DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are indicated in the table below, along with corresponding structure and/or lack thereof:
Claim limitation
Claim Numbers
Structure (PGPUB citation)
“control device”
1
Electronic control unit (par. 51)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1-4 recite “the other vehicle”, however, claim 1 already recites “another vehicle”. Thus it is unclear whether the second recitation refers to “the another vehicle” or a different vehicle. For the purpose of examination, Examiner is interpreting the second “the other vehicle” as “the another vehicle”.
Claim 2 recites limitations including “the system power supply outputs a first signal to the vehicle when connected to the connector” and “the other vehicle outputs a second predetermined signal different from the first signal to the vehicle when connected to the connector”. However, claim 2 depends from claim 1, which is a claim for “a vehicle” as opposed to a “system”, for example. Thus, besides implying that the claimed vehicle is capable of receiving a signal at the connector, the limitations do not appear to further limit the vehicle and it is unclear if they are intended to do so. Examiner suggests re-writing claim 1 as a system claim, or ensuring that the dependent claims are written in a way to clearly further limit the vehicle. For the purpose of examination, Examiner is interpreting “the system power supply outputs a first signal to the vehicle when connected to the connector” and “the other vehicle outputs a second predetermined signal different from the first signal to the vehicle when connected to the connector” as requiring only that the vehicle is capable of receiving a signal.
Claim 3 recites the limitations including “the relay cable portion for first charging and the relay cable portion for second charging have different resistance values at a predetermined portion”. However, claim 3 depends from claim 1, which is a claim for “a vehicle” as opposed to a “system”, for example. Thus, the relay cable portion is not a part of the vehicle and the limitations regarding it are limiting to the vehicle in the sense that the vehicle’s connector is capable of being connected to it and the control device is capable of recognizing the voltage of a portion of it. It is not clear whether these limitations are intended to be limiting. Examiner suggests re-writing claim 1 as a system claim, or ensuring that the dependent claims are written in a way to clearly further limit the vehicle. For the purpose of examination, Examiner is interpreting “the relay cable portion for first charging and the relay cable portion for second charging have different resistance values at a predetermined portion” as non-limiting.
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 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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakajima JP 2010-273427 A. (It is noted that the Nakajima citations are taken from the machine translation, until a translation is obtained.)
Regarding claim 1, Nakajima discloses a vehicle [fig. 1, EV2] comprising:
a power storage device [fig. 1, battery 1 of EV2];
a connector to which an external power supply is able to be connected directly or via a relay cable portion [fig. 1, 8 directly via 10; pars. 9 & 24]
a charger that is able to charge the power storage device using electric power from the external power supply, when the external power supply is connected to the connector [fig. 2, charge control unit 7; pars. 23-24]; and
a control device that controls the charger [pars. 18-21 & 24; the charge control unit 7 is both the charge and the control unit in conjunction with the VCM 6],
wherein when the external power supply is connected to the connector, the control device determines whether the external power supply is a system power supply or another vehicle, and when the external power supply is the other vehicle, the control device executes a change process of changing a charging setting from a first setting for charging the power storage device using electric power from the system power supply to a default setting or a second setting for charging the power storage device using electric power from the other vehicle, and then executes charging control in which the charger is controlled such that the power storage device is charged, in accordance with the charging setting [par. 24; charging control unit 7 operates in two modes, one where the source is an external charger and another where charge is received using vehicle-to-vehicle charging; in each of the modes different relays are opened/closed and operation modes are used].
Regarding claim 2, Nakajima discloses wherein:
the system power supply outputs a first signal to the vehicle when connected to the connector [non-limiting limitation, though the vehicle is cable of receiving a first signal, either power through 8a or communication through 8b; par. 23-24; Examiner notes however, that Nakajima does teach recognizing a signal to determine vehicle-to-vehicle or external charging],
the other vehicle outputs a second predetermined signal different from the first signal to the vehicle when connected to the connector [non-limiting limitation, though the vehicle is cable of receiving a first signal, either power through 8a or communication through 8b; par. 23-24; Examiner notes however, that Nakajima does teach recognizing a signal to determine vehicle-to-vehicle or external charging]; and
when the external power supply is connected to the connector, the control device determines whether the external power supply is the system power supply or the other vehicle, based on which of the first signal and the second signal is input [pars. 23-24].
Regarding claim 3, Nakajima discloses the relay cable portion for first charging and the relay cable portion for second charging have different resistance values at a predetermined portion [as noted above in the 112(b) rejections, this limitation is not being treated as limiting].
Nakajima does not explicitly disclose when the external power supply is connected to the connector via the relay cable portion, the control device determines whether the external power supply is the system power supply or the other vehicle, based on a voltage of the predetermined portion. Though this limitation is being interpreted as limiting on the vehicle of claim 1, this is also an alternative limitation (alternative to “directly”) and since the alternative has been addressed (“directly”) the limitations contingent to the other alternative do not have to be addressed by the prior art. See MPEP 2111.04 (Ex Parte Schulhauser).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima JP 2010-273427 A in view of Yang et al. US PGPUB 2016/0368390.
Regarding claim 4, Nakajima discloses wherein:
in a case in which the external power supply is the other vehicle, when the change process is permitted, the control device executes the change process, and then executes the charging control in accordance with the charging setting, and when the change process is prohibited, the control device maintains the charging setting and executes the charging control in accordance with the charging setting [par. 24; based on recognized communication via identification signals the process can be changed from a normal mode to a V2V charging mode].
Nakajima does not explicitly disclose the control device switches permission and prohibition of the change process based on an instruction of a user.
However, Yang discloses a vehicle charging system with a control device which switches permission and prohibition of the change process based on an instruction of a user [pars. 72-74 & 124; a V2V mode is selected manually by a user via the dashboard, or grid to vehicle charging is selected (par. 124); thus the control device allows for the change of mode (permission) or doesn’t allow (prohibited until selected) via user instructions (dashboard selection)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nakajima to further include wherein the control device switches permission and prohibition of the change process based on an instruction of a user for the purpose of allowing a user to select the operation mode, as taught by Yang (pars. 72-74 & 124).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Iguchi et al. WIPO Publication WO2014/196121A1 discloses a vehicle charging system which allows for both DC charging from another vehicle and AC charging from the grid.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID V HENZE whose telephone number is (571)272-3317. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 9am to 7pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Julian Huffman can be reached at 571-272-2147. 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.
/DAVID V HENZE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights