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 .
Acknowledgement is made of application #18/393,955 filed on 12/22/2023 in which claims 1-3 have been presented for prosecution in a first action on the merits.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/22/2023 and 11/14/2025 have been considered and put on record. Initialed copies are attached herewith.
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 1-3 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.
Claim 1 recites the underlined limitations of, “A vehicle management device used for a vehicle that includes a drive unit for traveling, a power storage device that is able to supply power to the drive unit, and a solar cell system that is able to generate power from a solar cell and supply the power to the power storage device, and that is able to perform external charging in which the power storage device is charged with power from an outside of the vehicle,…”. It is unclear as to what the underlined limitations refer to because it is unclear whether or not the solar cell is able to perform external charging or the power storage is able to perform external charging. Therefore claim 1 is indefinite and all its dependent claims thereof. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-3 depend directly from claim 1 and thus are also rejected for the same reasons since they inherit the same deficiencies.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220379770 A1 in view of Lewchuk et al., (Lewchuk) (US 20230120740 A1) and in further view of Sobue et al., (Sobue) US 2011/0202221 A1(cited by applicants).
Regarding claim 1: Salter at least discloses and shows in Figs. 1-3: A vehicle management device(bidirectional energy transfer system; see [0031])(see Figs. 1-3) used for a vehicle(10) that includes a drive unit(construed as engine + motor + inverter; see [0033],[0039]) for traveling, a power storage device(16)(traction battery pack; see Figs. 1-3) that is able to supply power to the drive unit(see [0039]). Salter further discloses, and that is able to perform external charging in which the power storage device is charged with power from an outside of the vehicle(see Fig. 2 and [0042]).
Saller does not explicitly teach the limitations of:
and a solar cell system that is able to generate power from a solar cell and supply the power to the power storage device, wherein when the vehicle is parked, a target external charging amount of the external charging is set to a value obtained by subtracting, from a target power storage amount of the power storage device at a next scheduled traveling start time, a predicted power generation amount of the solar cell up to the next scheduled traveling start time.
Lewchuk discloses factual evidence of: a solar cell system (547)(see Fig. 14; solar PV system and [0008]), that is able to generate power from a solar cell and supply the power to the power storage device(545)(see Fig. 14; see [0132]). Lewchuk further discloses, wherein the vehicle management device (Fig. 43, device 4380 for electric vehicle charging; see [0225]) when the vehicle is parked(see Fig. 49; [0318]), a target external charging amount of the external charging is set to a value obtained by subtracting(obviously can be performed by the control module (46) along with the vehicle management system (10) since they include logic and arithmetic circuits to perform such operations), from a target power storage amount of the power storage device(545) at a next scheduled traveling start time, a predicted power generation(note- Fig. 50, as performed by predict generation 5006; see [0330],[0331]) amount of the solar cell up to the next scheduled traveling start time(note- Fig. 50, predict generation 5006; see [0330],[0331],[0333],[0343])(note- the system predicts solar generation power until a departure of a vehicle).
The combination of Saller and Lewchuk does not expressly disclose the limitations of:
wherein when the vehicle is parked, a target external charging amount of the external charging is set to a value obtained by subtracting, from a target power storage amount of the power storage device at a next scheduled traveling start time
However, Sobue teaches and shows in Figs. 5,7A-7B, factual evidence of, wherein when the vehicle is parked, a target external charging amount of the external charging is set to a value obtained by subtracting, from a target power storage amount of the power storage device at a next scheduled traveling start(see [0039])(note- For example, when the sunrise time is 6 a.m., and the scheduled starting time is 8 a.m., the electricity generation time of the solar photovoltaic generation system is two hours from 6 a.m. to 8 a.m. before departure. Thus, the charge amount of electricity is calculated by multiplying two hours with 10 KW/h so that the charge amount of electricity is 20 KW (=10 KW/h.times.2 h). Accordingly, since the necessary electric power amount for the round trip to the destination is 50 KW, it is necessary to charge the battery with 30 KW (=50 KW-20 KW) during the nighttime, i.e., before the sunrise).
Saller, Lewchuk and Sobue are electric vehicle power management system analogous art. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to avail of the teaching of Lewchuk into the system of Saller by providing the vehicle power management system coupled with a power storage device and a solar cell system that is able to generate power from a solar cell and supply the power to the power storage device, wherein when the vehicle is parked, a target external charging amount of the external charging is set to a value obtained by subtracting, from a target power storage amount of the power storage device at a next scheduled traveling start time, a predicted power generation amount of the solar cell up to the next scheduled traveling start time, as recited, so as to provide a supplemental source of power to both an electric vehicle and a home considering a predicted power generation amount from the solar cell and to further ensure an enough driving power for the next scheduled travel start time, as taught by Sobue.
Accordingly claim 1 would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 2, Saller in view of Lewchuk and Sobue discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 1. Sobue further teaches, wherein when a power storage amount of the power storage device has not reached the target power storage amount by a predetermined time before the next scheduled traveling start time, the external charging is performed such that the power storage amount of the power storage device reaches the target power storage amount by the next scheduled traveling start time(see Sobue; [0039],[0044]).
Regarding claim 3, Saller in view of Lewchuk and Sobue discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 1. Sobue further teaches, wherein when the vehicle is parked at a predetermined spot where the vehicle is assumed to be parked for a predetermined time or more, the target external charging amount is set to a value obtained by subtracting the predicted power generation amount from the target power storage amount(see Sobue; [0039]).
Citation of Prior art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
USPAT 9,523,991 B1 to Baba et al., (Baba) discloses a power supply system having controller which executes local generation and local consumption pathways of: supplying power from a solar cell to an appliance, and charging a storage cell with power that remains after subtracting power consumed by the appliance from the solar cell power.
US 2018/02011150 A1 to Kubo et al., (Kubo) discloses an electric vehicle.
JP 2018074812 A to Kuwano et al., (Kuwano) discloses a vehicle control device and charge target determination method.
JP 2015023605 A to Matsuo et al., (Matsuo) discloses a charging control device and power supply system.
USPAT 10,099,557 B2 to Matsubara et al., (Matsubara) discloses a vehicle driven by motor and control method of charging and discharging of secondary battery provided in vehicle.
USPAT 10,403,936 to Kobayashi et al., (Kobayashi) discloses a storage cell control system, storage cell control, method, and recording medium.
USPAT 11,077,770 B2 to Mitsutani discloses a power supply device.
USPAT 9,153,847 to Harty discloses a grid connected solar battery charging device for home and vehicle energy management.
USPAT 9,614,399 B2 to Maeno discloses a charging control device using in-vehicle solar cell.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M'BAYE DIAO whose telephone number is (571)272-6127. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 10:00AM-6:30PM and OFF most of the time Friday when working IFP.
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 A 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.
M'BAYE DIAO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2859
/M BAYE DIAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859 August 31, 2026
Prosecution Insights