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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Applicants’ filing on October 7, 2025. Claims 1-16 were previously pending, of which claims 1, 3, 5, 15 and 16, claims 2 and 4 have been cancelled, and claims 17-21 have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1, 3 and 5-21 are currently pending and are being examined below.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Applicant's remarks, see pages 8-13 filed October 7, 2025; Applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. $112(f) Interpretations, applicant’s amendment to claim 1 has addressed the condition using a processor programmed to function as to support the remaining limitations for claim 1 that are defined by “units” so the interpretation is hereby withdrawn by the examiner.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. $112(b) Rejection , applicant’s amendment has canceled claim 4 recited in the rejection, foregoing the condition. Therefore, the objections to the claims are withdrawn.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. $101 Rejection, the arguments and amendments have been reviewed by the examiner, but they are not persuasive. The basic elements of the invention are merely data gathering or presenting information with insignificant extra solution activity in the further limitations. Therefore, the rejection is upheld.
Applicant's arguments regarding USC 102(a)(1)/USC 103 Rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e.,) are clearly defined in the prior art and maintained for the rejection below in view of the amended claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, the new limitations from the amended claims are not persuasive .
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.
Claim 1,3, 5-7, 10-16 and 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshino et al., US PUB US2019/0025068A1 (Hereinafter, “Yoshino”) in view of Katanoda et al., US PUB US2020/0378784A1 (Hereinafter, “Katanoda”), in further view of Kohn et al., US Pub 2010/0072954A1 (Hereinafter, “Kohn”).
Regarding Claim 1, 15 and 16, Yoshino discloses an information device for providing information about one or more chargers for charging a rechargeable battery of a vehicle; See at least Fig.1 and [0017], “The information instrument (device) 100 for locating a battery charger for charging the storage battery of vehicle.
non-transitory memory storing one or more computer programs; and a processor executing the one or more programs to; Yoshino includes the control device description [0053] lines 1-7, “Referring again to FIG. 1, the control device 170 comprises a read only memory ( ROM ) that stores programs for presenting guidance information on charging facilities and the like to the user , a central processing unit ( CPU ) that executes the programs stored in the ROM , and a random-access memory ( RAM ) that serves as an accessible storage device”.
a processor programmed to function as: first acquisition unit configured to acquire a maximum amount of power chargeable to the rechargeable battery; See at least Fig.2 and [0026], “The battery controller 160 comprises a … a central processing unit (CPU) that executes the programs.” And [0034], “The chargeable power calculation unit 165 calculates the maximum input power that can be input from the charger 1 to the battery 10.”
second acquisition unit configured to acquire a specification of each of the one or more chargers in a vicinity of the vehicle; See at least Fig.5 and [0053], “control device 170 comprises … a central processing unit (CPU) that executes the programs.“ And [0059], “ The charger output information acquisition unit 175 outputs the acquired information on the charging facilities to the information presentation unit 176 and the charging time calculation unit 179”.
selection unit configured to select at least one recommended charger from the one or more chargers based on the maximum amount of power and the specification of each of the one or more chargers in the vicinity of the vehicle; See at least Fig.9 and [0073-0081] for a flow chart and detailed description of the charging station selection process is disclosed using at least location, power, and specification criteria.
the selected at least one recommended charger comprises a plurality of recommended chargers; see Fig.5, first charging facility searching unit (174) and second charging facility selection unit (178).
Yoshino’s charger selection process does not explicitly disclose to have it select one charging facility. However, Katanoda teaches:
Selection unit is configured to select one charger as an optimal charger from the plurality of recommended chargers; See at least [0103], “In the second embodiment, an example in which chargers recommended to a user are placed in order (ranked ).” Note: Since no action is disclosed in the applicant’s device following the selection process, allowing a user to select a prioritized station will provide the same data in Katanoda.
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Yoshino’s device with the charging facility selection limitations disclosed in Katanoda with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce the time for the user to select a single recommended charger from a number of charging options.
notification unit configured to provide a notification of the selected at least one recommended charger; In [0081], “The information presentation unit 176 controls the display of the navigation device to display … mark E that represents the charging facility selected using the input device 120 (see FIGS . 6 and 7 ).”
Yoshino does not explicitly disclose battery temperature setting process for the information device. However, Kohn teaches the following limitation:
a temperature setting unit that is configured to set a target temperature of the rechargeable battery, the target temperature being a target temperature of the rechargeable battery to be reached at the beginning of charging and being set based upon the selected optimal charger. See at least [0050-0052] for a temperature setting unit.
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the temperature detection unit of Yoshino to include the temperature setting parameters disclosed in Kohn, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the operating characteristics of the rechargeable battery, see Kohn [0050].
Regarding Claim 3, Yoshino discloses the following limitation dependent on Claim 1:
selection unit is configured to select one charger selected by a user from the plurality of recommended chargers, as the optimal charger; See flow chart (Fig.5) and [0061] completing the detailed charging facility selection process.
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Yoshino with the limitations disclosed in Katanoda and Yoshino from claim 2, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been obvious to allow the user the flexibility to select a recommended charger from group of charging options based on location preference.
Regarding Claim 5, Yoshino does not explicitly disclose navigation, but Katanoda discloses the limitation from Claim 2 in view of Claim 1:
A destination setting unit configured to set a destination to be reached by the vehicle to a location of the optimal charger. In at least [0084], The ECU controls guidance to a selected charging facility location.
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Katanoda’ s destination setting process with the limitations disclosed in Katanoda and Yoshino from claim 2, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been obvious to have the device allow the user to navigate to a selected charging facility.
Regarding Claim 6, Yoshino does not disclose charging fees, but Katanoda discloses the following device limitation in view of Claim 1:
selection unit is configured to select the at least one recommended charger based on charging fees for the one or more chargers charging the rechargeable battery of the vehicle with a specific amount of power. Regarding [0110], the server determines the ranking based on the charging fee of each charger and a distance of travel for vehicle 1 to reach each charger. More specifically, “… server 4 gives each charger a score which is higher as the charging fee is more inexpensive.”
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the limitations from claim 1 of the information device in Yoshino and the cost based charging station selection process as described in Katanoda above. The motivation to save on charging fees while recharging the vehicle battery would be obvious to one skilled in the art.
Regarding Claim 7, Yoshino discloses the following limitation of Claim 1:
selection unit is configured to select the at least one recommended charger based on amount of time required for the one or more chargers charging the rechargeable battery of the vehicle with a specific amount of power. See at least [0066-0068] where selecting a recommended charger based on charging times is disclosed, including the charging time calculation unit 179.
Regarding Claim 10, Yoshino discloses the following device limitation in view of claim 1:
selection unit is referred to as a first selection unit, and the information device further comprises a second selection unit configured to cause a user to select a selection criterion for the first selection unit to select the at least one recommended charger. The input device 120 in which the basis of selection at the time of selecting a recommendation battery charger is made to choose it by a user [0020] lines 7-9 and further in [0061] lines 1-8.
Regarding Claims 11, Yoshino discloses the following in limitations dependent on Claim 1:
Notification unit is configured to further provide a notification of a target amount of charge or information corresponding the target amount of charge, for each of the selected at least one recommended charger; In [0059], they describe the information presentation unit 176 to present the user with charging facilities with the target amount of charge available and time required.
Regarding Claims 12, Yoshino discloses the following in limitations dependent on Claim 1:
notification unit is configured to further provide a notification of information corresponding to the amount of power chargeable within the predefined period of time, for each of the selected at least one recommended charger.
In [0072], they disclose the presentation of charging options to the user based on a predetermined amount of time.
Regarding Claim 13, Yoshino discloses the following limitation dependent on Claim 1:
Notification unit is configured to further provide a notification of an amount of time required to charge the rechargeable battery of the vehicle with a specific amount of power, for each of the selected at least one recommended charger; In the abstract, “…calculating the estimated value of a charging time if charging the battery of the electric vehicle from the estimated value of the remaining charged capacity of the battery to a predetermined charged capacity at each of the searched charging facilities.” Also, in [0093], they disclose in an alternative embodiment where the user can charge the vehicle to less than maximum capacity to manage a time constraint.
Regarding Claim 14, Yoshino does not disclose accessory power. However, Kohn teaches the additional limitations dependent on claim 1:
First acquisition unit configured to correct the maximum amount of power chargeable to the rechargeable battery based on an amount of power consumed by accessories mounted to the vehicle; This limitation adds to the Yoshino’s device from Claim 1, where they do not explicitly address the additional limitation for compensating the maximum amount of power to account for additional accessories. Kohn [0032] lines 8-10 explains,”…systems and methodology described hereafter may also be used to optimize battery charging in light of the load requirements of multiple auxiliary systems.”.
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the acquisition unit limitation of Yoshino to include the accessory(auxiliary) power limitation disclosed in Kohn, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the accuracy of the expected charging time for the vehicle battery, see Kohn [0006].
Regarding Claim 18, Yoshino does not disclose a portable device. However, Katanoda teaches the following limitation dependent on Claim 1:
wherein the information device is configured as a cloud server installed at a location different from the vehicle, or as a portable communication terminal owned by a user of the vehicle. See at least [0047], “Referring to FIG. 1, a charging system 9 includes a vehicle 1 of one user, a portable terminal 2 possessed by the user.”
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Katanoda’ s portable device with the limitations disclosed in Yoshino’s device, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been obvious to allow the user to easily select a charging facility, see Katanoda [0070].
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshino in view of Katanoda, in further view of Kohn, in further view of Vardhan et al., US Pub 20140324510A1 (Hereinafter, “Vardhan”).
Regarding Claims 8 and 9, Yoshino does not explicitly disclose renewable energy use. However, Vardhan teaches the following limitation dependent on claims 6 and 7:
Selection unit is configured to select the at least one recommended charger based on a percentage of power output as renewable energy from each of the one or more chargers. While Yoshino and Katanoda do not explicitly disclose renewable energy use in their device from claim 6, Vardhan discusses the optimization of renewable energy use to charge electric vehicles in the abstract.
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the limitations from claim 6 of the information device in Yoshino and Katanoda and the renewable energy based charging station selection process as described in Vardhan. The motivation to combine would be to make environmentally conscious decisions while recharging the vehicle battery, see Vardhan [0002].
Claims 17 and 19-21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshino in view of Katanoda, in further view of Kohn, in further view of Vallender et al., US2020/0055406A1 US Pub US2020/0104965A1 (Hereinafter, “Vallender”).
Regarding Claim 17, Yoshino does not disclose the mounting location. However, Vallender teaches the following limitation dependent on Claim 1:
wherein the information device is mounted to the vehicle. See at least [0043], “The controller 40 (control unit, control module, etc.) may be an integrated battery controller or it may be a separate controller. The controller 40 may also be integrated with or otherwise a part of another vehicle system or component, such as the BCM 24.”
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Katanoda’ s integrated system with the limitations disclosed in Yoshino, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been obvious to have the device allow the user to navigate to a selected charging facility.
Regarding Claim 19, Yoshino does not disclose the mounting location. However, Vallender teaches the following limitation dependent on Claim 5:
wherein the vehicle is an autonomously driven vehicle. See at least [0031], “The method and system described herein relate to preconditioning a rechargeable energy storage system (RESS) in order to optimize charging efficiency … The methodology can be applied to non-autonomous, semi-autonomous, and autonomous vehicles (with or without a driver).“
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Vallender’s autonomous vehicle with the limitations disclosed in Yoshino from claim 1, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been obvious to have the device automatically navigate to a selected charging facility, see Vallender [Fig.6].
Regarding Claim 20, Yoshino does not disclose the temperature setting unit. However, Vallender teaches the following limitation dependent on Claim 19:
wherein the temperature setting unit is configured to set the target temperature of the rechargeable battery upon the selection unit selecting the optimal charger. See at least [0081], “FIG. 6 illustrates one example method 600 of automatically activating thermal preconditioning. This method may be implemented with a fleet of autonomous vehicles, for example. With autonomous vehicles and/or fleet vehicles, the preconditioning methods described herein can provide for better utilization of limited charging resources.”
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the temperature detection unit of Yoshino to include the temperature setting parameters disclosed in Vallender, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the operating characteristics of the rechargeable battery, see Vallender [0082].
Regarding Claim 21, Yoshino does not disclose the temperature setting unit. However, Vallender teaches the following limitation dependent on Claim 5:
wherein the temperature setting unit is configured to set the target temperature of the rechargeable battery upon the selection unit selecting the optimal charger. See at least [0056], “A user of the vehicle 12 can use one or more vehicle-user interfaces 50-54, as discussed more below, to input a destination or activate thermal preconditioning via the controller 40, to cite a few example … such as the fast charging station 90.” And [0042], “The heater 38 may be used in thermal preconditioning to increase the temperature of the electric battery pack 32 based on feedback from controller 40.”
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the temperature detection unit of Yoshino to include the temperature setting parameters disclosed in Vallender, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the operating characteristics of the rechargeable battery, see Vallender [0082].
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 BRIAN KEITH PALMARCHUK whose telephone number is (571)272-6261. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 AM - 5 PM EST.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/B.K.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669