DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to the Amendment to Application # 18/376,518 filed on February 26, 2026 in which claims 1, 2, 4-9, and 11-14 were amended; claims 3 and 10 were cancelled; and claims 15 and 16 were added.
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, and 11-16 are pending, of which claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) and claims 1, 2, 4-9, and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the specification lacks antecedent basis for the claimed “departure time.”
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, and 11-16 are objected to for the following reasons: The claim amendments fail to comply with 37 C.F.R. § § 1.52(a)(iv), which requires all papers submitted to the United States Patent and Trademark Office be submitted in “dark ink or its equivalent.” Instead, the markup appears to be in colored ink that is not fully legible. Although the claims have been accepted for entry on this occasions, future submissions that are not in the required dark ink shall be deemed non-compliant. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, and 11-16 are objected to for failing to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(g), which requires “[t]he least restrictive claim should be presented as claim number 1” (emphasis added). See also, MPEP § 608.01(i)). In the present application, the claim presented as claim number 12 is the least restrictive claim of the independent claims and claim 1 is the most restrictive claim of the independent claims.
This objection will be held in abeyance upon Applicant’s request.
Claim 13 is objected to because it depends from claim 1, while intervening claim 12 is an independent claim. A series of singular dependent claims is permissible in which a dependent claim refers to a preceding claim which, in turn, refers to another preceding claim.
A claim which depends from a dependent claim should not be separated by any claim which does not also depend from said dependent claim. It should be kept in mind that a dependent claim may refer to any preceding independent claim. In general, Applicants’ sequence will not be changed. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
This objection will be held in abeyance upon Applicant’s request.
Claim 14 is objected to because it depends from claim 11, while intervening claim 12 is an independent claim. A series of singular dependent claims is permissible in which a dependent claim refers to a preceding claim which, in turn, refers to another preceding claim.
A claim which depends from a dependent claim should not be separated by any claim which does not also depend from said dependent claim. It should be kept in mind that a dependent claim may refer to any preceding independent claim. In general, Applicants’ sequence will not be changed. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
This objection will be held in abeyance upon Applicant’s request.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112
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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 15, this claim includes the limitation “wherein the execution condition further includes information on charging power in a period in which the battery is charged with constant power.” (Emphasis added). Because “constant power” has not previously been introduced, but both “constant current” and “constant voltage” have been previously introduced and claim 16 refers to “constant voltage,” the examiner cannot determine if this is intended to refer to “constant current” or if this is a newly introduced “constant power.”
“[I]f a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions, the USPTO is justified in requiring the applicant to more precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention by holding the claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite.” Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211 (BPAI 2008) (precedential). See also Ex parte McAward, Appeal 2015-006416 (PTAB 2017) (precedential) (affirming the holding in Ex parte Miyazaki).
Therefore, this claim is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 of this title, 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.
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. Applicants are advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sakuma et al., US Publication 2021/0162880 (hereinafter Sakuma), as cited on the Notice of References Cited dated November 26, 2025, in view of Hall et al., US Publication 2019/0299801 (hereinafter Hall).
Regarding claim 1, Sakuma discloses a server (Sakuma ¶ 39) comprising “a communication interface; and a processor” (Sakuma ¶ 60). Additionally, Sakuma discloses “extract, from among a plurality of facilities located within a predetermined distance of a power controller that executes power control including at least one of charging and discharging of an electrified vehicle, a facility that is available for use by a user during a reservation period” (Sakuma ¶¶ 67, 75, see also ¶ 96) where the server selects the commercial charging facilities (i.e., a plurality of facilities that execute power control including at least one of charging and discharging of an electrified vehicle, Sakuma ¶ 75) and these may be within “a short distance.” (Sakuma ¶ 67). Further, Sakuma discloses “in which the user uses the power controller, based on a predicted value of a stay period at the facility” (Sakuma ¶¶ 76, 83-84) where the stay period may be based on a predicted stay period or a predicted charge period. Moreover, Sakuma discloses “predict a departure time when the user leaves the facility based on the predicted value of the stay period” (Sakuma Fig. 11) where the “RESTART” period is predicted, which is the time the user leaves the facility to continue to the destination. Likewise, Sakuma discloses “calculate an execution condition of the power control for causing a state of charge of the electrified vehicle to reach a target state of charge determined based on fill charge at the predicted departure time …” (Sakuma ¶ 83) where the user sets a condition to prioritize full charge, which comports with the example execution conditions provided at Spec. ¶¶ 65-67. Sakuma also discloses “transmit, via the communication interface, information on the extracted facility to at least one of the electrified vehicle and an information device that are associated with the user” (Sakuma ¶ 70) where the extract facilities are delivered to the user. In addition, Sakuma discloses “transmit, via the communication interface, the execution condition to at least one of the electrified vehicle and the power controller” (Sakuma ¶ 96) where the charging server transmits the execution condition to the charging station. Finally, Sakuma discloses “control the electrified vehicle to execute the power control in accordance with the execution condition” (Sakuma ¶ 60) by controlling the vehicle “such that vehicle 1 is brought into a desired state.”
Sakuma discloses a different set of execution conditions than the claimed execution conditions and, therefore, does not appear to explicitly disclose “calculate an execution condition of the power control for causing a state of charge of the electrified vehicle to reach a target state of charge determined based on fill charge at the predicted departure time, the execution condition including at least one of a charging current value for a constant-current charging period and a charging voltage value for a constant-voltage charging period.”
However, Hall discloses a charging station configured to perform “calculate an execution condition of the power control for causing a state of charge of the electrified vehicle to reach a target state of charge determined based on fill charge …, the execution condition including at least one of a charging current value for a constant-current charging period and a charging voltage value for a constant-voltage charging period” (Hall ¶ 34) by calculating the execution condition of the charger to reach a state of charge by selecting a voltage level pattern (i.e., a charging current value) so that the current level remains constant during charging. The plain and ordinary meaning does not require the claimed “charging current value” to be a value measured in amperes.
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would have recognized that when Hall was combined with Sakuma, that the execution condition of Hall would be used as a possible execution condition of Sakuma. Therefore, the combination of Sakuma and Hall at least teaches and/or suggests the claimed limitation “calculate an execution condition of the power control for causing a state of charge of the electrified vehicle to reach a target state of charge determined based on fill charge at the predicted departure time, the execution condition including at least one of a charging current value for a constant-current charging period and a charging voltage value for a constant-voltage charging period,” rendering the limitation obvious.
Sakuma and Hall are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of vehicle charging stations.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Sakuma and Hall before him or her to modify the execution conditions of Sakuma to include the execution conditions of Hall.
The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of applying a known technique to a known device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(D). Sakuma teaches the “base device” for selecting a charging location of a vehicle based on an execution condition. Further, Hall teaches the “known technique” of selecting an execution condition for charging a vehicle that is applicable to the base device of Sakuma. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system because Sakuma already provides several execution conditions and the addition of another condition would be generally be viewed as a simple modification.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Sakuma and Hall discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Sakuma and Hall discloses “wherein the processor is programmed to extract the facility that is reservable within the reservation period” (Sakuma ¶ 75) where the system considers whether there are available unused chargers (i.e., chargers that are “reservable”).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Sakuma and Hall discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Sakuma and Hall discloses “wherein the processor is programmed to extract the facility that is available during the reservation period based on a movement period required to move from the power controller to the facility” (Sakuma ¶ 91) where a recommended plan is created as part of the extraction process that considers the “time required for vehicle 1 to travel from its current location to the charging station.”
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Sakuma and Hall discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Sakuma and Hall discloses “wherein the processor is programmed to extract the facility that is available during the reservation period based on a type of the facility that the user desires to use during the reservation period” (Sakuma ¶ 84) where the user’s preferences on commercial facilities are used to choose the charging stations.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Sakuma and Hall discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Sakuma and Hall discloses “wherein the processor is programmed to extract the facility located within a predetermined range that is based on a position of a reserved power controller” (Sakuma ¶ 67) where the range is how far the user can move around on foot.
Regarding claim 11, it merely recites the method performed by the server of claim 1. The method comprises execution of computer software modules for performing the various functions. Sakuma comprises computer software modules for performing the same functions. Thus, claim 11 is rejected using the same rationale set forth in the above rejection for claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, Sakuma discloses a server (Sakuma ¶ 39) comprising “a communication interface; and a processor” (Sakuma ¶ 60). Additionally, Sakuma discloses “extract, from among power controllers each configured to execute power control including at least one of charging and discharging of an electrified vehicle, a power controller that is available for use by a user, during an expected use period in which the user uses a facility” (Sakuma ¶ 75) where the server selects the commercial facilities near the charging station. Further, Sakuma discloses “ the power controller being extracted based on a predicted value of a stay period at the facility” (Sakuma ¶¶ 76, 83-84) where the stay period may be based on a predicted stay period or a predicted charge period. Moreover, Sakuma discloses “predict a departure time when the user leaves the facility based on the predicted value of the stay period” (Sakuma Fig. 11) where the “RESTART” period is predicted, which is the time the user leaves the facility to continue to the destination. Likewise, Sakuma discloses “calculate an execution condition of the power control for causing a state of charge of the electrified vehicle to reach a target state of charge determined based on fill charge at the predicted departure time …” (Sakuma ¶ 83) where the user sets a condition to prioritize full charge, which comports with the example execution conditions provided at Spec. ¶¶ 65-67. Sakuma also discloses “transmit, via the communication interface, information on the extracted facility to at least one of the electrified vehicle and an information device that are associated with the user” (Sakuma ¶ 70) where the extract facilities are delivered to the user. In addition, Sakuma discloses “transmit, via the communication interface, the execution condition to at least one of the electrified vehicle and the power controller” (Sakuma ¶ 96) where the charging server transmits the execution condition to the charging station. Finally, Sakuma discloses “control the electrified vehicle to execute the power control in accordance with the execution condition” (Sakuma ¶ 60) by controlling the vehicle “such that vehicle 1 is brought into a desired state.”
Sakuma discloses a different set of execution conditions than the claimed execution conditions and, therefore, does not appear to explicitly disclose “calculate an execution condition of the power control for causing a state of charge of the electrified vehicle to reach a target state of charge determined based on fill charge at the predicted departure time, the execution condition including at least one of a charging current value for a constant-current charging period and a charging voltage value for a constant-voltage charging period.”
However, Hall discloses a charging station configured to perform “calculate an execution condition of the power control for causing a state of charge of the electrified vehicle to reach a target state of charge determined based on fill charge …, the execution condition including at least one of a charging current value for a constant-current charging period and a charging voltage value for a constant-voltage charging period” (Hall ¶ 34) by calculating the execution condition of the charger to reach a state of charge by selecting a voltage level pattern (i.e., a charging current value) so that the current level remains constant during charging. The plain and ordinary meaning does not require the claimed “charging current value” to be a value measured in amperes.
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would have recognized that when Hall was combined with Sakuma, that the execution condition of Hall would be used as a possible execution condition of Sakuma. Therefore, the combination of Sakuma and Hall at least teaches and/or suggests the claimed limitation “calculate an execution condition of the power control for causing a state of charge of the electrified vehicle to reach a target state of charge determined based on fill charge at the predicted departure time, the execution condition including at least one of a charging current value for a constant-current charging period and a charging voltage value for a constant-voltage charging period,” rendering the limitation obvious.
Sakuma and Hall are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of vehicle charging stations.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Sakuma and Hall before him or her to modify the execution conditions of Sakuma to include the execution conditions of Hall.
The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of applying a known technique to a known device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(D). Sakuma teaches the “base device” for selecting a charging location of a vehicle based on an execution condition. Further, Hall teaches the “known technique” of selecting an execution condition for charging a vehicle that is applicable to the base device of Sakuma. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system because Sakuma already provides several execution conditions and the addition of another condition would be generally be viewed as a simple modification.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Sakuma and Hall discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Sakuma and Hall discloses “further comprising a memory configured to store information on a plurality of the users.” (Sakuma ¶ 60).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Sakuma and Hall discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 11 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Sakuma and Hall discloses “further comprising a step of notifying the user about information on the extracted facility that has been transmitted to at least one of the electrified vehicle and the information device that are associated with the user” (Sakuma ¶ 70) where the extract facilities are delivered to the user (i.e., the user is notified).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Sakuma and Hall discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 11 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Sakuma and Hall discloses “wherein the execution condition further includes information on charging power in a period in which the battery is charged with constant power” (Hall ¶ 34) where the execution condition includes information on charging power such as the voltage used.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Sakuma and Hall discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 11 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Sakuma and Hall discloses “wherein the execution condition further includes information on charging voltage in a period in which the battery is charged with constant voltage”(Hall ¶ 34) where the execution conditions include that the battery is charged at 12 volts (i.e., charging voltage) in until the battery is 40% full (i.e., a period in which the battery is charged with a constant voltage of 12 volts).
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sakuma in view Hall, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Orbach, US Publication 2017/0019496 (hereinafter Orbach), as cited on the Notice of References Cited dated November 26, 2025.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Sakuma and Hall discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Sakuma and Hall discloses “wherein the processor is programmed to extract the facility that is available during the reservation period …” (Sakuma ¶ 40) as discussed in the rejection to claim 1 above.
The combination of Sakuma and Hall does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein the processor is programmed to extract the facility that is available during the reservation period based on a waiting period for use of the facility.”
However, Orbach discloses that it is well known to choose a facility, such as a restaurant, based on the waiting time for that restaurant. (Orbach ¶ 88). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that when Orbach was combined with Sakuma and Hall, the facility selection of Sakuma and Hall would include the selection factor of the wait time, as taught by Orbach. Therefore, the combination of Sakuma, Hall, and Orbach at least teaches and/or suggests the claimed limitation “wherein the processor is programmed to extract the facility that is available during the reservation period based on a waiting period for use of the facility,” rendering it obvious.
Sakuma, Hall, and Orbach are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of navigation and facility selection systems.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Sakuma, Hall, and Orbach before him or her to modify the facility selection factors of Sakuma and Hall to further include the waiting time based selection factor of Orbach.
The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of applying a known technique to a known device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(D). The combination of Sakuma and Hall teaches the “base device” for selecting a facility to recommend based on a variety of factors. Further, Orbach teaches the “known technique” of selecting facility based on a variety of factors including the waiting time of the facility that is applicable to the base device of Sakuma and Hall. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system because it is well-known that people generally do not like long wait times and including such a consideration in the facility selection would lead to happier users.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Sakuma and Hall discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Sakuma and Hall discloses “wherein the processor is programmed to extract the facility that is available during the reservation period based on a total value of a predicted value of a stay period at the facility, … and a movement period required to move from the power controller to the facility” (Sakuma ¶¶ 91-93, Fig. 11) where a recommended plan is created as part of the extraction process that considers the predicted value of a stay period at the facility (time between “PPP CAFETERIA” and “RESART”) and the movement period required to move from the power control to the facility (time between “ARRIVE AT QUICK CHARGING STATION A (START QUICK CHARGING)” and “PPP CAFETERIA”).
The combination of Sakuma and Hall does not appear to explicitly disclose the consideration of a wait time and, therefore, does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein the processor is programmed to extract the facility that is available during the reservation period based on a total value of a predicted value of a stay period at the facility, a waiting period for use of the facility, and a movement period required to move from the power controller to the facility.”
However, Orbach discloses that it is well known to choose a facility, such as a restaurant, based on the value of the waiting time for that restaurant. (Orbach ¶ 88). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that when Orbach was combined with Sakuma and Hall, Sakuma and Hall’s calculation of the total time required would include the waiting time of Orbach. Therefore, the combination of Sakuma, Hall, and Orbach at least teaches and/or suggests the claimed limitation “wherein the processor is programmed to extract the facility that is available during the reservation period based on a total value of a predicted value of a stay period at the facility, a waiting period for use of the facility, and a movement period required to move from the power controller to the facility,” rendering it obvious.
Sakuma, Hall, and Orbach are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of navigation and facility selection systems.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Sakuma, Hall, and Orbach before him or her to modify the facility selection factors of Sakuma and Hall to further include the waiting time based selection factor of Orbach.
The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of applying a known technique to a known device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(D). The combination of Sakuma and Hall teaches the “base device” for selecting a facility to recommend including calculating the projected time required. Further, Orbach teaches the “known technique” of considering the wait time of facility that is applicable to the base device of Sakuma and Hall. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system because it would result in a more accurate projected trip time.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sakuma in view of Hall, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Mehedy et al., US Publication 2018/0113914 (hereinafter Mehedy), as cited on the Notice of References Cited dated November 26, 2025.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Sakuma and Hall discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Sakuma and Hall discloses “wherein the processor is programmed to adjust an incentive to be given to the user … that the user determines to use during the reservation period” (Sakuma ¶¶93-99) by describing the process for providing coupons to the user.
The combination of Sakuma and Hall does not appear to explicitly disclose that such coupons are “depending on a crowding level of the facility” and, thus, does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein the processor is programmed to adjust an incentive to be given to the user depending on a crowding level of the facility that the user determines to use during the reservation period.”
However, Mehedy discloses that it is well-known in the field of coupon generation to include a control unit “wherein the processor is programmed to adjust an incentive to be given to the user depending on a crowding level of the facility that the user determines to use during the reservation period.” (Mehedy ¶ 67).
Sakuma, Hall, and Mehedy are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of providing coupons to users.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Sakuma, Hall, and Mehedy before him or her to modify the coupon selection of Sakuma and Hall to include the crowd based selection of Mehedy.
The motivation for doing so would have been that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that providing coupons to partnering businesses with low crowding levels incentivizes the user to visit that partnering business during times in which sales are generally lower, thereby increasing sales during slow periods.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed February 26, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-9, and 11-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Remarks 7-8) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-9, and 11-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed February 26, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-14 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, respectively, directed to the addition of the new limitations related to charging currents and voltage values (Remarks 8-10) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Sakuma and Hall.
Applicant's remaining arguments filed February 26, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-14 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, respectively, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Sakuma fails to disclose “charging control of an electrified vehicle, as now expressly required by the amended independent claims. As amended, the claims require predicting a departure time based on a predicted stay period at a facility, calculating an execution condition for charging that includes constant-current and/or constant-voltage parameters, transmitting that execution condition to the electrified vehicle and/or a power controller, and controlling charging so that the vehicle battery reaches a target state of charge at the predicted departure time” where “[t]his charging-control functionality is the core of the claimed invention” and “correspond to those recited in former claim 10.” (Remarks 8). Specifically, Applicant argues that the “charging process in Sakuma proceeds independently of Sakuma's facility-selection logic” and “[t]he ‘restart’ timing referenced in FIG. 11 [of Sakuma] does not represent a predicted departure time from a facility based on a predicted value of a stay period, as required by the claims” but “reflects a user-selected schedule within a recommendation framework.” (Remarks 8-9). The examiner disagrees.
It is the examiner’s duty to give claims “their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” See MPEP § 2111, citing Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Further, if the specification is silent to the meaning of claim terminology, “words of the claim must be given their plain meaning.” See MPEP § 2111.01.
In the present instance, the claim defines the departure time is as a time “when the user leaves the facility based on the predicted value of the stay period.” (Claim 1). Sakuma, in Fig. 11, discloses that the recommended plan includes a “RESTART” time that indicates when the use “restarts” his or her journey to the destination. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this restart time is a time “when the user leaves the facility.” Further, this is “based on the predicted values of the stay periods” because these are from the “recommended” plan and all values are “predicted” values.
Additionally, in response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., that “charging process in Sakuma proceeds independently of Sakuma's facility-selection logic”) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Therefore, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
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 C.F.R. § 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 C.F.R. § 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 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 ANDREW R DYER whose telephone number is (571)270-3790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached on 571-270-3832. 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.
/ANDREW R DYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662