predetermined device in a predetermined time;
notifying the predetermined device of information of a first spot in which the predetermined device is able to be charged using the regular charging among the plurality of charging methods
… to provide the battery with enough energy to perform the operating of the predetermined device in the predetermined time.
notifying the predetermined device of information of a first spot in which the predetermined device is able to be charged using the regular charging
… the calculated charging times is notified to a user at an appropriate timing when charging is possible to provide the battery with enough energy to
perform the operating of the predetermined device in the predetermined time
notifying the predetermined device of information of … a second spot in which the predetermined device is able to be charged using the fast charging among the plurality of charging methods
… the calculated charging times is notified to a user at an appropriate timing when charging is possible to provide the battery with enough energy to
perform the operating of the predetermined device in the predetermined time
(no equivalent claim language)
Claim 21
The information processing device according to claim 1,
wherein the control unit is configured to further perform:
acquiring information on updating of the first program mounted in the predetermined device,
wherein the information includes a data volume of update data used to rewrite the first program; acquiring the first amount of charged electric power based on the information on updating of the first program;
and making a first plan including charging of the battery with at least the first amount of charged electric power based on the first charging method or the second charging method and at least updating of the first program.
Claim 1
An information processing device comprising a control unit configured to perform:
(no equivalent claim language)
(no equivalent claim language)
notifying the predetermined device of information of a first spot in which the predetermined device is able to be charged using the regular charging
… the calculated charging times is notified to a user at an appropriate timing when charging is possible to provide the battery with enough energy
(no equivalent claim language to “and at least updating of the first program”)
Claim 9
The information processing device according to claim 21,
wherein the predetermined device is a vehicle that is able to travel autonomously,
wherein the information processing device is a server that communicates with the vehicle,
and wherein the control unit is configured to perform transmitting the first plan to the vehicle.
Claim 7
wherein the predetermined device is a vehicle that is able to travel autonomously,
wherein the information processing device is a server that communicates with the vehicle,
and wherein the control unit is configured to transmit the acquired charging time to the vehicle.
Claim 10
The information processing device according to claim 21,
wherein the predetermined device is a vehicle that is able to travel autonomously,
and wherein the information processing device is a computer that is mounted in the vehicle.
Claim 8
wherein the predetermined device is a vehicle that is able to travel autonomously,
and wherein the information processing device is a computer that is mounted in the vehicle.
Claim 12
An information processing method that is performed by a computer, the information processing method comprising:
acquiring a first amount of charged electric power required for a battery that operates a predetermined device;
determining whether charging with the first amount of charged electric power can be completed by a first charging method of a plurality of charging methods within a first period of time;
when it is determined that charging cannot be completed by the first charging method, determining whether charging with the first amount of charged electric power can be completed by a second charging method of the plurality of charging methods in the first period of time;
and when it is determined that charging cannot be completed by the second charging method, making a plan for a next operation schedule without updating of a first program mounted in the predetermined device
Claim 9
An information processing method that is performed by a computer, the information processing method comprising:
designate the necessary charging capacity based on an amount of electric power of the battery which is scheduled to be consumed in operating of the predetermined device in a predetermined time;
notifying the predetermined device of information of a first spot in which the predetermined device is able to be charged using the regular charging
… the calculated charging times is notified to a user at an appropriate timing when charging is possible to provide the battery with enough energy to
perform the operating of the predetermined device in the predetermined time
notifying the predetermined device of information of … a second spot in which the predetermined device is able to be charged using the fast charging among the plurality of charging methods
… the calculated charging times is notified to a user at an appropriate timing when charging is possible to provide the battery with enough energy to
perform the operating of the predetermined device in the predetermined time
(no equivalent claim language)
Claim 22
The information processing method according to claim 12, wherein the computer is configured to further perform:
acquiring information on updating of the first program mounted in the predetermined device,
wherein the information includes a data volume of update data used to rewrite the first program; acquiring the first amount of charged electric power based on the information on updating of the first program;
and making a first plan including charging of the battery with at least the first amount of charged electric power based on the first charging method or the second charging method and at least updating of the first program.
Claim 9
An information processing method that is performed by a computer, the information processing method comprising:
(no equivalent claim language)
(no equivalent claim language)
notifying the predetermined device of information of a first spot in which the predetermined device is able to be charged using the regular charging
… the calculated charging times is notified to a user at an appropriate timing when charging is possible to provide the battery with enough energy
(no equivalent claim language to “and at least updating of the first program”)
Regarding independent Claims 1 and 12, the copending application does not claim that “when it is determined that charging cannot be completed by the second charging method, making a plan for a next operation schedule without updating of a first program mounted in the predetermined device.”
Ando teaches (see detailed claim item mapping included infra in the prior art rejection) that when it is determined that charging cannot be completed by the second charging method, making a plan for a next operation schedule without updating of a first program mounted in the predetermined device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the control unit / computer claimed by the copending application to make a plan for a next operation schedule (Ando: “quick charging with a reduced amount of current”) without updating a first program, as taught by Ando, as a logical response to accommodate a time constraint and ensure some productive action is taken (Ando ¶ [52-54]).
Regarding dependent claims 2 and 13, the copending application does not claim the control unit / computer “is configured to perform acquiring the first period of time based on either schedule information of the predetermined device or schedule information of a user of the predetermined device”.
Ando teaches (see detailed claim item mapping included infra in the prior art rejection) the control unit /computer is configured to perform acquiring the first period of time based on either schedule information of the predetermined device or schedule information of a user of the predetermined device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the control unit / computer claimed by the copending application to acquire the first period of time based on schedule information, as taught by Ando, to improve convenience for the user (Ando ¶ [54]).
Claims 9-10 and 21-22 are rejected on the ground of provisional nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1 and 7-9 of copending application number 17/824,050 (amended claims filed 02/18/2025) in view of Ando et al. (US 2016/0221455 A1) and Morii et al. (US 2021/0188243 A1).
The following table compares the instant application and the copending application’s claims. The patentably indistinct claim language is identified with bold text.
Instant Application 17/710,006
Copending 17/824,050
Claim 21
The information processing device according to claim 1,
wherein the control unit is configured to further perform:
acquiring information on updating of the first program mounted in the predetermined device,
wherein the information includes a data volume of update data used to rewrite the first program; acquiring the first amount of charged electric power based on the information on updating of the first program;
and making a first plan including charging of the battery with at least the first amount of charged electric power based on the first charging method or the second charging method and at least updating of the first program.
Claim 1
An information processing device comprising a control unit configured to perform:
(no equivalent claim language)
(no equivalent claim language)
notifying the predetermined device of information of a first spot in which the predetermined device is able to be charged using the regular charging
… the calculated charging times is notified to a user at an appropriate timing when charging is possible to provide the battery with enough energy
(no equivalent claim language to “and at least updating of the first program”)
Claim 9
The information processing device according to claim 21,
wherein the predetermined device is a vehicle that is able to travel autonomously,
wherein the information processing device is a server that communicates with the vehicle,
and wherein the control unit is configured to perform transmitting the first plan to the vehicle.
Claim 7
wherein the predetermined device is a vehicle that is able to travel autonomously,
wherein the information processing device is a server that communicates with the vehicle,
and wherein the control unit is configured to transmit the acquired charging time to the vehicle.
Claim 10
The information processing device according to claim 21,
wherein the predetermined device is a vehicle that is able to travel autonomously,
and wherein the information processing device is a computer that is mounted in the vehicle.
Claim 8
wherein the predetermined device is a vehicle that is able to travel autonomously,
and wherein the information processing device is a computer that is mounted in the vehicle.
Claim 22
The information processing method according to claim 12, wherein the computer is configured to further perform:
acquiring information on updating of the first program mounted in the predetermined device,
wherein the information includes a data volume of update data used to rewrite the first program; acquiring the first amount of charged electric power based on the information on updating of the first program;
and making a first plan including charging of the battery with at least the first amount of charged electric power based on the first charging method or the second charging method and at least updating of the first program.
Claim 9
An information processing method that is performed by a computer, the information processing method comprising:
(no equivalent claim language)
(no equivalent claim language)
notifying the predetermined device of information of a first spot in which the predetermined device is able to be charged using the regular charging
… the calculated charging times is notified to a user at an appropriate timing when charging is possible to provide the battery with enough energy
(no equivalent claim language to “and at least updating of the first program”)
Regarding dependent claims 21 and 22, the copending application does not claim the control unit / computer is configured to further perform “acquiring information on updating of the first program mounted in the predetermined device, wherein the information includes a data volume of update data used to rewrite the first program; acquiring the first amount of charged electric power based on the information on updating of the first program”.
The copending application further does not claim the first plan includes “at least updating of the first program.”
Mor teaches (see detailed claim item mapping included infra in the prior art rejection) the control unit is configured to further perform: acquiring information on updating of the first program mounted in the predetermined device, wherein the information includes a data volume of update data used to rewrite the first program; acquiring the first amount of charged electric power based on the information on updating of the first program;
Mor further teaches making a first plan including charging of the battery with at least the first amount of charged electric power based on the first charging method or the second charging method and at least updating of the first program.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the control unit / computer claimed by the copending application to make a first plan for charging the battery based on information on updating a first program, as taught by Morii, to prevent the update from failing due to insufficient electric power.
Regarding dependent Claim 9, the claimed dependent subject matter is included in the copending application’s claim 7.
Regarding dependent Claim 10, the claimed dependent subject matter is included in the copending application’s claim 8.
Claims 5-6 and 16-17 are rejected on the ground of provisional nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1 and 9 of copending application number 17/824,050 (amended claims filed 02/18/2025) in view of Ando et al. (US 2016/0221455 A1), Morii et al. (US 2021/0188243 A1), and Gantt (US 2017/0300313 A1; hereinafter “Gan”).
Regarding dependent claims 5 and 16, the copending application’s claims 1 and 9 claim patentably indistinct subject matter to the control unit / computer is configured to perform acquiring the first amount of charged electric power from the current residual capacity of the battery (claims 1, 9: “designate the necessary charging capacity” and “based on a current residual capacity of the battery and the necessary charging capacity”), a first amount of consumed electric power of the battery which is scheduled to be consumed in operating the predetermined device in a predetermined time (claims 1, 9: “designate the necessary charging capacity based on an amount of electric power of the battery which is scheduled to be consumed in operating of the predetermined device in a predetermined time”).
The copending application does not claim “a second amount of consumed electric power of the battery which is scheduled to be consumed in updating at least the first program”.
Gan teaches (see detailed claim item mapping included infra in the prior art rejection) a second amount of consumed electric power of the battery which is scheduled to be consumed in updating at least the first program.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the control unit / computer claimed by the copending application to additionally acquire an amount of consumed power to update a program, as taught by Gan, to ensure there is sufficient energy remaining in the battery to update the program (Gan ¶ [4]) and improving the success rate of the update (Gan ¶ [11]).
Regarding dependent claims 6 and 17, the copending application claims 1 and 9 claim patentably indistinct subject matter to the control unit / computer is configured to perform acquiring the first amount of charged electric power.
The copending application does not claim “the first plan additionally includes downloading update data of the first program”.
The copending application does not claim “the acquisition of the first amount of charged electric power is “based on a third amount of consumed electric power of the battery which is scheduled to be consumed in downloading the update data of the first program in addition to the first amount of consumed electric power and the second amount of consumed electric power.”
Morii teaches (see detailed claim item mapping included infra in the prior art rejection) the first plan additionally includes downloading update data of the first program.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the control unit / computer claimed by the copending application to include downloading update data of the first program, as taught by Morii, as a necessary step in receiving an upgrade to the first program to solve a problem in the first program (Morii ¶ [34-35]).
Gan teaches acquiring a third amount of consumed electric power (Fig. 3, step 232a; ¶ [30]: “expected amount of energy needed for wireless download of the software package”; ¶ [55]: “enough power supplied … to perform the installation”) of the battery (“15”; Fig. 1) which is scheduled to be consumed in downloading the update data of the first program (Fig. 3, step 232a; ¶ [30]: “… for wireless download of the software package”).
Gan further teaches this is in addition to the second amount of consumed electric power (Fig. 3, step 232a; ¶ [30]: “expected amount of energy needed … for installation of the software”; ¶ [55]: “enough power supplied … to perform the installation”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the control unit / computer claimed by the copending application to additionally acquire a third amount of consumed power to update a program, as further taught by Gan, in addition to the first and second amounts of consumed power discussed infra, to ensure there is sufficient energy remaining in the battery to update the program (Gan ¶ [4]) and to improve the success rate of the update (Gan ¶ [11]).
Claims 7-8 and 18-19 are rejected on the ground of provisional nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1 and 9 of copending application number 17/824,050 (amended claims filed 02/18/2025) in view of Ando et al. (US 2016/0221455 A1), Morii et al. (US 2021/0188243 A1), Shimizu et al. (US 2016/0047862 A1; hereinafter “Shi”), and Gantt (US 2017/0300313 A1; hereinafter “Gan”).
Regarding dependent claims 7 and 18, the copending application does not claim “the first period of time is a time up to next start of use of the predetermined device” and that the control unit / computer is configured to further perform “acquiring a second time required for updating the first program based on the data volume of update data used to rewrite the first program; and making the first plan such that the time up to the next start of use of the predetermined device is equal to or greater than the second time.”
Shi teaches (see detailed claim item mapping included infra in the prior art rejection) the first period of time is a time up to next start of use of the predetermined device.
Shi further teaches the control unit / is configured to perform acquiring a second time.
Shi further teaches making the first plan such that the time up to the next start of use of the predetermined device is equal to or greater than the second time.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the control unit / computer claimed by the copending application such that the first period of time is the time to next start of use, which is longer than a second time, as taught by Shi, to ensure all charging-related operations are complete at the start of the next journey (Shi ¶ [7]).
Gan teaches (see detailed claim item mapping included infra in the prior art rejection) acquiring a second time required for updating the first program based on the data volume of update data used to rewrite the first program.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the control unit / computer claimed by the copending application to be the time to update the program based on the data volume, as taught by Gan, to improve the success rate of the update (Gan ¶ [11]).
Regarding dependent claims 8 and 19, the copending application does not claim the control unit / computer is configured to further perform “acquiring a third time required for downloading the first program based on the data volume of update data used to rewrite the first program; and making the first plan such that the time up to the start of use of the predetermined device is equal to or greater than a sum of the second time and the third time.”
Shi teaches (see detailed claim item mapping included infra in the prior art rejection) the control unit / computer is configured to further perform acquiring a third time.
Shi further teaches making the first plan such that the time up to the next start of use of the predetermined device is equal to or greater than a sum of the second time and the third time.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the control unit / computer claimed by the copending application such that the first period of time is the time to next start of use, which is longer than a second time, as taught by Shi, to ensure all charging-related operations are complete at the start of the next journey (Shi ¶ [7]).
Gan teaches (see detailed claim item mapping included infra in the prior art rejection) acquiring a second time required for updating the first program based on the data volume of update data used to rewrite the first program.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the control unit / computer claimed by the copending application to acquire a second time to update the program based on the data volume, as taught by Gan, to improve the success rate of the update (Gan ¶ [11]).
Claims 23 and 25 are rejected on the ground of provisional nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1 and 9 of copending application number 17/824,050 (amended claims filed 02/18/2025) in view of Ando et al. (US 2016/0221455 A1) and Nagashima et al. (US 2010/0045242 A1; hereinafter “Naga”).
Regarding dependent claims 23 and 25, the copending application claims 1 and 9 claim patentably indistinct subject matter to the control unit is configured to further perform estimating a time point at which charging with the first amount of charged electric power is completed (“calculating a charging time required for charging the battery, based on a current residual capacity of the battery and the necessary charging capacity, with a first charging capacity for each of a plurality of charging methods including regular charging and fast charging”) and presenting the estimated time point to an operator (“displaying the charging times for each of the plurality of charging methods”).
The copending application does not claim “setting the estimated time point as a next operation start time based on a confirmation from the operator.”
Naga teaches (see detailed claim item mapping included infra in the prior art rejection) setting the estimated time point as a next operation start time based on a confirmation from the operator.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the control unit / computer claimed by the copending application to set the estimated time point as a next operation start time with operator confirmation, as taught by Naga, to improve convenience for the user.
Claims 24 and 26 are rejected on the ground of provisional nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1 and 9 of copending application number 17/824,050 (amended claims filed 02/18/2025) in view of Ando et al. (US 2016/0221455 A1), Murata et al. (US 2013/0132939 A1; hereinafter “Mur”), and Nagashima et al. (US 2010/0045242 A1; hereinafter “Naga”).
Regarding dependent claims 24 and 26, the copending application does not claim the control unit / computer is configured to further perform “estimating a charging completion time from a required time for charging estimating a completion time of updating from a required time for updating the first program; and notifying an operator that a later time of the charging completion time and the completion time of updating is to be set as a next operation start time”.
Mur teaches (see detailed claim item mapping included infra in the prior art rejection) estimating a charging completion time from a required time for charging and estimating a completion time of updating from a required time for updating the first program.
Mur further teaches identifying a later of the charging completion time and the completion time of updating is to be set as a next operation start time.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the control unit / computer claimed by the copending application to estimate and compare the required times for each of charging and program updating, as taught by Mur, to improve reliability of the program update process while the vehicle is simultaneously being charged.
Naga teaches notifying an operator that a later time is to be set as a next operation start time (Fig. 8G illustrates the display to notify the operator of the time “until completion of charging”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the control unit / computer claimed by the copending application to notify the operator of the next operation time (i.e., the charging completion time per Mur’s modification), as taught by Naga, to improve convenience for the user.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ando et al. (US 2016/0221455 A1).
Regarding Claims 1 and 12, Ando discloses an information processing device (“charging-control electronic control unit (ECU) 15”; Fig. 1; ¶ [31]: “15 outputs a charging command to the charging controller 12”, “15 … monitors a state of charge (SOC) of the drive battery 11”) comprising a control unit (15) configured to perform the following (i.e., for claim 1).
Ando further discloses an information processing method (title: “charging method of in-vehicle battery”; Fig. 4) that is performed by a computer (15), the information processing method comprising the following (i.e., for claim 12).
PNG
media_image1.png
941
1197
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ando further discloses acquiring a first amount of charged electric power (¶ [51]: “necessary amount of power”, which is the difference of the target SOC and the present SOC; “state of charge of the drive battery 11” and the “target value” / “full state of charge” acquired per ¶ [41]) required for a battery (“drive battery 11”; Fig. 1; also referred to as “in-vehicle battery”) that operates a predetermined device (“vehicle 100”; fig. 1; ¶ [28]: “electric vehicle in which an in-vehicle battery is charged”).
[Applicable to Claim 1 only:] Ando further discloses selecting a charging method (either “normal charging” or “quick charging”; Fig. 4) enabling charging with at least the first amount of charged electric power (“necessary amount of power”) in a period of a first time (“desired charging end time Tdmn”; Fig. 4) out of a plurality of charging methods (“normal” + “quick”).
Ando further discloses determining (Fig. 4, steps S20-S22) whether charging with the first amount of charged electric power (“necessary amount of power”) can be completed (i.e., reach the “target value”) by a first charging method (“normal charging”; Fig. 4) of a plurality of charging methods (“normal charging” and “quick charging”; Fig. 4) within a first period of time (“desired charging end time Tdmn”; Fig. 4).
Ando further discloses that when it is determined that charging cannot be completed by the first charging method (“NO” response to step S22; Fig. 4), determining (Fig. 4, steps S30-S31) whether charging with the first amount of charged electric power (“necessary amount of power”) can be completed (i.e., reach the “target value”; Fig. 4, step S31: “is end of charging possible?”; ¶ [52]: “15 determines whether the drive battery can be charged with the computed amount of current within the desired charging end time Tdnm”) by a second charging method (“quick charging”; Fig. 4) of the plurality of charging methods (“normal” + “quick”) in the first period of time (“Tdmn”).
NOTE: The claim language “making a plan for a next operation schedule without updating of a first program” is written very broadly. A “next operation schedule” can be almost any action that is planned to occur in the future. The language “without updating of a first program” can be anticipated by a method that simply does not involve any software updates.
Ando further discloses that when it is determined that charging cannot be completed by the second charging method (“NO” response to step S31; Fig. 4), making a plan for a next operation schedule (if “NO” response to step S31, the method returns to step S30 and determines a “reduced amount of current” per ¶ [52-54]; the “quick charging with a reduced amount of current” described in ¶ [54] is interpreted as a “next operation schedule”; determining the ”reduced amount of current” is interpreted as “making a plan for a next operation schedule”) without updating of a first program (making the plan for “quick charging with a reduced amount of current” does not involve any software updates of the “ECU 15”) mounted in the predetermined device (“vehicle 100”).
Regarding Claims 2 and 13, Ando discloses the information processing device according to claim 1 (i.e., for claim 2), as well as the information processing method according to claim 12 (i.e., for claim 12).
Ando further discloses each of the control unit (15) and the computer (15) is configured to perform acquiring the first period of time (Fig. 4, step S21: “acquire desired charging end time Tdmn”) based on schedule information of the predetermined device or schedule information of a user (¶ [13]: “desired charging end time set by a user”; ¶ [42]: “set in advance … through the use of an input operation unit on the vehicle 100 side by a user”; this “desired charging end time” can be interpreted as each of the claimed “schedule information of the predetermined device” and “schedule information of a user”) of the predetermined device (“vehicle 100”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ando et al. (US 2016/0221455 A1) in view of Morii et al. (US 2021/0188243 A1).
Regarding Claims 21-22, Ando discloses the information processing device according to claim 1 (i.e., for claim 21), as well as the information processing method according to claim 12 (i.e., for claim 22).
Ando further discloses the control unit / the computer (“ECU 15”) is configured to further perform making a first plan (choosing between “normal charging” and “quick charging” and associated timing; Fig. 4) including charging of the battery (11) with at least the first amount of charged electric power (“necessary amount of power”) based on the first charging method (“normal charging”) or the second charging method (“quick charging”).
Morii teaches the information processing method (title: “program update method”) wherein the control unit / the computer (“server device 20”; ¶ [33]: “20 is … a computer”) is configured to further perform the following actions.
Morii further teaches acquiring information (¶ [90]: “determines whether the update control program is present”; Fig. 8, step S22; per ¶ [86], also acquires “a data amount (a data size) thereof”) on updating of the first program (“control program” stored within “electronic control device 12” per ¶ [30]; to be updated per the “update control program”; Figs. 1-2, 4) mounted in the predetermined device (“12” within “vehicle 10”; Figs. 1-2, 4).
Morii further teaches the information (¶ [86]: “the update control program is present and …”) includes a data volume (¶ [86]: “… a data amount (a data size) thereof”) of update data (“update control program”) used to rewrite the first program (“control program”; ¶ [93]: “updating the control program based on the update control program”; Fig. 7, step S11).
NOTE: The instant application discloses in the specification ¶ [77]: “updating of a computer program not including downloading of update data is referred to as rewriting of a computer program”. The “update control program” taught by Morii is interpreted as being used to rewrite the “predetermined control program” per the definition provided in the instant application’s disclosure.
Morii further teaches acquiring (¶ [92]: “11 acquires the electric power amount Y required for updating the control program”) the first amount of charged electric power (“electric power amount Y”) based on the information on updating (¶ [92]: “Y can be acquired based on … the data amount of the update control program”) of the first program (“control program”).
Morii further teaches the control unit (11) is further configured to perform making a first plan (Fig. 7, steps S01-S11) including charging (Fig. 7, step S09: “charge first battery until remaining capacity X ≥ electric power amount Y”; ¶ [83]) of the battery (“first battery BAT1”; Fig. 2) with at least the first amount of charged electric power (“electric power amount Y”) based on the first charging method or the second charging method (user can select “yes” or “no” to update the control program, per the interface shown in Fig. 12; first charging method includes the update, whereas second charging method does not include the update) and at least updating of the first program (¶ [92]: “Y required for updating the control program”).
Morii teaches acquiring the information on updating of the first program and making a first plan including charging the battery based thereon to prevent the update from failing due to insufficient electric power (¶ [8, 10, 80]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the information processing method and control unit / computer disclosed by Ando to make a first plan for charging the battery based on information on updating a first program, as taught by Morii, to prevent the update from failing due to insufficient electric power.
Claims 5-8 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ando et al. (US 2016/0221455 A1) in view of Morii et al. (US 2021/0188243 A1), Shimizu et al. (US 2016/0047862 A1; hereinafter “Shi”), and Gantt (US 2017/0300313 A1; hereinafter “Gan”).
Regarding Claims 5 and 16, the combination of Ando and Morii teaches the information processing device according to claim 21 (i.e., for claim 5), as well as the information processing method according to claim 22 (i.e., for claim 16).
Ando further discloses the control unit / computer (“ECU 15”) is configured to perform acquiring the first amount of charged electric power (“necessary amount of power” is the difference of the target SOC and the present SOC; “state of charge of the drive battery 11” and the “target value” / “full state of charge” acquired per ¶ [41]) from the current residual capacity (¶ [41]: “state of charge of the drive battery 11”) of the battery (11).
Ando does not disclose the control unit / computer is further configured to perform acquiring “a first amount of consumed electric power of the battery which is scheduled to be consumed in operating the predetermined device in a predetermined time, and a second amount of consumed electric power of the battery which is scheduled to be consumed in updating at least the first program.”
Shi teaches acquiring a first amount of consumed electric power (Fig. 4, step 406; ¶ [72]: “target state of charge of the battery 197 may be configured such that the vehicle has sufficient power to complete at least the one or Moriie future journeys”) of the battery (“battery 197”; Figs. 1, 3) which is scheduled to be consumed (¶ [72]) in operating the predetermined device (“client device 103”; Fig. 1) in a predetermined time (¶ [67]: “308 estimates … a journey duration”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the information processing method and control unit / computer disclosed by the combination of Ando and Morii to additionally acquire an amount of power scheduled to be consumed in operating the predetermined device in a predetermined time, as taught by Shi, to ensure the predetermined device has sufficient stored energy to complete the upcoming journey (Shi ¶ [72]).
Gan teaches acquiring a second amount of consumed electric power (Fig. 3, step 232a; ¶ [30]: “expected amount of energy needed … for installation of the software”; ¶ [55]: “enough power supplied … to perform the installation”) of the battery (“24” within “vehicle 12”; Fig. 1) which is scheduled to be consumed in updating at least the first program (Fig. 3, step 232a; ¶ [30]: “… for installation of the software”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the information processing method and control unit / computer disclosed by the combination of Ando, Morii, and Shi to additionally acquire an amount of consumed power to update a program, as taught by Gan, to ensure there is sufficient energy remaining in the battery to update the program (Gan ¶ [4]) and improving the success rate of the update (Gan ¶ [11]).
Regarding Claims 6 and 17, the combination of Ando, Morii, Shi, and Gan teaches the information processing device according to claim 5 (i.e., for claim 6), as well as the information processing method according to claim 16 (i.e., for claim 17).
The combination of Ando, Morii, Shi, and Gan (as set forth prior) teaches the control unit / computer (Ando’s “ECU 15”, modified per Morii, Shi, + Gan) is configured to perform acquiring the first amount of charged electric power (Ando’s “necessary amount of power”, modified per Shi ¶ 72]: “sufficient power to complete at least the one or Moriie future journeys”)
Ando does not disclose “the first plan additionally includes downloading update data of the first program”.
Ando further does not disclose the acquisition of the first amount of charged electric power is “based on a third amount of consumed electric power of the battery which is scheduled to be consumed in downloading the update data of the first program in addition to the first amount of consumed electric power and the second amount of consumed electric power.”
Morii further teaches the first plan (Fig. 7, steps S01-S11) additionally includes downloading update data (¶ [78]: step S03 is the “download request” by “11”; step S04 is the downloading of the “data of the update control program”) of the first program (“control program”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the first plan disclosed by the combination of Ando, Morii, Shi, and Gan to include downloading update data of the first program, as further taught by Morii, as a necessary step in receiving an upgrade to the first program to solve a problem in the first program (Morii ¶ [34-35]).
Gan further teaches acquiring a third amount of consumed electric power (Fig. 3, step 232a; ¶ [30]: “expected amount of energy needed for wireless download of the software package”; ¶ [55]: “enough power supplied … to perform the installation”) of the battery (“15”; Fig. 1) which is scheduled to be consumed in downloading the update data of the first program (Fig. 3, step 232a; ¶ [30]: “… for wireless download of the software package”).
Gan further teaches this is in addition to the second amount of consumed electric power (Fig. 3, step 232a; ¶ [30]: “expected amount of energy needed … for installation of the software”; ¶ [55]: “enough power supplied … to perform the installation”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the information processing method and control unit / computer disclosed by the combination of Ando, Morii, Shi, and Gan to additionally acquire a third amount of consumed power to update a program, as further taught by Gan, in addition to the first and second amounts of consumed power discussed infra, to ensure there is sufficient energy remaining in the battery to update the program (Gan ¶ [4]) and to improve the success rate of the update (Gan ¶ [11]).
Regarding Claims 7 and 18, the combination of Ando and Morii teaches the information processing device according to claim 21 (i.e., for claim 7), as well as the information processing method according to according to claim 22 (i.e., for claim 18).
Ando does not disclose “the first period of time is a time up to next start of use of the predetermined device” and that the control unit / computer is configured to further perform “acquiring a second time required for updating the first program based on the data volume of update data used to rewrite the first program; and making the first plan such that the time up to the next start of use of the predetermined device is equal to or greater than the second time.”
Shi teaches the first period of time (“time window 650”; Fig. 6) is a time up to next start of use (¶ [116]: “time window 650 that … ends at a departure time 622”; Fig. 6) of the predetermined device (103).
Shi further teaches the control unit / computer (“300” including “191”; Figs. 1, 3-4) is configured to perform acquiring a second time (“available time slot 626”; Fig. 6; ¶ [116]).
Shi further teaches making the first plan (Fig. 5C, step 532: “charge scheme”; Fig. 6 includes the example “charge scheme graph 606”) such that the time up to the next start of use (650) of the predetermined device (103) is equal to or greater than the second time (650 is longer than “626”; Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the information processing method and control unit / computer disclosed by the combination of Ando and Morii such that the first period of time is the time to next start of use, which is longer than a second time, as taught by Shi, to ensure all charging-related operations are complete at the start of the next journey (Shi ¶ [7]).
Though, as discussed supra, the combination of Ando, Morii, and Shi teaches the control unit / computer is configured to perform acquiring a second time”, this combination does not teach the second time is “required for updating the first program based on the data volume of update data used to rewrite the first program”.
Gan teaches acquiring a second time (¶ [28]: “estimated installation time”) required for updating the first program (“software”) based on the data volume of update data (¶ [28]: “estimated installation time may then be computed using … software size”) used to rewrite (¶ [56]: “installation may refer to removing a portion of computer instructions from a module and then writing computer instructions”) the first program (“software”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the second time disclosed by the combination of Ando, Morii, and Shi to be the time to update the program based on the data volume, as taught by Gan, to improve the success rate of the update (Gan ¶ [11]).
Regarding Claims 8 and 19, the combination of Ando, Morii, Shi, and Gan teaches the information processing device according to claim 7 (i.e., for claim 8) as well as the information processing method according to claim 18 (i.e., for claim 19).
Ando does not disclose the control unit / computer is configured to further perform “acquiring a third time required for downloading the first program based on the data volume of update data used to rewrite the first program; and making the first plan such that the time up to the start of use of the predetermined device is equal to or greater than a sum of the second time and the third time.”
Shi teaches the control unit / computer (“300” including “191”; Figs. 1, 3-4) is configured to further perform acquiring a third time (“available time slot 610”; Fig. 6; ¶ [116]).
Shi further teaches making the first plan (Fig. 5C, step 532: “charge scheme”; Fig. 6 includes the example “charge scheme graph 606”) such that the time up to the next start of use (650) of the predetermined device (103) is equal to or greater than a sum of the second time (626) and the third time (“610”; Fig. 6 shows that “650” is longer than the sum of “626” and “610”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the information processing method and control unit / computer disclosed by the combination of Ando, Morii, Shi, and Gan such that the first period of time is the time to next start of use, which is longer than the sum of the second time and third time, as taught by Shi, to ensure all charging-related operations are complete at the start of the next journey (Shi ¶ [7]).
Gan teaches acquiring a third time (claim 2: “estimated download time of the software package”; derived from the “anticipatory signal” per ¶ [27-28]) required for downloading the first program (“software”) based on the data volume of update data (¶ [27]: “anticipatory signal may include … the size of the software package”) used to rewrite (¶ [56]: “installation may refer to removing a portion of computer instructions from a module and then writing computer instructions”) the first program (“software”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the third time disclosed by the combination of Ando, Morii, Shi, and Gan to be the download time based on the data volume, as further taught by Gan, to improve the success rate of the update (Gan ¶ [11]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ando et al. (US 2016/0221455 A1) in view of Morii et al. (US 2021/0188243 A1), Kato et al. (US 2020/0371773 A1), and Shimizu et al. (US 2016/0047862 A1; hereinafter “Shi”).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Ando and Morii teaches the information processing device according to claim 21.
Ando further discloses the predetermined device is a vehicle (“vehicle 100”; Fig. 1).
Ando does not disclose the vehicle “is able to travel autonomously”.
Ando further does not disclose the combination of “the information processing device is a server that communicates with the vehicle, and wherein the control unit is configured to perform transmitting the first plan to the vehicle.”
Kato teaches the predetermined device (“vehicle system 1” in Fig. 1; Fig. 10) is a vehicle (“vehicle M”; ¶ [36]) that is able to travel autonomously (¶ [36]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the vehicle disclosed by the combination of Ando and Morii to be able to travel autonomously, as taught by Kato, for the advantage of not depending on driving operation of an occupant of the vehicle (Kato ¶ [36]), which improves predictability of the vehicle’s power consumption.
Shi further discloses the information processing device (“charge system 191”; Figs. 1, 3) is a server (“charging system 191a” is located in “server 113”; Fig. 1; ¶ [18]) that communicates with the vehicle (“191a” communicates to “103b” via “114” + “118”; Fig. 1).
Shi further discloses the control unit (191a) is configured to perform transmitting the first plan (“charge scheme” per Fig. 5C steps 532-534; transmitted via “114” + “118”) to the vehicle (103b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the information processing device disclosed by the combination of Ando and Morii to be a server that transmits the first plan to the vehicle, as taught by Shi, to enable the computations to be performed remotely (via “network 105” per ¶ [18]) from the vehicle, which logically would reduce the required computation requirements for the vehicle design, thus lowering the cost of manufacturing the vehicle.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ando et al. (US 2016/0221455 A1) in view of Morii et al. (US 2021/0188243 A1), and Kato et al. (US 2020/0371773 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Ando and Morii teaches the information processing device according to claim 21.
Ando further discloses the predetermined device is a vehicle (“vehicle 100”; Fig. 1).
Ando further discloses the information processing device is a computer (“charging-control electronic control unit (ECU) 15”; Fig. 1; ¶ [31]: “15 outputs a charging command to the charging controller 12”, “15 … monitors a state of charge (SOC) of the drive battery 11”) that is mounted in the vehicle (100).
Ando does not disclose the vehicle “is able to travel autonomously”.
Kato teaches the predetermined device (“vehicle system 1” in Fig. 1; Fig. 10) is a vehicle (“vehicle M”; ¶ [36]) that is able to travel autonomously (¶ [36]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the vehicle disclosed by the combination of Ando and Morii to be able to travel autonomously, as taught by Kato, for the advantage of not depending on driving operation of an occupant of the vehicle (Kato ¶ [36]), which improves predictability of the vehicle’s power consumption.
Claims 23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ando et al. (US 2016/0221455 A1) in view of Nagashima et al. (US 2010/0045242 A1; hereinafter “Naga”).
Regarding Claims 23 and 25, Ando discloses the information processing device according to claim 1 (i.e., for claim 23), as well as the information processing method according to claim 12 (i.e., for claim 25).
Ando further discloses the control unit / computer (15) is configured to further perform estimating a time point (“charging end time Tchg”; predicted in step S20; Fig. 4) at which charging with the first amount of charged electric power (“necessary amount of power”) is completed.
Ando does not disclose “presenting the estimated time point to an operator; and setting the estimated time point as a next operation start time based on a confirmation from the operator.”
Naga teaches presenting the estimated time point (Fig. 4, step S104: “display recommended time for charging for specified usable time”; Fig. 8E shows a displayed “recommended charging time”) to an operator (“user”).
NOTE: The “next operation start time” is a very broad phrase that can be almost any action that is planned to occur in the future.
Naga further teaches setting the estimated time point (“recommended charging time” set by user in step S106; Fig. 4) as a next operation start time (“recommended charging time” becomes the “charging end time” of step S110; “charging end time” marks when the next operation of displaying the “FULL” message per ¶ [132] and Fig. 8H; “charging end time” also marks the start time of the user’s next operations with the predetermined device after completing the charging sequence of Fig. 4) based on a confirmation (“yes” response to step S105: “is recommended charging time ok?”; Fig. 4) from the operator (“user”).
Naga further teaches to set the estimated time point as a next operation start time with operator confirmation to properly consider and accommodate the user’s convenience (¶ [98]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the control unit / computer and information processing method disclosed by Ando to set the estimated time point as a next operation start time with operator confirmation, as taught by Naga, to improve convenience for the user.
Claims 24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ando et al. (US 2016/0221455 A1) in view of Morii et al. (US 2021/0188243 A1), Murata et al. (US 2013/0132939 A1; hereinafter “Mur”), and Nagashima et al. (US 2010/0045242 A1; hereinafter “Naga”).
Regarding Claims 24 and 26, the combination of Ando and Morii teaches the information processing device according to claim 21 (i.e., for claim 24), as well as the information processing method according to claim 22 (i.e., for claim 26).)
Ando further discloses the control unit / computer (15) is configured to further perform estimating a charging completion time (“charging end time Tchg”; predicted in step S20; Fig. 4) from a required time for charging (interpreted to be equivalent to “charging completion time”).
Ando does not disclose “estimating a completion time of updating from a required time for updating the first program; and notifying an operator that a later time of the charging completion time and the completion time of updating is to be set as a next operation start time”.
Mur teaches estimating a charging completion time (Fig. 2, step S12: “calculate predicted charging time”) from a required time for charging (interpreted to be equivalent to “charging completion time”).
Mur further teaches estimating a completion time of updating (Fig. 2, step S14: “calculate total rewriting time”) from a required time for updating the first program (interpreted to be equivalent to “completion time of updating”).
Mur further teaches identifying a later time (“charging time” is longer than “rewriting time”, as managed via the control method of steps S17 + S18) of the charging completion time (“predicted charging time”) and the completion time of updating (“total rewriting time”, managed via the control method of steps S17 + S18 to be completed before charging by reducing the amount of updates performed, if needed) is to be set as a next operation start time (the “next operation start” is the “start of traveling”, which occurs after completing charging and updating, as described in ¶ [14, 46]; the “next operation start time” is the “predicted charging time”).
Mur further teaches estimating the required times for each of charging and program updating, to ensure the program updates can be completed in time, thus improving reliability of the program update process while the vehicle is simultaneously being charged (¶ [10, 12-13]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify to modify the control unit / computer and information processing method disclosed by the combination of Ando and Morii to estimate and compare the required times for each of charging and program updating, as taught by Mur, to improve reliability of the program update process while the vehicle is simultaneously being charged.
With the modifications incorporated from Mur, the “later time” / “next operation start time” is always the “charging completion time”, because Mur manages the software updating process to only perform those updates that can be completed within the charging time. However, neither Ando nor Mur discloses “notifying an operator” of this “next operation start time” after charging. Though it is implied by Mur that this information is communicated to the user through its “charging time designation human machine interface (HMI) 10”.
Naga teaches notifying an operator that a later time is to be set as a next operation start time (Fig. 8G illustrates the display to notify the operator of the time “until completion of charging”).
Naga further teaches to notify the operator of the next operation time to properly consider and accommodate the user’s convenience (¶ [98]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify to modify the control unit / computer and information processing method disclosed by the combination of Ando, Morii, and Mur to notify the operator of the next operation time (i.e., the charging completion time per Mur’s modification), as taught by Naga, to improve convenience for the user.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel P McFarland whose telephone number is (571)272-5952. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM Eastern.
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, Drew Dunn can be reached at 571-272-2312. 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.
/DANIEL P MCFARLAND/ Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/DREW A DUNN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859