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
Applicant’s response and amendment dated 9/1/26 are acknowledged and entered. Claims 9-20 are added. Thus, claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (US 2010/0076825, previously cited) in view of Peng (US 2021/0203177).1 Regarding claims 1, 8, and 17, Sato teaches an information inquiry service system and method comprising: a charge-discharge station for a vehicle (paragraph 0047: station 0201), the charge-discharge station including a charge-discharge device and being connected to a network (paragraph 0049: network 0214); and a server device (paragraph 0053: server 0217) connected to the charge-discharge station through the network, wherein the charge-discharge station transmits use information about a user of the charge-discharge station to the server device (paragraph 0061), the server device includes: a storage unit that stores a use record of the charge-discharge station by the user based on the use information about the user transmitted from the charge-discharge station (paragraph 0061: history memorizing unit 0104); and a control unit (paragraph 0067: instruction transmitting unit 0105), and the control unit transmits information about the use record of the charge- discharge station in response to a request from a client device connected through the network or as an event (paragraph 0067). Sato does not explicitly teach the control unit transmits information about the use record of the charge- discharge station to a client device connected through the network or to the charge-discharge station, in response to a request from the client device or as an event. Peng teaches the control unit transmits information about the use record of the charge- discharge station to a client device connected through the network or to the charge-discharge station, in response to a request from the client device or as an event (see client device 1008 in Fig. 11, see also paragraph 0095). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the teachings of Sato and Peng, because such a combination aids the user in avoiding power interruptions (paragraph 0023 of Peng). Regarding claim 2, Sato further teaches the use record includes a charge-discharge amount for each use (paragraph 0042). Regarding claim 3, Sato further teaches the server device grants a privilege corresponding to the use record of the charge-discharge station (paragraph 0078). Regarding claim 4, Sato further teaches the server device grants the privilege according to a number of use times (paragraph 0078). Regarding claim 5, Sato further teaches the server device grants a higher privilege to discharge from the vehicle when a power demand is high and/or charge to the vehicle when power is surplus as compared with the discharge from the vehicle and/or the charge to the vehicle at other timings (paragraph 0078). Regarding claim 6, Sato further teaches the control unit transmits the information about the use record of the charge-discharge station to the charge-discharge station during a period from a start to an end of the use of the charge-discharge device by the user (paragraph 0078). Regarding claim 7, Sato further teaches the use record is displayed on a display panel of the charge- discharge device for at least a certain period from the start to the end of the use of the charge-discharge device by the user (paragraph 0077: LED 1201). Regarding claim 9, Sato further teaches the control unit transmits the information about the use record of the charge-discharge station to the client device (paragraph 0042). Regarding claim 10, Sato further teaches the control unit transmits information about the use record of the charge-discharge station to the client device or to the charge-discharge station at a constant period or by detecting a start or an end of the use of the charge-discharge device by the user (paragraph 0042). Regarding claim 11, Sato further teaches the control unit transmits information about the use record of the charge-discharge station to the client device or to the charge-discharge station by detecting a start or an end of the use of the charge-discharge device by the user (paragraph 0042). Regarding claim 12, Sato further teaches the control unit detects the start or the end of the use of the charge-discharge device by the user based on login information from the user (paragraph 0042). Regarding claim 13, Sato further teaches the control unit authenticates the user by using information displayed on the client device read by a camera in the charge-discharge station and inquired to the server device (paragraph 0051). Regarding claim 14, Sato further teaches the control unit transmits information about the use record of the charge-discharge station to the client device or to the charge-discharge station, in response to the request from the client device (paragraph 0042). Regarding claim 15, Sato further teaches the server device grants a higher privilege to discharge from the vehicle charged with power derived from natural energy as compared to discharge from a vehicle charged with power derived from energy other than the natural energy (paragraph 0054). Regarding claim 16, Sato further teaches the information inquiry service system charges a metered amount of charge amount during charge in the vehicle and/or purchases a metered amount of discharge amount during discharge from the vehicle (paragraph 0054). Regarding claim 18, Peng further teaches the client device is a smartphone see client device 1008 in Fig. 11, see also paragraph 0095), and the use record is displayed on the smartphone by a dedicated browsing software (paragraph 0095). Regarding claim 19, Sato further teaches wherein the control unit authenticates the user by using information displayed on the smartphone read by a camera in the charging station and inquired to the server device (paragraph 0051). Regarding claim 20, Sato further teaches the control unit transmits, as the use record, information about charging from the charging station with power derived from natural energy to the client device (paragraph 0054).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. New reference Peng has been used to teach the newly added limitations. See above.
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 MATTHEW MIKELS whose telephone number is (571)270-5470. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 7:30 AM ET - 5:00 PM ET, Friday 7:30 AM ET - 9:30 AM ET, the Examiner is on central time.2
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, Thomas K Pham can be reached at 571-272-3689. 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.
/MATTHEW MIKELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
1 In addition to the cited paragraphs in each reference, please see also the associated figures.
2 The Examiner can also be reached at matthew.mikels@uspto.gov.
Prosecution Insights