DETAILED ACTION
1. This is the first action on the merits relating to U.S. Application Serial No. 18/460,265 filed on September 14, 2023. Currently claims 1-14 remain in the examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
3. Drawings originally filed on September 1, 2023 are approved.
Priority
4. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-14 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 is recited as follows:
A power system, comprising:
a server;
at least one power apparatus; and
at least one vehicle, wherein
the power apparatus charges the vehicle in a first charging pattern, the first charging pattern being a power pattern in which the power apparatus discharges an electric power and indicating charging power values from when the power apparatus starts charging the vehicle until a predetermined time period has passed, and
if the first charging pattern and a second charging pattern match, the second charging pattern being a power pattern in which the vehicle is charged and indicating charging power values from a start of charge of the vehicle by the power apparatus until the predetermined time period has passed, the server pairs an intended power apparatus having performed charging in the first charging pattern and an intended vehicle charged in the second charging pattern.
It is unclear if “a second charging pattern” is a pattern in the future time (which
hasn’t happened yet) or is it a reference pattern of some kind? If it is a future pattern, it is unclear how they are compared for a match. A second charging pattern must be defined before the step of comparing “if the first charging pattern and a second charging pattern match” occurs. At the moment, the second charging pattern is used in defined in a circular definition which is not even clear.
Moreover, “the second charging pattern being a power pattern in which the vehicle is charged and indicating charging power values from a start of charge of the vehicle by the power apparatus until the predetermined time period has passed,” which appears to be the definition of the first charging pattern. Accordingly, it is unclear what the first charring pattern is, and what the second charging pattern is.
In “the server pairs an intended power apparatus having performed charging in the first charging pattern and an intended vehicle charged in the second charging pattern”, is the power apparatus charging the vehicle in the first charging pattern or “an intended power apparatus” charging the vehicle in the first changing pattern? Are they the same apparatus?
Is “an intended vehicle” charged in the second pattern different than the vehicle charged in the first pattern? Are they the same vehicle? If there’s one vehicle in the claim, “a vehicle” and “the vehicle” would be acceptable. If there’s more than one vehicle, they should be limited using “a first vehicle” and “a second vehicle” and “the first vehicle” and “the second vehicle” and so on.
Moreover, it there are two determined time periods, one for the first charging pattern and another one for the second charging period, they should be limited “a first predetermined time period,” and “a second predetermined time period, and “the first predetermined time period,” and “the second predetermined time period” subsequently.
In view of the above, it is unclear the system limited in claim 1. Claim 1 is vague and indefinite.
The following portion of claim 1 must be clearly amended to understand what Applicant claims as his/her invention.
“the power apparatus charges the vehicle in a first charging pattern, the first charging pattern being a power pattern in which the power apparatus discharges an electric power and indicating charging power values from when the power apparatus starts charging the vehicle until a predetermined time period has passed, and
if the first charging pattern and a second charging pattern match, the second charging pattern being a power pattern in which the vehicle is charged and indicating charging power values from a start of charge of the vehicle by the power apparatus until the predetermined time period has passed, the server pairs an intended power apparatus having performed charging in the first charging pattern and an intended vehicle charged in the second charging pattern.”
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph on the same ground as claim 1. In the same vein as claim1, the following portion of claim 8 must be clearly amended to understand what Applicant claims as his/her invention.
“the vehicle discharges an electric power in a first discharging pattern to the power apparatus, the first discharging pattern being a power pattern in which the vehicle discharges an electric power and indicating discharging power values from when the vehicle starts discharging the electric power until a predetermined time period has passed, and
if the first discharging pattern and a second discharging pattern match, the second discharging pattern being a power pattern in which the power apparatus is supplied with an electric power and indicating discharging power values from when the vehicle starts discharging the electric power until the predetermined time period has passed, the server pairs an intended vehicle having discharged an electric power in the first discharging pattern and an intended power apparatus having been discharged an electric power to in the second discharging pattern.”
7. Claims 2-7 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph as being dependent on claims 1 and 8.
Additional Remarks
8. It is generally a USPTO practice to provide a prior art related opinion in the first Office Action on the merits (FAOM). However, in claims 1 and 8, Examiner can’t understand the claimed subject matter. Accordingly, a prior art related search was not conducted. The lack of art-related opinion in this Office Action should not be interpreted as an allowable subject matter If claims 1 and 8 were rewritten to overcome 35 USC 112 rejection. Subsequent search and opinion would follow.
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, Thomas Pham, can be reached on (571)272-3689. 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
June 9, 2026
Prosecution Insights