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 1-9 are presented for examination.
Receipt is acknowledged of IDS filed on 09/28/2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities: There is no antecedent basis for the limitations “the day”. The applicant is respectfully requested to amend the claims 1, 4 & 7 so as to render the claimed invention in condition for allowance.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oobayashi et al. (US 2022/0108248).
Re Claims 1, 4 and 7: Oobayashi et al. teaches vehicle allocation management method and vehicle allocation management, which includes obtaining, via one or more hardware processors, one or more dynamic charging requirements for a fleet comprising a plurality of vehicles, wherein the one or more dynamic requirements {herein trade-off conditions include a delayed arrival time to the destination or waypoint by a predetermined time period compared with the arrival time in the reference operation plan, a changed arrival order of the destination and the waypoints compared with the reference operation plan} are in terms of delay in arrival of one or more vehicles of the plurality of vehicles in the fleet (¶ 93+); and modifying {herein the plan provision approval unit 124 acquires a modified operation plan from the service vehicle SV when the service vehicle SV generates the modified operation plan}, via the one or more hardware processors (¶ 31+, 131+), a base charging plan {herein the plan generation unit 143 further determines whether to perform a normal charging or a quick charging at the charging station CS} upon determining that a modification of the base charging plan is required to accommodate the one or more dynamic requirements (¶ 34-56+), wherein modifying the base charging plan comprises iteratively performing till a) no more vehicles are left to charge, or b) all of a plurality of chargers have an assignment: capturing an urgency of each of the plurality of vehicles in the fleet to charge, at a current instance (¶ 101+, 116+); determining a cost of charging required to facilitate charging of the plurality of vehicles based on the captured urgency to charge (¶ 35-48+); determining difference between the determined cost of charging and a measured average charging cost for the day (¶ 26+, 54+); and generating a maximization function {herein optimum solution calculation unit 144 can calculate the optimum solution related to the charging station CS and the service vehicle SV which can efficiently increase profits for the mobility service business provide} to maximize a charging rate, to dispatch the plurality of vehicles at a faster rate (¶ 27-43+, 58-61+, 127+).
Re Claims 2, 5 and 8: Oobayashi et al. teaches method and device, wherein the base charging plan is generated for the fleet, comprises: collecting a plurality of input data {herein an input output interface 114} (¶ 22-24+, 80-90+, 110-114+), wherein the plurality of input data comprises a) a delivery roster mapping {herein the operation simulation unit 140 may refer to information stored in a map information database 131} each of the plurality of vehicles in the fleet to associated routes and departure deadlines (¶ 33+), and b) information on day-ahead electricity prices; modelling an optimization problem using a plurality of optimization constraints, for the plurality of input data, wherein the plurality of optimization constraints is designed to minimize charging cost of the fleet {herein for the purpose of minimizing the cost, the plan generation unit 143 generates the vehicle allocation schedule and the charging schedule in consideration of the running cost required for the service provision and the life cycle cost of the service vehicle SV associated with the service provision}; and performing a day-ahead planning to charge each of a plurality of vehicles in the fleet, satisfying the optimization problem, to generate the base charging plan (¶ 41-58+).
Re Claim 3, 6 and 9: Oobayashi et al. teaches method and device, wherein the plurality of optimization constraints comprises a) a restriction constraint to restrict number of vehicles being charged by each of the plurality of chargers {herein charging stations} at an instance (see fig.# 1, ¶ 28+), b) a battery capacity constraint specifying a charging limit which is to be satisfied by battery of each of the plurality of vehicles (¶ 86+), c) a charge constraint specifying a minimum charge required in battery of each of the plurality of vehicles to complete an assigned trip, d) a depot constraint which insists that a vehicle has to be at a depot in order to be considered for charging, e) a charger support constraint that mandates that a vehicle can be charged only using a supporting charger, f) a battery level constraint that captures change in battery level of a vehicle between consecutive time instances (¶ 40-43+), g) a charger constraint that mandates that a charger under maintenance cannot be considered for charging, h) a State of Charge (SoC) constraint that indicates a State of Charge (SoC) of each vehicle at an instance, and i) a shift constraint that tracks vehicle shifts indicating number of instances a vehicle switched chargers in consecutive time steps (¶ 40+).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Goswami et al. (US 2024/0042888) teaches facilitating access to power dispensers at a charging station.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWYN LABAZE whose telephone number is (571)272-2395. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Mr. STEVE PAIK can be reached at 571-272-2404. 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.
/EDWYN LABAZE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights