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 April 7, 2026. Claims 1, 3 and 5-21 were previously pending, of which claims 1, 15 and 16, no claims have been cancelled, and no claims 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 7-9 filed April 7, 2026; 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. §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. Applicant was advised to incorporate the temperature adjustment device 210 into the claim language to positively recite control of the battery temperature. However, the amended claims as written still render the invention abstract as the idea of determining a battery temperature is different than the actual operation of controlling the temperature of the battery. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant's arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. § 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., set a target temperature of the rechargeable battery after the optimal charger has been selected and before charging by the optimal charger is initiated) are clearly defined in the prior art and maintained for the rejection below in view of the amended claims. Upon further search/consideration Vallender et al was found to teach the amended limitations concerning the proactive temperature setting.
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, 3, and 5-18, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The Examiner has identified apparatus Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis. Claims 1, 15 and 16 recite the limitations of (additional elements emphasized in bold and are considered to be parsed from the remaining abstract idea):
An information device for providing information about one or more chargers for charging a
rechargeable battery of a vehicle, comprising:
a processor programmed to function as:
a first acquisition unit configured to acquire a maximum amount of power chargeable to the rechargeable battery;
a second acquisition unit configured to acquire a specification of each of the one or more chargers in a vicinity of the vehicle;
a 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, the selected at least one recommended charger comprising a plurality of recommended chargers;
a notification unit configured to provide a notification of the selected at least one
recommended charger; and
a temperature setting unit that is configured to set a target temperature of the
rechargeable battery after the optimal charger has been selected and before charging by the optimal charger is initiated, 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.
which is an apparatus that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) as a Mental process (concept performed in the human mind) but for the recitation of generic computer elements. For example, a person could acquire a maximum amount of power available to the rechargeable battery and obtain a list of the available chargers in the vicinity, select at least one of those chargers, notify a driver of the vehicle the location of the selected charger and set the target temperature for the battery to be reached at the beginning of charging.
With respect to Step 2A, Prong II, this judicial exception is not practically integrated. The claim recites the additional elements of first acquisition unit, second acquisition unit, selection unit, notification unit, and temperature setting unit. These elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2B, the aforementioned additional elements are all generic
computer elements have been held to be not significantly more than the abstract idea by Alice. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of using the processors to receive information, make decisions, and supply instructions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, the limitation step of “a notification unit configured to provide a notification of the selected at least one recommended charger” and “a temperature setting unit that is configured to set a target temperature of the rechargeable battery” are no more than the judicial exception, because as detailed in Electric Power Group, additional elements that are used to simply output results do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 3, 5-14, 17-18 and 20-21 recite limitations that include further abstract ideas of selection, setting a temperature or destination, and further outputting notifications which can also be performed in the human mind or outputting data and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, these claims are also rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Claim 19 recites the limitation of “autonomously driven vehicle”, which does integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This integration renders this claim and claim 20, dependent on claim 19, as eligible if presented in independent form.
Applicant is encouraged to send an interview request to discuss ways in which the current rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 may be overcome.
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 1,3, 5-7, 10-13 and 15-21 are 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 Vallender et al., US2020/0055406A1 (Hereinafter, “Vallender”).
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 a similar device including the following: 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, see Katanoda [0007].
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, Vallender teaches the following limitation:
a temperature setting unit that is configured to set a target temperature of the rechargeable battery after the optimal charger has been selected and before charging by the optimal charger is initiated, 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 [0081], "FIG. 6 illustrates one example method 600 of automatically activating thermal preconditioning ... When the vehicle 12 is expected to charge, the method 600 moves to step 606 ascertain and/or adjust the RESS precondition window, which may also include determining when the RESS precondition start point is expected to be reached … Step 608 starts thermal preconditioning when the time to the fast charging station 90 is less than the time prescribed by the RESS precondition window … The method 600 may also be useful in other non-fleet-based or non-autonomous implementations. For example, the method 600 may be useful in automatic preconditioning methods where the route is known from the GNSS receiver 22." And [0082], " the thermal preconditioning can help maximize charging efficiency when the vehicle 12 is charged at the fast charging station 90. As addressed, above, in one embodiment, thermal preconditioning may involve actively cooling the RESS 30 to a desired temperature that improves charging efficiency. In another embodiment, thermal preconditioning includes increasing a temperature of the RESS 30. “
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 save a user both time and money at the fast charging station 90, see Vallender [0068].
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 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 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].
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].
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 Vallender, 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].
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshino in view of Katanoda, in further view of Vallender, in further view of Kohn et al., US Pub 2010/0072954A1 (Hereinafter, “Kohn”). et al.
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].
Conclusion
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
/KENNETH M DUNNE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights