DETAILED ACTION
This is a first action on the merits, in response to the claims received 4/17/2023. Claims 1-11 are pending for prosecution below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS)(s) file on have been considered by the examiner. An initialed copy is attached herewith.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by OKADA, (USNO.2018/0264958).
As for claim 1, OKADA discloses and shows in Fig. 1 a relay control device (within ref’s electronic control unit) that controls a relay circuit (ref’s driving relay SMR) mounted on a vehicle and connecting an inverter circuit that drives a motor mounted on the vehicle and a battery, the relay control device comprising: an end detection unit that detects that traveling of the vehicle has ended; and a determination unit (via ref’s connection detection sensor) that determines a possibility that power is supplied to the battery from an outside (ref’s external power supply), and controls a time taken from when traveling of the vehicle ends to when the relay circuit is turned off (ref’s on operation to an off operation of the ignition switch) based on the determination (par.[0026-0027]).
As for claim 11, OKADA discloses and shows in Fig. 1 a relay control (within ref’s electronic control unit) method in which a computer controls a relay circuit (ref’s driving relay SMR) mounted on a vehicle and connecting an inverter circuit that drives a motor mounted on the vehicle and a battery, the relay control method comprising: detecting that traveling of the vehicle has ended; and determining (via ref’s connection detection sensor) a possibility that power is supplied to the battery from an outside (ref’s external power supply), and controlling a time taken from when traveling of the vehicle ends to when the relay circuit is turned off (ref’s on operation to an off operation of the ignition switch) based on the determination (par.[0026-0027])
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OKADA in view of AFFRET et al, (AFFRET), (USNO.2017/0305287).
As for claim 7, OKADA discloses all limitations, but differs from the claimed invention because he does not explicitly disclose a vehicle includes an in-vehicle communication unit configured to communicate with a spot communication device included in the charging spot that is a facility configured to charge the battery, and the determination unit determines a possibility that power is supplied to the battery from an outside based on communication between the in-vehicle communication unit and the spot communication device
AFFRET discloses and shows in Fig. 3 a vehicle includes an in-vehicle communication unit configured to communicate with a spot communication device included in the charging spot ( ref’s recharging station) that is a facility configured to charge the battery, and the determination unit determines a possibility that power is supplied to the battery from an outside based on communication between the in-vehicle communication unit and the spot communication device (ref’s wireless transmitter-receiver unit) (par.[0073-0074])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have modified the teachings of OKADA by using a vehicle includes an in-vehicle communication unit configured to communicate with a spot communication device included in the charging spot that is a facility configured to charge the battery, and the determination unit determines a possibility that power is supplied to the battery from an outside based on communication between the in-vehicle communication unit and the spot communication device for advantages such as providing the ability to assist an electric vehicle (abstract) , as taught by AFFRET.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6,8-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 2: a recognition unit that recognizes an intention of a user, who is an occupant of the vehicle, to charge the battery via hardware, wherein when the recognition unit recognizes the intention of the user to charge the battery, the determination unit maintains an ON state of the relay circuit for at least a first predetermined period after the end detection unit detects an end of traveling, in combination with the remaining limitations of independent claims
Claim 8: a distance calculation unit that calculates a distance to a charging spot that is a facility configured to charge the battery, wherein when it is detected that the distance between the vehicle and the charging spot is less than a predetermined distance, the determination unit maintains an ON state of the relay circuit for at least a first predetermined period after the end detection unit detects an end of traveling, in combination with the remaining limitations of independent claims.
Claim 9: a key that emits a radio wave is required to start the vehicle, the relay control device is connected to a receiver that receives the radio wave, and the determination unit extends a time for maintaining an ON state of the relay circuit when the radio wave is unreceivable by the receiver, in combination with the remaining limitations of independent claims.
Claim 10: a key that emits a radio wave is required to start the vehicle,
the relay control device is connected to a receiver that receives the radio wave, and the determination unit extends a time for maintaining an ON state of the relay circuit when the radio wave is received by the receiver, in combination with the remaining limitations of independent claims.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARUN C WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-9765. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9 a.m. - 6 p.m..
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Julian Huffman can be reached on 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 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.
/ARUN C WILLIAMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859