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 .
Status of Claims
In the communication filed on 05/22/2026, claims 1-2, 5-10, 12-13, 16-19, and 22-28 are pending. Claims 1, 7, 9-10, 12, 16, 18, 22, 24, and 26 are amended. Claims 27-28 are new. Claims 3-4, 11, 14-15, and 20-21 are presently cancelled.
The amended independent claims 1 changed scopes by incorporating subject matter from the prior dependent claim 21 and part of the prior dependent claim 9. Thus, the amended claim 1 and its dependents may require new grounds of rejection.
The amended independent claim 12 changed scope by incorporating previously-unclaimed subject matter (“transmitting the first plan to the predetermined device”). Thus, the amended claim 12 and its dependents may require new grounds of rejection.
Response to Arguments
The prior objections to the Drawings, Specification, and Claims are withdrawn due to the amendments.
The applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior rejections of claims 1-2, 5-10, 12-13, 16-19, and 22-26 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been considered but are not persuasive. The amendments, including the argued “transmitting the first plan to the predetermined device”, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, as detailed infra.
However, the newly-claimed dependent claims 27-28 are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because these dependent claims incorporate subject matter that integrates the claimed invention into more than an abstract idea by implementing the first plan to perform charging and updating of the predetermined device.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior rejections of provisional nonstatutory double patenting over copending application number 17/824,050 have been considered but are not persuasive.
The applicant argues (pp. 13, 6th para. – pp. 14, 1st para.) that “Amended claims 1 and 12 are patentably distinct from Application No. 17/824,050 at least because the instant application performs update planning based on an update data volume. Even when combined with the other cited references such as Ando, amended claims 1 and 12 are not obvious since they fail to update make a plan based on an update data volume and do not make or transmit a plan that coordinates both charging and updating.” The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The examiner asserts that the rejection herein relies upon combinations of teaching references to teach obvious modifications to the claims of the copending application. The rejection does not rely on one individual reference to coordinate both charging and updating like the applicant argues. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually (i.e., Ando), one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references (i.e., the combo of the copending application’s claims, Ando, Morii, and Shi). See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections of amended independent claims 1 and 12 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Firstly, the applicant argues (pp. 15) that “Regarding Ando, the "Tchg" in Ando represents a charging time required to reach a preset charging target corresponding to the type of battery (see Ando, paragraphs [0041] and [0043]), and is not based on a first amount of charged electric power acquired from a data volume of update data”.
The examiner asserts that neither the prior action (Non-Final Rejection, 03/13/2026) nor the present action relies upon Ando for any teachings relating to program updates or the associated data volumes. The applicant does not make an argument against any specific claim limitation which the rejection solely relies upon Ando. The secondary reference Morii is relied upon to teach the claimed concept of “acquiring the first amount of charged electrical power based on the information on updating of the first program”. Thus, the first plan is taught to include the required concepts of charging and updating by the combination of Ando and Morii.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually (i.e., Ando), one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references (i.e., the combo of Ando & Morii). See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Secondly, the applicant argues (pp. 15, 5th para. – pp. 16, 1st para.) that Morii does not teach the following:
“the configuration of amended claims 1 and 12 in which, based on an acquired update-required electric energy amount, a required charging time is calculated sequentially for regular charging and then quick charging, and a determination is made as to whether charging can be completed within a first time period”
“making a plan for a next operation schedule without updating when charging cannot be completed within the first time period by either regular charging or quick charging” – Rejection relies upon Ando.
The examiner asserts that Morii is not solely relied upon to teach these limitations. Rather, an obvious combination of Ando and Morii is relied upon. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually (i.e., Morii) where the rejections are based on combinations of references (i.e., the combo of Ando & Morii).
The applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended dependent claim 9 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The applicant argues (pp. 16, 2nd para.) that “Shimizu has no concept of software program updating, and therefore Shimizu's charge scheme cannot constitute a "first plan including charging of the battery ... and at least updating of the first program" as recited by amended claims 1 and 12”.
The examiner asserts that the rejection does not rely upon Shimizu to teach any concepts of software program updating. Instead, the first plan is taught to include the required concepts of charging and updating by the combination of Ando and Morii. Shimizu is simply relied upon to teach “transmitting the first plan to the predetermined device”. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually (i.e., Shimizu) where the rejections are based on combinations of references (i.e., the combo of Ando, Morii, & Shimizu).
Final Note: The updated rejection infra accounts for the changes based on applicant’s amendments and incorporation of dependent claim limitations, and the new rejection is commensurate with the rejection of non-finally rejected claims and subject matter as now presented.
Claim Objections
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 22 is duplicated limitations of claim 12. Thus, claim 22 should either be cancelled or amended to further limit the claimed method.
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.
Claims 2, 5-8, 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.
Claims 2 and 7 each recite “the first period of time”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this term in the claim language. For examination purposes, it is interpreted that “the first period of time” of claims 2 and 7 is the same as the “period of the first time” of claim 1.
Claim 5 recites “The information processing device according to claim 21, …”, which is indefinite because claim 21 is cancelled. For examination purposes, claim 5 is instead interpreted to be dependent on claim 1.
Claim 10 is indefinite as to whether or not the information processing device is part of the vehicle or separate from the vehicle (i.e., the predetermined device). Claim 1’s last element requires the information processing device to be separate from the vehicle because the information processing device’s control unit does “transmitting the first plan to the predetermined device”. However, claim 10 contradicts by requiring that “the information processing device is a computer that is mounted in the vehicle”. For examination purposes, it is interpreted that the limitations of claim 10 supersede the contradicting limitations of claim 1.
Claim 10 is further indefinite as to whether the “control unit” (introduced in claim 1) and the “computer” (introduced in claim 10) are the same feature (interpretation for examination) or different features.
Claims 6 and 8 are further rejected for their dependency on other rejected claims.
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 22-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Examiner Note: The dependent claims 27-28 are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because these dependent claims incorporate subject matter that integrates the claimed invention into more than an abstract idea by implementing the first plan to perform charging and updating.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Claims 1-2, 5-10, 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;
determining whether charging with the first amount of charged electric power can be completed by a regular 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 regular charging method, determining whether charging with the first amount of charged electric power can be completed by a quick 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];
when it is determined that charging cannot be completed by the quick 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];
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;
making a first plan including charging of the battery with at least the first amount of charged electric power based on the regular charging method or the quick charging method and at least updating of the first program [the examiner further finds that the foregoing 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];
and transmitting the first plan to the predetermined device.
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 regular charging method of a plurality of charging methods with a first period of 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 regular charging method, determining whether charging with the first amount of charged electric power can be completed by a quick 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 quick 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];
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;
making a first plan including charging of the battery with at least the first amount of charged electric power based on the regular charging method or the quick charging method and at least updating of the first program [the examiner further finds that the foregoing 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];
and transmitting the first plan to the predetermined device.
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 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.
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.
Regarding dependent Claim 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 regular charging method or the quick 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 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;
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, 9-10, 22, and 27 are rejected on the ground of provisional nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1 and 7-8 of copending application number 17/824,050 (amended claims filed 12/18/2025) in view of Ando et al. (US 2016/0221455 A1) and Morii et al. (US 2021/0188243 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;
determining whether charging with the first amount of charged electric power can be completed by a regular 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 regular charging method, determining whether charging with the first amount of charged electric power can be completed by a quick charging method of the plurality of charging methods in the period of the first time;
when it is determined that charging cannot be completed by the quick charging method, making a plan for a next operation schedule without updating of a first program mounted in the predetermined device,
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;
making a first plan including charging of the battery with at least the first amount of charged electric power based on the regular charging method or the quick charging method and at least updating of the first program;
and transmitting the first plan to 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 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)
(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 7
wherein the control unit is configured to transmit the acquired charging time to the vehicle.
Claim 9
The information processing device according to claim 1,
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.
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.
Claim 10
The information processing device according to claim 1,
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.
Regarding independent Claim 1, the copending application does not claim that “when it is determined that charging cannot be completed by the quick charging method, making a plan for a next operation schedule without updating of a first program mounted in the predetermined device.”
The copending application further does not claim 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”.
The copending application further does not claim the first plan includes “at least updating of the first program.”
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 quick 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 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]).
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 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 claimed by the copending application (as modified 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.
Regarding dependent claim 2, the copending application does not claim the control unit “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 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 claimed by the copending application (as modified by prior art supra) to acquire the first period of time based on schedule information, as further taught by Ando, to improve convenience for the user (Ando ¶ [54]).
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.
Regarding dependent claim 27, the combination of the copending application’s claims with modifications from Ando & Morii includes the control unit (Ando’s “ECU 15”, modified per teachings of Morii) is configured to cause the predetermined device (Ando: “vehicle 100”; analogous Morii “vehicle 10”) to perform charging of the battery (Ando: executing either “normal charging” or “quick charging” of battery “11” and associated timing; analogous Morii step S09 of Fig. 7) and updating of the first program (incorporated from Morii: step S11 of Fig. 7) based on the first plan (Ando: selection of “normal charging” or “quick charging” and associated timing; analogous Morii steps S01-S11 of Fig. 7).
Claims 12-13, 22, and 28 are rejected on the ground of provisional nonstatutory double patenting over claim 9 of copending application number 17/824,050 (amended claims filed 12/18/2025) in view of Ando et al. (US 2016/0221455 A1), Morii et al. (US 2021/0188243 A1), and Shimizu et al. (US 2016/0047862 A1; hereinafter “Shi”).
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 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 regular 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 regular charging method, determining whether charging with the first amount of charged electric power can be completed by a quick charging method of the plurality of charging methods in the first period of time;
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
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;
making a first plan including charging of the battery with at least the first amount of charged electric power based on the regular charging method or the quick charging method and at least updating of the first program;
and transmitting the first plan to 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)
(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”)
(no equivalent claim language)
Regarding independent Claim 12, the copending application does not claim that “when it is determined that charging cannot be completed by the quick charging method, making a plan for a next operation schedule without updating of a first program mounted in the predetermined device.”
The copending application further does not claim 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”.
The copending application further does not claim the first plan includes “at least updating of the first program”.
The copending application further does not claim “transmitting the first plan to 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 quick 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 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]).
Mor teaches (see detailed claim item mapping included infra in the prior art rejection) 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;
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 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 computer claimed by the copending application (as modified 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.
Shi teaches (see detailed claim item mapping included infra in the prior art rejection) transmitting the first plan to the predetermined device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the information processing device claimed by the copending application (as modified by Ando & 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 design/development time and manufacturing cost of the vehicle.
Regarding dependent claim 13, the copending application does not claim the 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 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 computer claimed by the copending application (as modified by prior art supra) to acquire the first period of time based on schedule information, as further taught by Ando, to improve convenience for the user (Ando ¶ [54]).
Regarding dependent claim 22, the limitations are all duplicates from claim 12 and not copied here.
Regarding dependent claim 28, the combination of the copending application’s claims with modifications from Ando, Morii, & Shi includes the computer (Ando’s “ECU 15”, modified per teachings of Morii & Shi) is configured to cause the predetermined device (Ando: “vehicle 100”; analogous Morii “vehicle 10”; analogous Shi “second client device 103b”) to perform charging of the battery (Ando: executing either “normal charging” or “quick charging” of battery “11” and associated timing; analogous Morii step S09 of Fig. 7) and updating of the first program (incorporated from Morii: step S11 of Fig. 7) based on the first plan (Ando: selection of “normal charging” or “quick charging” and associated timing; analogous Morii steps S01-S11 of Fig. 7; analogous Shi “charge scheme” per Fig. 5C steps 532-534).
Claims 5-6 are rejected on the ground of provisional nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1 and 7-8 of copending application number 17/824,050 (amended claims filed 12/18/2025) 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”).
Claims 16-17 are rejected on the ground of provisional nonstatutory double patenting over claim 9 of copending application number 17/824,050 (amended claims filed 12/18/2025) 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 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 7-9 of copending application number 17/824,050 (amended claims filed 12/18/2025) 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]).
Claim 23 is rejected on the ground of provisional nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1 and 7-8 of copending application number 17/824,050 (amended claims filed 12/18/2025) in view of Ando et al. (US 2016/0221455 A1), Morii et al. (US 2021/0188243 A1), and Nagashima et al. (US 2010/0045242 A1; hereinafter “Naga”).
Claim 25 is rejected on the ground of provisional nonstatutory double patenting over claim 9 of copending application number 17/824,050 (amended claims filed 12/18/2025) 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 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.
Claim 24 is rejected on the ground of provisional nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1 and 7-8 of copending application number 17/824,050 (amended claims filed 12/18/2025) in view of Ando et al. (US 2016/0221455 A1), 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”).
Claim 26 is rejected on the ground of provisional nonstatutory double patenting over claim 9 of copending application number 17/824,050 (amended claims filed 12/18/2025) 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”), 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 § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 12-13, 22, and 27-28 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) and Shimizu et al. (US 2016/0047862 A1; hereinafter “Shi”).
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”).
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 regular charging method (“normal charging”; Fig. 4) of a plurality of charging methods (“normal charging” and “quick charging”; Fig. 4) in a period of a first time (“desired charging end time Tdmn”; 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 regular 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 quick charging method (“quick charging”; Fig. 4) of the plurality of charging methods (“normal” + “quick”) in the period of the first time (“Tdmn”) / the first period of time (“Tdmn”).
NOTE 1-1: 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 quick 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”).
Ando further discloses 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 regular charging method (“normal charging”) or the quick charging method (“quick charging”).
Ando does not disclose “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”.
Though Ando discloses making a first plan including charging of the battery with at least the first amount of charged electric power based on the regular charging method or the quick charging method, Ando further does not disclose the first plan also including “at least updating of the first program”.
Ando further does not disclose “transmitting the first plan to the predetermined device”.
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 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 (“electronic control 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 1-2: 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 / computer (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 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”).
NOTE 1-3: Morii is not relied upon to teach the “regular charging method” or the “quick charging method” as being part of the first plan. Instead, the base reference Ando is set forth supra to teach that the first plan is based on the regular charging method of the quick charging method. Morii simply teaches an analogous first plan that is based on at least updating of the first 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 first plan for charging the battery disclosed by Ando to also be based on information on updating a first program, as taught by Morii, to prevent the update from failing due to insufficient electric power.
Shi teaches the control unit (“charging system 191a”, located in “server 113”; Fig. 1; ¶ [18]) is configured to perform transmitting the first plan (“charge scheme” per Fig. 5C steps 532-534; transmitted via “114” + “118”) to the predetermined device (“second client device 103b”; Fig. 1; ¶ [22]: “103b can be one of a vehicle (e.g., an automobile, a bus)”).
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 combo of Ando & 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 design/development time and manufacturing cost of the vehicle.
Regarding Claims 2 and 13, the combo of Ando, Morii, & Shi teaches 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 13).
Ando further discloses each of the control unit / 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”).
Regarding Claim 22, the combo of Ando, Morii, & Shi teaches the information processing method according to claim 12.
NOTE 22-1: The limitations of claim 22 are duplicates of claim 12. Thus, the claim item mapping to the prior art is not duplicated in the claim 22 rejection.
The combo of Ando, Morii, & Shi (see detailed claim item mapping included supra) teaches 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 regular charging method or the quick charging method and at least updating of the first program.
Regarding Claims 27-28, the combo of Ando, Morii, & Shi teaches the information processing device according to claim 1 (i.e., for claim 27), as well as the information processing method according to claim 12 (i.e., for claim 28).
The combo of Ando, Morii, & Shi teaches the control unit / computer (Ando’s “ECU 15”, modified per teachings of Morii & Shi) is configured to cause the predetermined device (Ando: “vehicle 100”; analogous Morii “vehicle 10”; analogous Shi “second client device 103b”) to perform charging of the battery (Ando: executing either “normal charging” or “quick charging” of battery “11” and associated timing; analogous Morii step S09 of Fig. 7) and updating of the first program (incorporated from Morii: step S11 of Fig. 7) based on the first plan (Ando: selection of “normal charging” or “quick charging” and associated timing; analogous Morii steps S01-S11 of Fig. 7; analogous Shi “charge scheme” per Fig. 5C steps 532-534).
It was already established supra that it would have been obvious to modify the control unit / computer of Ando per the teachings of Morii & Shi.
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 combo of Ando, Morii, & Shi teaches the information processing device according to claim 1 (i.e., for claim 5), as well as the information processing method according to claim 12 (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 more 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 combo of Ando, Morii, & Shi to additionally acquire an amount of power scheduled to be consumed in operating the predetermined device in a predetermined time, as further 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 combo of Ando, Morii, & 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 combo of Ando, Morii, Shi, & 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 combo of Ando, Morii, Shi, & 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 more 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 combo of Ando, Morii, Shi, & 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 combo of Ando, Morii, Shi, & 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 combo of Ando, Morii, & Shi teaches the information processing device according to claim 1 (i.e., for claim 7), as well as the information processing method according to according to claim 12 (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 combo of Ando, Morii, & Shi such that the first period of time is the time to next start of use, which is longer than a second time, as further 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 combo of Ando, Morii, & 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 combo of Ando, Morii, & 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 combo of Ando, Morii, Shi, & 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 combo of Ando, Morii, Shi, & 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 further 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 combo of Ando, Morii, Shi, & 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]).
Claims 9-10 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 Kato et al. (US 2020/0371773 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, the combo of Ando, Morii, & Shi teaches the information processing device according to claim 1.
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 information processing device is a server that communicates with 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 combo of Ando, Morii, & Shi 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).
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 combo of Ando, Morii, Shi, & Kato to be a server that transmits the first plan to the vehicle, as further 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.
Regarding Claim 10, the combo of Ando, Morii, & Shi teaches the information processing device according to claim 1.
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 combo of Ando, Morii, & Shi 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 Morii et al. (US 2021/0188243 A1), Shimizu et al. (US 2016/0047862 A1; hereinafter “Shi”) and Nagashima et al. (US 2010/0045242 A1; hereinafter “Naga”).
Regarding Claims 23 and 25, the combo of Ando, Morii, & Shi teaches 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 23-1: 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 the combo of Ando, Morii, & Shi 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), Shimizu et al. (US 2016/0047862 A1; hereinafter “Shi”), 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 combo of Ando, Morii, & Shi teaches the information processing device according to claim 1 (i.e., for claim 24), as well as the information processing method according to claim 12 (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 combo of Ando, Morii, & Shi 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 combo of Ando, Morii, Shi, & 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
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 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
Prosecution Insights