CTNF 18/360,145 CTNF 78613 DETAILED ACTION 1. This is the first action on the merits relating to U.S. Application Serial No. 18/360,145 filed on July 27, 2023. Currently claims 1-20 remain in the examination. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 2. `The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 02-26 AIA 3. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA 4. Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding claim 10, line 2: please replace “claim 1” with the actual text of claim1 which would place the independent claim in a better form . Appropriate correction is required. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA 5. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. 08-35 AIA 6. Claim s 1, 10, 11, and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1 and 11 of copending Application No. 18/235,412 (hereinafter “Reference Application”) filed by the Applicant . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following claim comparison would show . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Instant Application Reference Application Claim 1 A state of charge (SOC) control method for an electric vehicle, the method comprising: setting available power amount information based on power of a battery; receiving usage information on a usage device selected by a user from an external device and matching the usage information to preset load power data of a preset load power database; calculating predicted power amount information of the usage device based on the preset load power data and the available power amount information; and providing the predicted power amount to a user's device. Claim 1 A method for controlling a state of charge (SOC) of a battery of an electric vehicle, the method comprising: setting available power amount information based on a SOC of the battery for supplying power to an electric motor for driving the electric vehicle; receiving usage information of at least one external device selected by a user from a server or a smart device and matching the usage information to a preset load power data; calculating predicted power amount information of the at least one external device based on a result of the matching and the available power amount information and providing the predicted power amount information; and determining a plurality of driving routes possible to a destination input by the user based on the predicted power amount information. Claim 11 An electric vehicle state of charge (SOC) control system, the system comprising: a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium configured to store at least one computer program; and a processor configured to execute the at least one computer program to perform an SOC control method, wherein, when executing the at least one computer program, the processor is configured to: set available power amount information based on power of a battery; receive usage information on a usage device selected by a user from an external device and matching the usage information to preset load power data of a preset load power database; calculate predicted power amount information of the usage device based on the preset load power data and the available power amount information; and provide the predicted power amount to a user's device. Clam 11 A system for controlling a state of charge (SOC) of a battery of an electric vehicle, the system comprising: a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium configured to store at least one computer program for performing operations for controlling the SOC; and a processor configured to execute the computer program to perform the operations, wherein the operations for controlling the SOC include: setting available power amount information based on an SOC of the battery for supplying power to an electric motor for driving a vehicle; receiving usage information of at least one external device selected by a user from a server or a smart device and matching the usage information to a preset load power data; calculating predicted power amount information of the at least one external device based on a result of the matching and the available power amount information and providing the predicted power amount information to the smart device; and determining a plurality of driving routes possible to a destination input by the user based on the predicted power amount information. As shown in claims composition above, the claims of the instant application and the reference application are not verbatim identical. They are almost identical except for the very last limitation. Underlined section of claim 1 of the reference application corresponds to the sections of claim 1 of the instant application. The last limitation of claim 1 of the instant application recites: “providing the predicted power amount to a user's device,” and the last limitation of claim 1 of the reference application is “determining a plurality of driving routes possible to a destination input by the user based on the predicted power amount information.” They may not be the same, however, the limitation of claim 1 appears to be very broad, and certainly the limitation of claim 1 of the reference application can read on claim 1 of the instant application. In view of the above, claim 1 of the instant application and claim 1 of the reference application are not patentably distinct. Claim 10 is limited to a computer program product for performing the method of claim1. The computer program product is disclosed on claim 11 of the reference application although claim 11 is limited to a system. Claim 20 is limited to a vehicle. Examiner acknowledges that the vehicle is not explicitly disclosed as an independent claim in the refence application. However, the vehicle is fully disclosed on claims 1 and 11 of the reference application. Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 7. Claim s 2-9 and 12-19 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. 13-03-01 AIA 8. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claims are directed at a state of charge (SOC) control method for an electric vehicle, the method comprising: setting available power amount information based on power of a battery; receiving usage information on a usage device selected by a user from an external device and matching the usage information to preset load power data of a preset load power database; calculating predicted power amount information of the usage device based on the preset load power data and the available power amount information; providing the predicted power amount to a user's device wherein setting the available power amount information comprises: extracting a characteristic value of power consumption according to a type of the electric vehicle; sensing a current external temperature of the electric vehicle; extracting a temperature weight value by matching the sensed current external temperature to a preset temperature factor; calculating a current SOC of the battery by applying the characteristic value of power consumption or the temperature weight value to the power of the battery; and calculating an available power amount value based on a minimum charging amount of the battery and the calculated current SOC of the battery. Such a method for a vehicle is neither disclosed nor suggested by the cited references. Above is a combination of claims 1 and 2 as an example. The limitations in other objected claims are also allowable. Conclusion The pertinent prior arts made of record but not relied are listed in the attached form PTO-892. These are considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. Applicant is respectfully suggested to carefully review these references. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ahshik Kim whose telephone number is (571)272-2393. The examiner can normally be reached between the hours of 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM Monday thru Friday. Examiner’s fax phone number is (571)273-2393. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Michael G. Lee, can be reached on (571)272-2398. The fax phone number for this Group is (571)273-8300. Communications via Internet e-mail regarding this application, other than those under 35 U.S.C. 132 or which otherwise require a signature, may be used by the applicant and should be addressed to [ahshik.kim@uspto.gov]. PTO employees do not engage in Internet communications where there exists a possibility that sensitive information could be identified or exchanged unless the record includes a properly signed express waiver of the confidentiality requirements of 35 U.S.C. 122. This is more clearly set forth in the Interim Internet Usage Policy published in the Official Gazette of the Patent and Trademark on February 25, 1997 at 1195 OG 89. 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. /AHSHIK KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876 May 21, 2026 Application/Control Number: 18/360,145 Page 2 Art Unit: 2876 Application/Control Number: 18/360,145 Page 3 Art Unit: 2876 Application/Control Number: 18/360,145 Page 4 Art Unit: 2876 Application/Control Number: 18/360,145 Page 5 Art Unit: 2876 Application/Control Number: 18/360,145 Page 6 Art Unit: 2876 Application/Control Number: 18/360,145 Page 7 Art Unit: 2876 Application/Control Number: 18/360,145 Page 8 Art Unit: 2876 Application/Control Number: 18/360,145 Page 9 Art Unit: 2876 Application/Control Number: 18/360,145 Page 10 Art Unit: 2876 Application/Control Number: 18/360,145 Page 11 Art Unit: 2876 Application/Control Number: 18/360,145 Page 12 Art Unit: 2876 Application/Control Number: 18/360,145 Page 13 Art Unit: 2876
Prosecution Insights