DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDSes filed 3/17/23, 11/27/23, 2/7/25 and 1/13/26 have all been considered and placed of record. The four (4) initialed copies are attached herewith.
Specification
The disclosure should be carefully reviewed to ensure that any and all grammatical, idiomatic, and spelling or other minor errors are corrected. For example, in claim 1, the word “a electric vehicle” on line 1 should be spelled as “an electric vehicle.”
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The abstract is objected to because the abstract resembles a claim with the use of the word “comprising.” Legalese language is not permitted in the abstract. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The limitation “the external power supply side” on the penultimate line lacks proper antecedent basis. The Examiner interpreted to be just “the external power supply.” Clarification is required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over document WO2011065036A1 (see attached translation) in view of Kusumi (US 10,703,269).
Re claim 1, the WO document discloses an electric vehicle 200 having, inter alia, a power storage device 203; a charger 100 configured to charge the power storage device 203 with power from an external power supply 300; and a controller 205 programmed to control the charger 100; wherein the controller 205 is programmed to calculate a required charging time for charging before charging the power storage device 203 by the charger 100, and
to calculate a scheduled charging end time using the required charging time (translation: Now, during charging of the electric vehicle 200…Here, the control unit 106 monitors the voltage applied between the pair of charging lines 1011, the elapsed time from the start of charging, etc., and the magnitude of the voltage between the charging lines 1011 is determined by the charging condition. When the voltage value is reached, or when the elapsed time from the start of charging (the value of the charging time parameter Time) reaches the charging stop time defined by the charging condition, it is determined that the charging end condition is satisfied);
to obtain an incomplete factor for which the charging was not completed, in case the charging of the power storage device is not completed at the scheduled charging end time (When an abnormality occurs in charger 100 (translation: YES in S113)…Thereby, the charging power supply from the charger 100 is immediately stopped, and the charging of the electric vehicle 200 is terminated (S115). After that, the control unit 106 waits for a predetermined time to elapse and first opens only the relay 109 out of the two relays 108 and 109 to disconnect the negative drive power supply line 1014 from the ground potential. (S116). This notifies the electric vehicle 200 of abnormal termination of charging…A message indicating that charging has ended abnormally may be output); and
The WO document does not disclose the above stricken limitation. Kusami teaches a vehicle having method of notifying charging info to the user. It teaches, in figure 3, box S196, the vehicle determined the changing charged time based on the change of power and displayed the changes to the user (col 15, lines 1-12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have incorporated the teaching of Kusami into the vehicle of the WO document to make aware to the user of the changes so he may take appropriate action.
Re claim 2, the WO document further discloses the controller is programmed to obtain a factor including at least one of a temperature drop of the power storage device or a voltage drop on the external power supply side as the incomplete factor or the delay factor (translation: Now, during charging of the electric vehicle 200, the control unit 106 determines whether or not a charging end condition determined by the charging condition is satisfied, whether or not an abnormality such as a failure of the charger 100, a power failure of the AC power supply 300, or the like occurs. It is monitored whether the advance preparation confirmation signal from the coupler 110 has been turned off (S108, S113, S118). Here, the control unit 106 monitors the voltage applied between the pair of charging lines 1011, the elapsed time from the start of charging, etc., and the magnitude of the voltage between the charging lines 1011 is determined by the charging condition).
Re claim 3, the WO document is silent on having the controller programmed to store the incomplete factor or the delay factor. Official notice is taken of the fact that having faults or claimed factors stored in memory would allow a mechanic to look at the potential errors and pinpoint the cause. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and also would have been well within the skill of one versed in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have stored these claimed factors in the controller memory for post-analysis of any potential problem.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The art made of record teaches EV and EV station calculating charge completion time and determining for errors.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to the Examiner at the below-listed number. The Examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thu from 7:00am-5:00pm.
The Examiner’s SPE is Taelor Kim and he can be reached at 571.270.7166. The fax number for the organization where this application 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.
/EDWARD TSO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859 571.272.2087
/TAELOR KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859