DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
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 the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on August 6, 2026. Claims 1 – 3, 6 – 11, 13 and 14 have been amended, no claims have been canceled, and no claims have been added. Thus, claims 1 – 14 are pending and examined below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 6, 2026 have been fully considered. However, it should be noted that all the 112 issues identified in the previous Office Action have not been resolved and are reiterated herein below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claim 1 positively recites four elements: (1) a behavior feature
extraction unit; (2) a behavior rule extraction unit; (3) a behavior rule correction unit; and (4) a prediction unit.
In line 2 of dependent claim 6, applicant attempts to further define the scope of claim 1 by reciting that “the device is a mobile body that is charged from a charging facility via a charging cable”. (Emphasis added.) In line 1 of claim 1, the device is inferentially claimed, i.e. the claimed “device to be charged or discharged” is not positively recited as an element of the “state prediction system”. Clarification is required as to whether the claimed “device to be charged or discharged” is an element of the “state prediction system”.
Any claims not specifically mentioned herein above, but nonetheless rejected as failing to comply with the written description requirement, are rejected for incorporating the errors of their respective base claims by dependency.
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.
Claims 2, 4 – 6 and 9 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Independent claim 1 positively recites four elements: (1) a behavior feature
extraction unit; (2) a behavior rule extraction unit; (3) a behavior rule correction unit; and (4) a prediction unit.
In line 2 of dependent claim 6, applicant attempts to further define the scope of claim 1 by reciting that “the device is a mobile body that is charged from a charging facility via a charging cable”. (Emphasis added.) In line 1 of claim 1, the device is inferentially claimed, i.e. the claimed “device to be charged or discharged” is not positively recited as an element of the “state prediction system”. Clarification is required as to whether the claimed “device to be charged or discharged” is an element of the “state prediction system”.
In addition, in claims 2, 4 – 5 and 9, the phrase “means of the input operation” is ambiguous because it is unclear, from the claims and applicant’s disclosure, what “means” applicant is referring too. Clarification is required.
Any claims not specifically mentioned herein above, but nonetheless rejected as being indefinite, are rejected for incorporating the errors of their respective base claims by dependency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3, 7, 8 and 10 – 14 are allowed.
Claims 2, 4 – 6 and 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. §112, 2nd paragraph, set forth in herein above.
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 RODNEY A. BUTLER whose telephone number is (313)446-6513. The examiner can normally be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anne Antonucci can be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. at (313) 446-6519. 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.
Electronic Communications
Prior to initiating the first e-mail correspondence with any examiner, Applicant is responsible for filing a written statement with the USPTO in accordance with MPEP § 502.03 II. All received e-mail messages including e-mail attachments shall be placed into this application' s record.
/RODNEY A BUTLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights