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 .
Claims Status
Claims 1-19 are currently pending, claims 1, 5-6 and 16 are currently pending, claims 17-19 are new.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 08/17/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) and claims 2-16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of TSUDA (US 20208/0307410 A1) and CAFFY (US 2013/0314037).
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.
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) 1, 3-9 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TSUDA (US 20208/0307410 A1, hereinafter TSUDA) in view of CAFFY (US 2013/0314037, hereinafter CAFFY) and in further view of SHARP KK (JP2015097441, hereinafter SHARP).
Regarding claim 1, TSUDA discloses a charge-discharge station for a vehicle, the charge- discharge station comprising:
a plurality of charge-discharge devices (See Fig.1, discloses a plurality of charge-discharge devices 3).
However, TSUDA does not disclose a display device that collectively displays modes regarding charge-discharge of the plurality of charge-discharge devices in the same screen, wherein the modes regarding charge-discharge include two or more selected from the group consisting of: (1) a charging mode; (2) a discharging mode; and (3) a charging/discharging mode.
CAFFY discloses a vehicle charging device comprising a display device that collectively displays modes regarding charge-discharge of the plurality of charge-discharge devices in the same screen (See Fig.4, discloses a display 145 displaying a plurality of modes i.e. 1. Charging and 2, 5 and 6 showing as standby. Fig.5 also discloses a display 145 displaying the charged percentage in slots 3-4 and a charging status in slot# 1 and empty charging slots# 2 and 5-6. The different modes are all displayed on the same screen), wherein the modes regarding charge-discharge include two or more selected from the group consisting of:
(1) a charging mode (See Figs.4-5 disclose a display 145 displaying that a vehicle is charging is slot#1).
TSUDA and CAFFY are analogous art since they both deal with vehicle charging.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by TSUDA with the teachings of CAFFY by adding a display device that collectively displays modes regarding charge-discharge of the plurality of charge-discharge devices in the same screen for the benefit of providing status of each charging station.
Even though CAFFY does not explicitly disclose displaying the discharging mode of vehicles on the same screen. The examiner explains that since TSUDA discloses a plurality of charging-discharging devices and CAFFY discloses a display screen that shows the status of each of the vehicle connection points, then the combination of TSUDA as modified by CAFFY would provide a plurality of charge-discharge devices and a display for displaying the status of the plurality of charge-discharge devices including charging and discharging (Vehicle to grid).
In case the applicant disagrees with the examiner’s assertion, the examiner provided SHARP to address the missing limitation of displaying the discharging mode.
SHARP discloses a vehicle charging station comprising a charge-discharge device and a
display to notify the user of modes regarding charge-discharge of the charge-discharge device (See Figs. 1-4, Item#1 and Pars.41, 65 and 68, disclose the display notifies the user of the operating mode of the charge-discharge device 1, the operating modes include grid-connected charging mode [Par.65] and grid connected discharging mode [Par.68]).
TSUDA, CAFFY and SHARP are analogous art since they all deal with vehicle charging.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by TSUDA and CAFFY with the teachings of SHARP by displaying the discharging mode of the vehicles that are discharging along with the vehicles that are charging and the charging-discharging devices that are in standby on the same screen at the same time for the benefit of allowing the operator to identify the status of each connected vehicle without having to walk up to the charging-discharging device.
Regarding claim 3, TSUDA, CAFFY and SHARP disclose the charge-discharge station according to claim 1 as discussed above, wherein when the mode is to be switched, the display device displays transition information about the mode (See SHARP Figs. 1-4, Item#1 and Pars.41, 65 and 68, disclose the display notifies the user of the operating mode of the charge-discharge device 1, the operating modes include grid-connected charging mode [Par.65] and grid connected discharging mode [Par.68]. CAFFY, Figs.3-6 also disclose the cumulative screen 145 displaying different modes charging, standby, 80% charged, full charge. The examiner explains that switching from charging to discharging as in SHARP or from one mode such as standby to charging, there is a transition from a first mode to a second mode which is interpreted to satisfy the transitioning limitation in the claim).
Regarding claim 4, TSUDA, CAFFY and SHARP disclose the charge-discharge station according to claim 1 as discussed above, wherein the display device collectively displays the modes regarding the charge- discharge of the charge-discharge devices respectively installed in parking spaces located in a dispersed manner (See CAFFY, Figs.1-6, disclose a plurality of dispersed chargers 130 and a cumulative display 145. TSUDA also discloses a plurality of dispersed charger-discharger units 3).
Regarding claim 5, TSUDA discloses a charge-discharge station for a vehicle, the charge- discharge station comprising:
a plurality of charge-discharge devices (See Fig.1, discloses a plurality of charge-discharge devices 3); and
a control unit (See Fig.1, Item#4 and Par.20).
However, TSUDA does not disclose wherein the control unit transmits display information collectively displaying modes regarding charge-discharge of the plurality of charge-discharging devices in the same screen to an information terminal device connected through a network in response to a request from the information terminal device ,and the modes regarding charge-discharge include two or more selected from the group consisting of: (1) a charging mode; (2) a discharging mode; and (3) a charging/discharging mode.
CAFFY discloses a vehicle charging device comprising:
a control unit (See Figs.1-5, Item#140),
wherein the control unit transmits display information collectively displaying modes regarding charge-discharge of the plurality of charge-discharging devices in the same screen to an information terminal device connected through a network in response to a request from the information terminal device (See Fig.4, discloses a display 145 displaying a plurality of modes i.e. 1. Charging and 2, 5 and 6 showing as standby. Fig.5 also discloses a display 145 displaying the charged percentage in slots 3-4 and a charging status in slot# 1 and empty charging slots# 2 and 5-6. The different modes are all displayed on the same screen. Par.33-34 and 48, disclose that controllers 190 of individual chargers 130 communicate with the controller 140 to provide data and controller 140 controls the display of data on the display 145 as indicated by the signal arrow from controller 140 to the display 145), and the modes regarding charge-discharge include two or more selected from the group consisting of:
(1) a charging mode (See Figs.4-5 disclose a display 145 displaying that a vehicle is charging is slot#1).
TSUDA and CAFFY are analogous art since they both deal with vehicle charging.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by TSUDA with the teachings of CAFFY by adding a controller and display device that collectively displays modes regarding charge-discharge of the plurality of charge-discharge devices in the same screen for the benefit of providing status of each charging station.
Even though CAFFY does not explicitly disclose displaying the discharging mode of vehicles on the same screen. The examiner explains that since TSUDA discloses a plurality of charging-discharging devices and CAFFY discloses a display screen that shows the status of each of the vehicle connection points, then the combination of TSUDA as modified by CAFFY would provide a plurality of charge-discharge devices and a display for displaying the status of the plurality of charge-discharge devices including charging and discharging (Vehicle to grid).
In case the applicant disagrees with the examiner’s assertion, the examiner provided SHARP to address the missing limitation of displaying the discharging mode.
SHARP discloses a vehicle charging station comprising a charge-discharge device and a
display to notify the user of modes regarding charge-discharge of the charge-discharge device (See Figs. 1-4, Item#1 and Pars.41, 65 and 68, disclose the display notifies the user of the operating mode of the charge-discharge device 1, the operating modes include grid-connected charging mode [Par.65] and grid connected discharging mode [Par.68]).
TSUDA, CAFFY and SHARP are analogous art since they all deal with vehicle charging.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by TSUDA and CAFFY with the teachings of SHARP by displaying the discharging mode of the vehicles that are discharging along with the vehicles that are charging and the charging-discharging devices that are in standby on the same screen at the same time for the benefit of allowing the operator to identify the status of each connected vehicle without having to walk up to the charging-discharging device.
Regarding claim 6, TSUDA discloses a charge-discharge station comprising:
a plurality of charge-discharge devices (See Fig.1, discloses a plurality of charge-discharge devices 3).
However, TSUDA does not disclose a display device that collectively displays a use condition and a use schedule of the plurality of charge-discharge devices in the same screen.
CAFFY discloses a display device that collectively displays a use condition and a use schedule of the plurality of charge-discharge devices in the same screen (See Fig.4, discloses a display 145 displaying a use condition i.e. 1. Charging and 2, 5 and 6 showing as standby. Fig.5 also discloses a display 145 displaying the charged percentage in slots 3-4 and a charging status in slot# 1 and empty charging slots# 2 and 5-6. The different modes are all displayed on the same screen. Fig.6 discloses displaying that vehicle connected to slot#1 is fully charged. All the previously mentioned status are interpreted as the use condition. Fig.4 and Par.37, also discloses displaying the charging schedule at each charging device).
TSUDA and CAFFY are analogous art since they both deal with vehicle charging.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by TSUDA with the teachings of CAFFY by adding a controller and display device that collectively displays modes regarding charge-discharge of the plurality of charge-discharge devices in the same screen for the benefit of providing status of each charging station.
Even though CAFFY does not explicitly disclose displaying the discharging mode of vehicles on the same screen. The examiner explains that since TSUDA discloses a plurality of charging-discharging devices and CAFFY discloses a display screen that shows the status of each of the vehicle connection points, then the combination of TSUDA as modified by CAFFY would provide a plurality of charge-discharge devices and a display for displaying the status of the plurality of charge-discharge devices including charging and discharging (Vehicle to grid).
In case the applicant disagrees with the examiner’s assertion, the examiner provided SHARP to address the missing limitation of displaying the discharging mode.
SHARP discloses a vehicle charging station comprising a charge-discharge device and a
display to notify the user of modes regarding charge-discharge of the charge-discharge device (See Figs. 1-4, Item#1 and Pars.41, 65 and 68, disclose the display notifies the user of the operating mode of the charge-discharge device 1, the operating modes include grid-connected charging mode [Par.65] and grid connected discharging mode [Par.68]).
TSUDA, CAFFY and SHARP are analogous art since they all deal with vehicle charging.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by TSUDA and CAFFY with the teachings of SHARP by displaying the discharging mode of the vehicles that are discharging along with the vehicles that are charging and the charging-discharging devices that are in standby on the same screen at the same time for the benefit of allowing the operator to identify the status of each connected vehicle without having to walk up to the charging-discharging device.
Regarding claims 7-8 and 18, TSUDA, CAFFY and SHARP disclose the charge-discharge station according to claim 6 as discussed above, wherein the display device displays a scheduled use end time or a remaining time until the use end of each charge-discharge device as the use schedule (See CAFFY, Par.34, discloses displaying time remaining until charging of next vehicle can be initiated. Fig.4 discloses charger available at 8:45. This is interpreted as the scheduled use end time as the charger will become available for use by another vehicle. This can also be interpreted as the remaining time since in Fig.4, the current time is displayed and the time the charger will become available is also displayed. A subtraction of the start time from the end time will provide the remaining time until use end. Regarding claim 8, CAFFY Pars.40-41, discloses charging time is based on charging the vehicle battery to 80% [interpreted as the setting]).
Regarding claim 9, TSUDA, CAFFY and SHARP disclose the charge-discharge station according to claim 6 as discussed above, However, TSUDA, CAFFY and SHARP do not explicitly disclose wherein the display device displays the charge state of the in-vehicle battery at the use end time point of the charge-discharge device.
However, CAFFY discloses that charging time is determined based on charging the vehicle battery to a capacity of 80% (See Fig.4, Slots#3 and #4 and Pars.34 and 40-41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by TSUDA, CAFFY and SHARP by displaying the charge state of the in-vehicle battery at the use end time point of the charge-discharge device (i.e. 15 minutes until charged to 80%) for the benefit of allowing the user to make adjustment to the charging threshold or to take into account the end charging capacity at the end of the charging time.
Regarding claim 17, TSUDA, CAFFY and SHARP disclose the charge-discharge station according to claim 5 as discussed above, wherein the display information includes a default mode which is set by a manager of the charge- discharge station, and a mode which is set by a user (See SHARP, Par.41, discloses the user manually selects the mode. The examiner explains that a default mode is inherent since the device will be in either a charge, discharge or standby mode to begin with).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TSUDA in view of CAFFY and SHARP and in further view of JINNO et al. (US 12,397,676 B2, hereinafter JINNO).
Regarding claim 2, TSUDA, CAFFY and SHARP disclose the charge-discharge station according to claim 1 as discussed above, However, TSUDA, CAFFY and SHARP do not disclose wherein the display device groups and displays the plurality of charge-discharge devices according to the mode, and displays the mode for each group.
JINNO discloses a display device which groups and displays the plurality of charge-discharge devices according to the mode, and displays the mode for each group (See Fig.4 and Col.5, lines 8-36, disclose a display which groups together vehicles that are charging and vehicles that are discharging).
TSUDA, CAFFY, SHARP and JINNO are analogous art since they all deal with vehicle charging.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by TSUDA, CAFFY and SHARP with the teachings of JINNO by displaying the plurality of charge-discharge devices according to the mode, and displays the mode for each group for the benefit of displaying the data in a way that is easily discernible by the user.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TSUDA in view of CAFFY and SHARP and in further view of THEURER et al. (US 2013/0110632 A1, hereinafter THEURER).
Regarding claim 10, TSUDA, CAFFY and SHARP disclose the charge-discharge station according to claim 6, However TSUDA, CAFFY and SHARP do not disclose wherein the display device displays presence or absence of a next use reservation of each charge-discharge device as the use schedule.
THEURER discloses a system for communicating with a charging station, comprising a display device which displays presence or absence of a next use reservation of each charge-discharge device as the use schedule (See Fig.9, and Par.47, disclose displaying the charging schedule including open slots and whether there are reserved slots after them or if there is an absence of reservations).
TSUDA, CAFFY, SHARP and THEURER are analogous art since they all deal with vehicle charging.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by TSUDA, CAFFY and SHARP with the teachings of THEURER by displaying the presence or absence of a next use reservation od each charge-discharge device as the use schedule for the benefit of allowing the operator to identify the charging station use schedule.
Claim(s) 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TSUDA in view of CAFFY and SHARP and in further view of REYNOLDS et al. (US 2017/0158071 A1, hereinafter REYNOLDS).
Regarding claim 11, TSUDA, CAFFY and SHARP disclose the charge-discharge station according to claim 6 as discussed above, However, TSUDA, CAFFY and SHARP do not disclose wherein the display device displays a service mode of each charge-discharge device.
REYNOLDS discloses vehicle charging station comprising a display device wherein the display device displays a service mode of each charge-discharge device (See Par.68, discloses displaying a fault condition i.e. service mode and diagnostics are performed to determine if an actual fault exists and of corrective action needs to be taken).
TSUDA, CAFFY, SHARP and REYNOLDS are analogous art since they all deal with vehicle charging.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by TSUDA, CAFFY and SHARP with the teachings of REYNOLDS by displaying a service mode for each charge-discharge device for the benefit of alerting the operator of the presence of a fault that needs to be addressed.
Regarding claim 12, TSUDA, CAFFY and SHARP disclose the charge-discharge station according to claim 6 as discussed above, However TSUDA, CAFFY and SHARP do not disclose wherein at least one charge-discharge device of the plurality of charge-discharge devices is a multi-connection type charge-discharge device to which a plurality of vehicles can be connected.
REYNOLDS discloses a vehicle charging station comprising a charge-discharge device wherein at least one charge-discharge device of the plurality of charge-discharge devices is a multi-connection type charge-discharge device to which a plurality of vehicles can be connected (See Fig.7, discloses a charge device comprising a plurality of charging heads i.e. multi-connection type charge-discharge device to which a plurality of vehicles can be connected).
TSUDA, CAFFY, SHARP and REYNOLDS are analogous art since they all deal with vehicle charging.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by TSUDA, CAFFY and SHARP with the teachings of REYNOLDS by having at least one charge-discharge device of the plurality of charge-discharge devices is a multi-connection type charge-discharge device to which a plurality of vehicles can be connected for the benefit of allowing each of the charge-discharge devices to charge a plurality of vehicles.
Regarding claims 13-14, TSUDA, CAFFY, SHARP and REYNOLDS disclose the charge-discharge station according to claim 12 as discussed above, wherein the display device displays a charge status or a discharge status of each vehicle connected to the multi-connection type charge-discharge device as the use condition (See claim 6 rejection above, discloses the combination of TSUDA, CAFFY and SHARP provides a display that shows the charging and discharging status of each vehicle connected to the charging system; CAFFY discloses in Figs.3-6 a display 145 displaying charging status of charging device and SHARP discloses displaying charging/discharging status).
Regarding claim 15, TSUDA, CAFFY, SHARP and REYNOLDS disclose the charge-discharge station according to claim 12 as discussed above, However, TSUDA, CAFFY, SHARP and REYNOLDS as applied to claim 12 do not disclose wherein the display device displays priority order of which vehicle is preferentially charged for a plurality of vehicles connected to the multi-connection type charge- discharge device or which vehicle is preferentially discharged for the plurality of vehicles as the use schedule.
REYNOLDS further discloses a vehicle charging station wherein the display device displays priority order of which vehicle is preferentially charged for a plurality of vehicles connected to the multi-connection type charge- discharge device or which vehicle is preferentially discharged for the plurality of vehicles as the use schedule (See Fig.15, Item#1504 and Par.106, disclose designating connection 144 as a priority connection).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by TSUDA, CAFFY, SHARP and REYNOLDS as applied to claim 12 with the further teachings of REYNOLDS by designating a connection to be a priority connection for the benefit of allowing the user to connect to a priority connection if they want to guarantee receiving the required power.
Claim(s) 16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TSUDA in view of CAFFY and SHARP and in further view of KIESSLING et al. (US 11,872,902 B2, hereinafter KIESSLING).
Regarding claim 16, TSUDA discloses a charge-discharge station comprising:
a plurality of charge-discharge devices (See Fig.1, discloses a plurality of charge-discharge devices 3); and
a control unit (See Fig.1, Item#4 and Par.20).
However, TSUDA does not disclose wherein the control unit transmits display information collectively displaying a use condition and a use schedule of the plurality of charge-discharge devices in the same screen to an information terminal device connected through a network in response to a request from the information terminal device.
CAFFY discloses a vehicle charging device comprising:
a control unit (See Figs.1-5, Item#140),
wherein the control unit transmits display information collectively displaying modes regarding charge-discharge of the plurality of charge-discharging devices in the same screen to an information terminal device connected through a network in response to a request from the information terminal device (See Fig.4, discloses a display 145 displaying a plurality of modes i.e. 1. Charging and 2, 5 and 6 showing as standby. Fig.5 also discloses a display 145 displaying the charged percentage in slots 3-4 and a charging status in slot# 1 and empty charging slots# 2 and 5-6. The different modes are all displayed on the same screen. Par.33-34 and 48, disclose that controllers 190 of individual chargers 130 communicate with the controller 140 to provide data and controller 140 controls the display of data on the display 145 as indicated by the signal arrow from controller 140 to the display 145), and the modes regarding charge-discharge include two or more selected from the group consisting of:
(1) a charging mode (See Figs.4-5 disclose a display 145 displaying that a vehicle is charging is slot#1).
TSUDA and CAFFY are analogous art since they both deal with vehicle charging.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by TSUDA with the teachings of CAFFY by adding a controller and display device that collectively displays modes regarding charge-discharge of the plurality of charge-discharge devices in the same screen for the benefit of providing status of each charging station.
Even though CAFFY does not explicitly disclose displaying the discharging mode of vehicles on the same screen. The examiner explains that since TSUDA discloses a plurality of charging-discharging devices and CAFFY discloses a display screen that shows the status of each of the vehicle connection points, then the combination of TSUDA as modified by CAFFY would provide a plurality of charge-discharge devices and a display for displaying the status of the plurality of charge-discharge devices including charging and discharging (Vehicle to grid).
TSUDA and CAFFY do not disclose the control unit transmits the display information to an information terminal device connected through a network in response to a request from the information terminal device
In case the applicant disagrees with the examiner’s assertion, the examiner provided SHARP to address the missing limitation of displaying the discharging mode.
SHARP discloses a vehicle charging station comprising a charge-discharge device and a
display to notify the user of modes regarding charge-discharge of the charge-discharge device (See Figs. 1-4, Item#1 and Pars.41, 65 and 68, disclose the display notifies the user of the operating mode of the charge-discharge device 1, the operating modes include grid-connected charging mode [Par.65] and grid connected discharging mode [Par.68]).
TSUDA, CAFFY and SHARP are analogous art since they all deal with vehicle charging.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by TSUDA and CAFFY with the teachings of SHARP by displaying the discharging mode of the vehicles that are discharging along with the vehicles that are charging and the charging-discharging devices that are in standby on the same screen at the same time for the benefit of allowing the operator to identify the status of each connected vehicle without having to walk up to the charging-discharging device.
However, TSUDA, CAFFY and SHARP do not disclose the control unit transmits the display information to an information terminal device connected through a network in response to a request from the information terminal device.
KIESSLING discloses an electric fleet management system comprising displaying a use schedule of a plurality of charge-discharge devices (See Fig.7, discloses a use schedule [charging and discharging] of multiple stations, Col.18, lines 29-32 disclose the control system is in communication with a GUI).
TSUDA, CAFFY, SHARP and KIESSLING are analogous art since they all deal with vehicle charging.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by TSUDA, CAFFY and SHARP with the teachings of KIESSLING by sending the display information to an information terminal through a network for the benefit of allowing a network operator at a remote location to view and manage the charge-discharge devices.
Regarding claim 19, TSUDA, CAFFY, SHARP and KIESSLING disclose the charge-discharge station according to claim 16 as discussed above, wherein the use schedule includes a remaining time until a use end of each charge-discharge device (See CAFFY, Par.34, discloses displaying time remaining until charging of next vehicle can be initiated. Fig.4 discloses charger available at 8:45. This is interpreted as the scheduled use end time as the charger will become available for use by another vehicle. This can also be interpreted as the remaining time since in Fig.4, the current time is displayed and the time the charger will become available is also displayed. A subtraction of the start time from the end time will provide the remaining time until use end. Regarding claim 8, CAFFY Pars.40-41, discloses charging time is based on charging the vehicle battery to 80% [interpreted as the setting]).
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 AHMED H OMAR whose telephone number is (571)270-7165. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 am -7:00 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, Drew Dunn can be reached at 571-272-2312. 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.
/AHMED H OMAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
