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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Final office is a response to the papers filed on 08/18/2025.
Claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-19 are pending, claims 6, 13, and 20 are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments file on 08/18/2025 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue et al. (Pub. No. 20190275910 A1) further in view of Shaaban et al. (Pub. No. 20210291694 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15, Inoue discloses:
An information processing apparatus (see Fig.1, 2, and 6) comprising:
a controlling portion (see Fig. 1, 2, 6, controller 1092 and 1094); and
a communication portion (see Fig. 1, 2, 6, communication I/F 1040), wherein:
the controlling portion acquires information on a charged state of a vehicle from vehicles of a service provider from the vehicle via the communication portion (see Fig. 1, 2, and 6, see par [0020-0024], the charging management device 100 acquires from a vehicle-side device provided to each vehicle 40: charging environment information including information indicating the charging environment of the vehicle 40 …); and
in a case where the vehicle is to be parked in parking lots with fewer chargers than parking spots (see Fig. 5), the controlling portion determines, based on the acquired information on the charged state, whether, among parking spots in the parking lots with fewer chargers than parking spots, the vehicle is to be parked in a parking spot equipped with a vehicle charger (see Fig. 1, 2, 5-6, see par [0021-0024], the charging management device 100 acquires from a vehicle-side device provided to each vehicle 40: charging environment information including information indicating the charging environment of the vehicle 40; the SOC of a battery provided to the vehicle 40; an amount of charging power…., see par [0027-0031])
wherein: the controlling portion calculates priority levels of vehicles for parking in the parking spot equipped with the vehicle charger, based on the information on charged states of the vehicles (see par [0039-0044], The order deciding unit 230 decides priorities about charging of vehicles 40, for example, in a manner that if the SOC is lower than 50%.....); and
the controlling portion determines which one of the vehicles is to be parked in the parking spot equipped with the vehicle charger, based on a comparison between the calculated priority levels (see par [0039-0044], The order deciding unit 230 decides priorities about charging of vehicles 40, for example, in a manner that if the SOC is lower than 50%.....).
However, Inoue fails to disclose:
or the vehicle is to be parked in a parking spot not equipped with the vehicle charger
Thus, Shaaban discloses:
or the vehicle is to be parked in a parking spot not equipped with the vehicle charger (see par [0032-0033], see par [0064], according to the ambient temperature; [0068] iv) each EV visiting the parking lot is not assigned to one charger…).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified a charging management device of Shaaban to include the vehicle is to be parked in a parking spot not equipped with the vehicle charger in order to achieve the best utilization of the optimal number of chargers (see Shaaban par [0064]).
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16, Shaaban discloses:
wherein the controlling portion notifies, via the communication portion, a user of the vehicle of a parking request to park the vehicle in the determined parking spot (see Shaaban claim 1, the control unit is configured to control operations of the smart parking lot system via control signals based on an information on the EV and a request from the customer…).
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 17, Shaaban discloses:
wherein, in a case where the controlling portion determines that the vehicle is to be parked in the parking spot equipped with the vehicle charger, the controlling portion notifies, via the communication portion, a user of the vehicle of a charging request to charge the vehicle by the vehicle charger provided in the determined parking spot (see Shaaban par [0030-0038], assume two charging ports are available, for 7 KW at parking lot A and for 50 KW at parking lot B, and two parking spaces available at the parking lot A for 7 KW charging capacity only. There, an EV with charging demand for 7 KW can readily be connected and start charging….).
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 18, Shaaban discloses:
wherein, when the controlling portion determines that the vehicle is parked in the determined parking spot, the controlling portion determines that use of the car sharing is allowed to be ended (see Shaaban par [0035-0040], without passing the switching unit. This alternative routing is feasible, because the control unit has a complete set of information on connections between the plurality number of m chargers and the plurality number of n interface ports of the interface unit as part of the control signal of the matrix switch…).
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 19, Shaaban discloses:
wherein: in a case where the controlling portion determines that the vehicle is to be parked in the parking spot equipped with the vehicle charger, when the controlling portion determines that the vehicle is parked in the determined parking spot and the vehicle is connected to the vehicle charger provided in the determined parking spot, the controlling portion determines that use of the car sharing is allowed to be ended (see Shaaban par [0035-0040], without passing the switching unit. This alternative routing is feasible, because the control unit has a complete set of information on connections between the plurality number of m chargers and the plurality number of n interface ports of the interface unit as part of the control signal of the matrix switch…).
Regarding claim 7, Shaaban discloses:
wherein the controlling portion notifies, via the communication portion, a parking request to a user of a vehicle from which information on a charged state of the vehicle is not obtainable among vehicles, the parking request being a request to park the vehicle in the parking spot not equipped with the vehicle charger (see Shaaban claim 1, the control unit is configured to control operations of the smart parking lot system via control signals based on an information on the EV and a request from the customer…).
Regarding claim 14, Shaaban discloses:
notifying a parking request to a user of a vehicle from which information on a charged state of the vehicle is not obtainable among vehicles, the parking request being a request to park the vehicle in the parking spot not equipped with the vehicle charger (see Shaaban claim 1, the control unit is configured to control operations of the smart parking lot system via control signals based on an information on the EV and a request from the customer…).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN NGO whose telephone number is (571)270-7011. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7AM-4PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jack Chiang can be reached on 571-272-7483. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRIAN NGO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2851