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 .
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgement is made of the amendment filed on 6/25/2026. Claim 1 amended, claims 4 and 5 cancelled, and claims 6 and 7 added. The drawing objection has been overcome and the Nonstatutory Double Patenting rejection has been overcome due to the submission of a terminal disclaimer.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 6/25/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of 18/791,913 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Hayashida figure 6 only discloses SOC thresholds/amounts of solar power. But fig 6 discloses the current pathway during when power generation cannot be expected, where the cloud (which replaces the sun of fig 5) signifies that there is no solar charging during a “predetermined period” or timeframe when the suns radiation is not available to the system for power generation, and any kind of solar radiation blocking event (clouds, rain, night, building cover/roof) is known to take place for a “predetermined period” whether that be 10 seconds or days/weeks at a time. It is also noted that claim 1’s recitation of “in at least one of” in line 15 prior to the recitations of each of the “cases” (case 1 – time/weather, case 2 – storage, case 3 – component failure, and case 4 – user instruction) means that only one of the claimed case conditions is required to be met. The prior art does not need to satisfy all four conditions simultaneously, which appears to be further supported by applicant’s specification ¶31-33 and fig 2 where the system performs a single check to see if ONE of the case conditions is met. The rejection is maintained below.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashida et al. JP 2016208699 in view of Herrero et al. US 20240351467 further in view of Davenport et al. US 6688303.
With regards to claim 1 Hayashida discloses, a solar charging system mounted on a vehicle [figs 1 and 4-7], the solar charging system comprising:
a power generation module using a solar panel [power generation unit 111];
an auxiliary battery for storing power generated by the power generation module [sub battery 123];
a driving battery used for driving the vehicle [main battery 121]; and
a control unit [MPPT control unit 113] that is provided between the driving battery and the auxiliary battery and that controls power transfer between the driving battery and the auxiliary battery, wherein when a process of transferring power from the auxiliary battery to the driving battery is performed, the control unit changes an amount of power of the auxiliary battery to be transferred to the driving battery based on a state of the vehicle [fig 3 S115 where the main battery 121 is charged by the sub battery 123], wherein
when the power generation module is not able to generate predetermined power as the state of the vehicle, the control unit reduces the amount of the power of the auxiliary battery to be transferred to the driving battery as compared with a case in which the power generation module is able to generate the predetermined power [fig 3 S111 where the SOCs of the sub battery is determined and if it is lower than a threshold ths2 the charging process is terminated, which reasonably reads on the power being supplied to the drive battery being reduced due to the power generation module not being able to provide power to the system to include the auxiliary battery], and
in at least one of
a case in which a time period or weather is a time period or weather on which power generation is not able to be expected [fig 6 discloses a weather period where there is little or no power generation],
a case in which the vehicle is stored for a predetermined period or longer in a state in which a solar radiation amount is less than a predetermined amount [fig 6 reasonably reads on this, as the vehicle could be stored in a setting where there is a lack of solar power generation],
the control unit reduces the amount of the power of the auxiliary battery to be transferred to the driving battery as compared with a case other than the at least one case [fig 3 discloses the different SOC levels and whether or not the sub battery supplies power to the main battery which reasonably reads on the reduction of power from the aux battery to the driving battery].
Hayashida fails to disclose, a case in which apart related to a charging process in the vehicle is defective.
However, Herrero disclose, a case in which a part related to a charging process in the vehicle is defective [Abstract “the charging behavior of the charging column is checked by the electric vehicle and if the charging behavior is found to be faulty, the electric vehicle terminates the current charging process”].
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 systems of Hayashida and Herrero to check for defects in the charging process in order to prevent damage to the system and batteries.
Hayashida fails to disclose a case in which a predetermined instruction is given to the vehicle, as the state of the vehicle.
However, Davenport discloses, a case in which a predetermined instruction is given to the vehicle, as the state of the vehicle [col 24 lines 57-58 “The basic commands from the user are as follows: Enable/disable solar operation”].
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 systems of Hayashida and Davenport to include a user instruction as a means to disable the solar charging in order to prevent damage to the system, for example for weather protection and during a potential maintenance or system troubleshooting timeframe.
With regards to claim 7 the combination discloses, the solar charging system according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined period is between sunset to sunrise [Hayashida ¶45 discloses power generation during a predetermined period of time which includes night which reasonably reads on a period between sunset to sunrise].
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashida et al. JP 2016208699 in view of Herrero et al. US 20240351467 further in view of Davenport et al. US 6688303 further in view of Sugiyama US 20150336468.
With regards to claim 2 the combination discloses, the solar charging system according to claim 1, wherein the control unit includes:
a first direct current-direct current converter that is able to supply the power of the auxiliary battery to the driving battery and that is able to supply power of the driving battery to the auxiliary battery [Hayashida fig 1 converters 117 and 125].
The combination fails to disclose, a second direct current-direct current converter for supplying the power of the driving battery to the auxiliary battery while the vehicle is being parked.
However, Sugiyama discloses, a second direct current-direct current converter for supplying the power of the driving battery to the auxiliary battery while the vehicle is being parked [¶47 “while vehicle 100 is parked, control device 50 may activate DC/DC converter 31 to execute charging of electric power from main battery MB into auxiliary battery AB”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further combine the charging systems of Hayashida in view of Herrero and Davenport with Sugiyama to charge the auxiliary battery from the main battery in order to prevent damage and optimize energy management.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashida et al. JP 2016208699 in view of Herrero et al. US 20240351467 further in view of Davenport et al. US 6688303 further in view of Lee US 20110140520.
With regards to claim 3 the combination fails to disclose, the solar charging system according to claim 1, wherein the control unit includes a direct current-direct current converter that is able to perform the power transfer bidirectionally between the auxiliary battery and the driving battery.
However, Lee discloses, the solar charging system according to claim 1, wherein the control unit includes a direct current-direct current converter that is able to perform the power transfer bidirectionally between the auxiliary battery and the driving battery [Fig 1 bi-directional converter 113 which is within a system including solar power generation where power is moved from the battery 115 to a load 150].
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 charging systems to utilize a bidirectional converter for bidirectional power transfer in order to stabilize the system and improve reliability.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashida et al. JP 2016208699 in view of Herrero et al. US 20240351467 further in view of Davenport et al. US 6688303 further in view of Gaither US 20190248243
With regards to claim 6 the combination discloses, the solar charging system according to claim 1, wherein the time period or weather includes a night period, cloudy weather and rainy weather [Hayashida ¶45 includes night time, and weather events like clouds and rain], and
the predetermined instruction includes an instruction not to use solar power generation [Davenport col 24 lines 57-58 “The basic commands from the user are as follows: Enable/disable solar operation”].
The combination fails to disclose, the state in which a solar radiation amount is less than a predetermined amount includes a case in which the vehicle is stopped in a garage with a roof.
However, Gaither discloses, the state in which a solar radiation amount is less than a predetermined amount includes a case in which the vehicle is stopped in a garage with a roof [¶3 discloses the vehicle with a solar charging system parked inside a garage which impedes the solar charging function].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further combine the charging system of Hayashida in view of Herrero and Davenport with Gaither to include a case where the car is parked in a building and cannot obtain solar charging to improve the systems reliability and response due to a loss or reduction of available solar power.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Nathaniel Instone whose telephone number is (571)272-1563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 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, Julian Huffman can be reached at 571-272-2147. 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.
/NATHAN J INSTONE/Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/JULIAN D HUFFMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights