The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11807126. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter of the instant application is so broad that the claims are read. Patent has provision of power from a fuel cell to the outside.
While being stopped is not necessarily explicitly described, it would have been obvious for the power to provided when the vehicle has stopped to improve safety [a moving vehicle with a physical connection is more likely to have safety issues as there are more moving parts, as one of ordinary skill in the art understands], simplicity [a moving vehicle with a physical connection for power transfer is more complicated than one which works when it is moving, e.g. consider a trolley or subway type system], and efficiency [a moving vehicle with a physical connection for power transfer is more likely to have more wiring and/or other components to facilitate movement, which would reduce the efficiency of the system and power transfer].
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11807126 in view of Martin et al (USPGPN 20200376972)
While the patent’s claims are silent to the limitations of Claim 2, Martin teaches determining to charge a battery of a second vehicle (740, 741) with the electric power generated in the first vehicle (730 of Figs. [3, 9, 10, esp. 9, 10]; determining in Figs. [11A, 11B]), the second vehicle being a battery electric vehicle (¶’s [39, 41, 70, 91, 92, esp. 70, 91, 92]). Martin teaches mobile chargers for vehicles provides improved convenience, costs, flexibility, and timing for users of the vehicles being charged (thus by using Martin’s teaching of a vehicle load, it provides these advantages to the teachings of Sakai; ¶’s [38-43, esp. 38, 39)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sakai with Martin to provide improved convenience, costs, flexibility, and timing.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the
Limitations of Claim 1: “controlling electrical energy to be supplied to the outside according to an amount of hydrogen remaining in the first vehicle and a distance to a next hydrogen station.” And Limitations of Claims 4 and 5: “controlling the electrical energy so that the amount of hydrogen remaining in the first vehicle becomes zero. controlling the electrical energy so that the amount of hydrogen remaining becomes zero after the first vehicle has traveled a remaining delivery distance.”
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 (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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sakai et al (JP 202105942 A)
Independent Claim 1, Sakai discloses an information processing method by an information processing apparatus (50, 146, 144, 34, esp. 50, see Figs. [1, 2]), the information processing method (Figs. [3-15, esp. 6, 11, 14], ¶’s [38-46, 73-79]) comprising:
identifying a first vehicle capable of supplying electric power generated by a fuel cell to outside (flowchart of Fig. 6 represents a vehicle having been identified [the vehicle being controlled] to provide power to outside, where the power on the battery is at least partially power generated by the fuel cell ¶[06]); and
controlling electrical energy to be supplied to the outside (see at least Fig. 6) according to an amount of hydrogen remaining in the first vehicle and a distance to a next hydrogen station (mileage/distance/[fuel required for travel], ¶’s [09, 35, 36, 41-45, 86-88, esp. 09, 45]).
Dependent Claims 4 and 5, controlling the electrical energy so that the amount of hydrogen remaining in the first vehicle becomes zero (with respect to [wrt] Claim 4), controlling the electrical energy so that the amount of hydrogen remaining becomes zero after the first vehicle has traveled a remaining delivery distance [wrt Claim 5] (¶’s [09, 45, esp. 45]
“a place where the remaining amount of hydrogen (remaining amount of fuel) of the FC system 100 is larger than the amount of hydrogen required for the electric vehicle 1 to travel from the power feeding position to the nearest hydrogen station (refueling facility). It holds when it becomes a fixed amount. The predetermined amount may be the same, may be larger, or may be smaller than the amount of hydrogen required for traveling of the electric vehicle 1. In this case, the stop condition is satisfied, for example, when the remaining amount of hydrogen in the FC system 100 drops to the amount of hydrogen required to travel from the power supply position of the electric vehicle 1 to the nearest hydrogen station. The stop condition is, for example, when the mileage of the electric vehicle 1 based on the remaining amount of hydrogen in the FC system 100 and the SOC of the battery 42 decreases from the power supply position of the electric vehicle 1 to the mileage to the nearest hydrogen station.”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Sakai et al (JP 202105942 A)
Dependent Claim 3, Sakai discloses determining that supply of the electric power is performed when the first vehicle is stopped (¶[36] describes the device receiving power is a campsite, which is stationary, meaning the vehicle would have stopped, while ¶[35] describes the device receiving power can be a commercial power supply via v2g, which would imply the device receiving power is also a stationary connection, while ¶[41] describes a connection between the vehicle system and 410, which means it is not a wireless power transfer).
Or in the alternative, it would have been obvious for the power to provided when the vehicle has stopped to improve safety [a moving vehicle with a physical connection is more likely to have safety issues as there are more moving parts, as one of ordinary skill in the art understands], simplicity [a moving vehicle with a physical connection for power transfer is more complicated than one which works when it is moving, e.g. consider a trolley or subway type system], and efficiency [a moving vehicle with a physical connection for power transfer is more likely to have more wiring and/or other components to facilitate movement, which would reduce the efficiency of the system and power transfer].
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai et al (JP 202105942 A) in view of Martin et al (USPGPN 20200376972)
Dependent Claim 2, Sakai teaches charging an outside (as described above for Claim 1).
Sakai is silent to determining to charge a battery of a second vehicle with the electric power generated in the first vehicle, the second vehicle being a battery electric vehicle.
Martin teaches determining to charge a battery of a second vehicle (740, 741) with the electric power generated in the first vehicle (730 of Figs. [3, 9, 10, esp. 9, 10]; determining in Figs. [11A, 11B]), the second vehicle being a battery electric vehicle (¶’s [39, 41, 70, 91, 92, esp. 70, 91, 92]). Martin teaches mobile chargers for vehicles provides improved convenience, costs, flexibility, and timing for users of the vehicles being charged (thus by using Martin’s teaching of a vehicle load, it provides these advantages to the teachings of Sakai; ¶’s [38-43, esp. 38, 39)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sakai with Martin to provide improved convenience, costs, flexibility, and timing.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The closest prior art found so far:
US-20130231811-A1 OR US-20200070680-A1 OR US-20210098806-A1 OR US-20210387540-A1 OR US-20220200021-A1 OR US-20220200020-A1 OR US-20220194252-A1 OR US-20240144157-A1 OR US-20240294080-A1 OR US-20240303762-A1 OR US-20240343153-A1 OR US-20240375527-A1
US-9132738-B2 OR US-11077766-B2 OR US-11424464-B2 OR US-11870116-B2 OR US-11807126-B2 OR US-12515548-B2 OR US-12282978-B2
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN T TRISCHLER whose telephone number is (571)270-0651. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30A-3:30P (often working later), M-F, ET, Flexible. 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 Dunn can be reached at 5712722312. 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.
/JOHN T TRISCHLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights