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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 11, 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
The rejections of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 and claims 1-4 and 6-7 under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph have been withdrawn in light of the Applicants’ amendments. Additionally, the objection to claim 7 has been withdrawn.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 have been amended. Thus, claims 1-8 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 30, 2025 has been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawada et al. [U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0143828] in view of Inoue et al. [U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0275910]
With regard to claim 1, Sawada et al. meets the limitations of:
an information processing device comprising a processor [a charging station having communication abilities meaning the device has a processor used for conducting communications (paragraph 0052 and figure 5)]
a memory storing programs instructions that cause the processor to receive a first request sent from a first terminal corresponding to a first vehicle in need of being recharged [a user inputting a navigation destination to a charging supplier where a request for charging is sent when the navigation destination is submitted (paragraphs 0077, 0078, and 0079)]
the first request being a request for information on a second vehicle having a power supply function to recharge another vehicle [a user inputting a navigation destination to a charging supplier where a request for charging is sent when the navigation destination is submitted (paragraphs 0077, 0078, and 0079) where a vehicle supplies power to another vehicle (figure 3)]
acquire a scheduled parking location of the second vehicle and a scheduled parking time period of the second vehicle [a reservation status being transmitted (paragraph 0080 and figure 8, item P210)]
send first information including the scheduled parking location of the second vehicle and the scheduled parking period of the second vehicle to the first terminal [information relating to the parking location for the power station being secured (paragraph 0087) and the management server notifies both vehicles about each other's detailed vehicle information and the information about the specific place of the secured parking location (paragraph 0088)]
However, Sawada et al. fails to disclose of a scheduled parking period. In the field of vehicle management systems, Inoue et al. teaches:
a scheduled parking period [a charging management device scheduling a length of time for charging a vehicle (paragraphs 0022, 0035, and 0036)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the elements of Sawada et al. and Inoue et al. to create a charging management system for vehicles where a vehicle’s owner requests to have his/her vehicle charged by another vehicle through the use of a reservation system in order to schedule the recharging operation by the vehicle wherein the motivation to combine is to manage inter-vehicle charging (Sawada et al., paragraph 0002).
With regard to claim 5, please refer to the rejection for claim 1 as the citations meet the limitations of the present claim.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawada et al. [U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0143828] in view of Inoue et al. [U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0275910], and in further view of Takatsuka et al. [U.S. Patent Publication 2018/0260887]
With regard to claim 2, Sawada et al. meets the limitation of:
the second vehicle [a vehicle supplying power to another vehicle (figure 3)]
However, Sawada et al. fails to disclose of program instructions further causing the processor to acquire a remaining battery capacity and the remaining battery capacity in the first information. In the field of battery reservation devices, Takatsuka et al. teaches:
program instructions further cause the processor to acquire a remaining battery capacity and the remaining battery capacity in the first information [a battery reservation device providing information regarding a battery’s remaining charge level that is performed by a capacity calculator (paragraphs 0075 and 0076 as well as figure 3)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the elements of Sawada et al., Inoue et al., and Takatsuka et al. to create a charging management system for vehicles where a vehicle’s owner requests to have his/her vehicle charged by another vehicle through the use of a reservation system while the system also checks on the amount of remaining battery power to determine the amount of power the vehicle requires in order to schedule the recharging operation by the vehicle wherein the motivation to combine is to manage inter-vehicle charging (Sawada et al., paragraph 0002).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawada et al. [U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0143828] in view of Inoue et al. [U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0275910], and in further view of Kinsey et al. [U.S. Patent Publication 2023/0286408]
With regard to claim 3, Sawada et al. meets the limitation of:
the memory further stores a first database that includes the scheduled parking location of the second vehicle and the scheduled parking period of the second vehicle in association with each other and send the first information to the first terminal [information relating to the parking location for the power station being secured (paragraph 0087) and the management server notifies both vehicles about each other's detailed vehicle information and the information about the specific place of the secured parking location (paragraph 0088)]
However, Sawada et al. fails to disclose of a scheduled parking period. In the field of vehicle management systems, Inoue et al. teaches:
a scheduled parking period [a charging management device scheduling a length of time for charging a vehicle (paragraphs 0022, 0035, and 0036)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the elements of Sawada et al. and Inoue et al. to create a charging management system for vehicles where a vehicle’s owner requests to have his/her vehicle charged by another vehicle through the use of a reservation system in order to schedule the recharging operation by the vehicle. However, the combination of Sawada et al. and Inoue et al. fails to disclose of determining based on information in the first database whether a first length of time is equal to or greater than a predetermined length of time, the first length of time being a length of time for which the second vehicle is scheduled to be parked at the scheduled parking location determination is made that the first length of time is equal to or greater than the predetermined length of time. In the field of vehicle management systems, Kinsey et al. teaches:
determining based on information in the first database whether a first length of time is equal to or greater than a predetermined length of time, the first length of time being a length of time for which the second vehicle is scheduled to be parked at the scheduled parking location determination is made that the first length of time is equal to or greater than the predetermined length of time [a database showing which parking spots are occupied and available as well as when they will be made available (figure 3A and paragraph 0036)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the elements of Sawada et al., Inoue et al., and Kinsey et al. to create a charging management system for vehicles where a vehicle’s owner requests to have his/her vehicle charged by another vehicle through the use of a reservation system in order to schedule the recharging operation by the vehicle for an amount of time required to recharge the vehicle wherein the motivation to combine is to manage inter-vehicle charging (Sawada et al., paragraph 0002).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawada et al. [U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0143828] in view of Inoue et al. [U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0275910], and in further view of Lee et al. [U.S. Patent Publication 2018/0215374]
With regard to claim 4, Sawada et al. meets the limitation of:
the memory further stores a first database that stores the scheduled parking location of the second vehicle and the scheduled parking period of the second vehicle in association with each other and sending the information to the first terminal [information relating to the parking location for the power station being secured (paragraph 0087) and the management server notifies both vehicles about each other's detailed vehicle information and the information about the specific place of the secured parking location (paragraph 0088)]
acquire a scheduled travel route of the first vehicle [information relating to the parking location for the power station being secured (paragraph 0087) and the management server notifies both vehicles about each other's detailed vehicle information and the information about the specific place of the secured parking location (paragraph 0088)]
However, Sawada et al. fails to disclose of a scheduled parking period. In the field of vehicle management systems, Inoue et al. teaches:
a scheduled parking period [a charging management device scheduling a length of time for charging a vehicle (paragraphs 0022, 0035, and 0036)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the elements of Sawada et al. and Inoue et al. to create a charging management system for vehicles where a vehicle’s owner requests to have his/her vehicle charged by another vehicle through the use of a reservation system in order to schedule the recharging operation by the vehicle. However, the combination of Sawada et al. and Inoue et al. fails to disclose of determining based on the scheduled travel route and information in the first database whether a first length of distance is equal to or less than a predetermined length of distance where the first length of distance being a length of distance from the scheduled travel route to the scheduled parking location and determining is made that the first length of distance is equal to or less than the predetermined length of distance. In the field of vehicle parking systems, Lee et al. teaches:
determining based on the scheduled travel route and information in the first database whether a first length of distance is equal to or less than a predetermined length of distance where the first length of distance being a length of distance from the scheduled travel route to the scheduled parking location and determining is made that the first length of distance is equal to or less than the predetermined length of distance [a route to a parking space being determined where the computer that generates the route to the parking space that has the shortest distance from the host vehicle (paragraph 0048)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the elements of Sawada et al., Inoue et al., and Kinsey et al. to create a charging management system for vehicles where a vehicle’s owner requests to have his/her vehicle charged by another vehicle that is located nearby through the use of a reservation system in order to schedule the recharging operation by the vehicle for an amount of time required to recharge the vehicle wherein the motivation to combine is to manage inter-vehicle charging (Sawada et al., paragraph 0002).
Claim(s) 6, 7, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawada et al. [U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0143828] in view of Inoue et al. [U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0275910], and in further view of Ishibashi et al. [U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0347275]
With regard to claim 6, Sawada et al. fails to disclose of a scheduled parking time period and the scheduled parking duration of the second vehicle is determined based on a scheduled parking start date and time and a scheduled parking end date and time. In the field of vehicle management systems, Inoue et al. teaches:
a scheduled parking time period [a charging management device scheduling a length of time for charging a vehicle (paragraphs 0022, 0035, and 0036)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the elements of Sawada et al. and Inoue et al. to create a charging management system for vehicles where a vehicle’s owner requests to have his/her vehicle charged by another vehicle through the use of a reservation system in order to schedule the recharging operation by the vehicle. However, the combination of Sawada et al. and Inoue et al. fails to disclose of the scheduled parking duration of the second vehicle is determined based on a scheduled parking start date and time and a scheduled parking end date and time. In the field of charging reservation systems, Ishibashi et al. teaches:
the scheduled parking duration of the second vehicle is determined based on a scheduled parking start date and time and a scheduled parking end date and time [a user’s mobile device, through the use of an application, being able to present a charging schedule for each day of the week where start times and departure times for charging are presented for each day (paragraphs 0032-0038 as well as figure 3)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the elements of Sawada et al., Inoue et al., and Ishibashi et al. to create a charging management system for vehicles where a vehicle’s owner requests to have his/her vehicle charged by another vehicle through the use of a reservation system in order to schedule the recharging operation by the vehicle for an amount of time required to recharge the vehicle wherein the motivation to combine is to manage inter-vehicle charging (Sawada et al., paragraph 0002).
With regard to claim 7, Sawada et al. fails to disclose of the scheduled parking time period and the first request requests information on at least one additional second vehicle having the power supply function, and the processor acquires the scheduled parking time period and the scheduled parking time period of the at least one additional second vehicle and sends the first information including the scheduled parking location and the scheduled parking time period of the at least one additional second vehicle to the first terminal. In the field of vehicle management systems, Inoue et al. teaches:
a scheduled time period [a charging management device scheduling a length of time for charging a vehicle (paragraphs 0022, 0035, and 0036)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the elements of Sawada et al. and Inoue et al. to create a charging management system for vehicles where a vehicle’s owner requests to have his/her vehicle charged by another vehicle through the use of a reservation system in order to schedule the recharging operation by the vehicle. However, the combination of Sawada et al. and Inoue et al. fails to disclose of the first request requests information on at least one additional second vehicle having the power supply function, and the processor acquires the scheduled parking time period and the scheduled parking time period of the at least one additional second vehicle and sends the first information including the scheduled parking location and the scheduled parking time period of the at least one additional second vehicle to the first terminal. In the field of charging reservation systems, Ishibashi et al. teaches:
the first request requests information on at least one additional second vehicle having the power supply function, and the processor acquires the scheduled parking time period and the scheduled parking time period of the at least one additional second vehicle and sends the first information including the scheduled parking location and the scheduled parking time period of the at least one additional second vehicle to the first terminal [a user’s mobile device, through the use of an application, being able to present a charging schedule for each day of the week where start times and departure times for charging are presented for each day (paragraphs 0032-0038 as well as figure 3)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the elements of Sawada et al., Inoue et al., and Ishibashi et al. to create a charging management system for vehicles where a vehicle’s owner requests to have his/her vehicle charged by another vehicle through the use of a reservation system in order to schedule the recharging operation by the vehicle for an amount of time required to recharge the vehicle wherein the motivation to combine is to manage inter-vehicle charging (Sawada et al., paragraph 0002).
With regard to claim 8, Sawada et al. fails to disclose of the scheduled parking time period and the first request requests information on at least one additional second vehicle having the power supply function, and the processor acquires the scheduled parking time period and the scheduled parking time period of the at least one additional second vehicle and sends the first information including the scheduled parking time period and the scheduled parking time period of the at least one additional second vehicle to the first terminal. In the field of vehicle management systems, Inoue et al. teaches:
a scheduled time period [a charging management device scheduling a length of time for charging a vehicle (paragraphs 0022, 0035, and 0036)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the elements of Sawada et al. and Inoue et al. to create a charging management system for vehicles where a vehicle’s owner requests to have his/her vehicle charged by another vehicle through the use of a reservation system in order to schedule the recharging operation by the vehicle. However, the combination of Sawada et al. and Inoue et al. fails to disclose of the first request requests information on at least one additional second vehicle having the power supply function, and the processor acquires the scheduled parking time period and the scheduled parking time period of the at least one additional second vehicle and sends the first information including the scheduled parking time period and the scheduled parking time period of the at least one additional second vehicle to the first terminal. In the field of charging reservation systems, Ishibashi et al. teaches:
the first request requests information on at least one additional second vehicle having the power supply function, and the processor acquires the scheduled parking time period and the scheduled parking time period of the at least one additional second vehicle and sends the first information including the scheduled parking time period and the scheduled parking time period of the at least one additional second vehicle to the first terminal [a user’s mobile device, through the use of an application, being able to present a charging schedule for each day of the week where start times and departure times for charging are presented for each day (paragraphs 0032-0038 as well as figure 3)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the elements of Sawada et al., Inoue et al., and Ishibashi et al. to create a charging management system for vehicles where a vehicle’s owner requests to have his/her vehicle charged by another vehicle through the use of a reservation system in order to schedule the recharging operation by the vehicle for an amount of time required to recharge the vehicle wherein the motivation to combine is to manage inter-vehicle charging (Sawada et al., paragraph 0002).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Sawada et al. [U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0143828] and Inoue et al. [U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0275910].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAMESHANAND MAHASE whose telephone number is (571) 270-7223. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday 8:00AM - 5:00PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Davetta Goins can be reached on 571-272-2957. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. 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.
/PAMESHANAND MAHASE/Examiner, Art Unit 2689
/DAVETTA W GOINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2689