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 .
Receipt is acknowledged of IDS filed on 10/26/23, 11/27/24, 12/04/25 & 03/31/26.
Claims 1-5 are presented for examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha et al. (US 2017/0282739) in view of Ambrosio et al. (US 2009/0313103).
Re Claims 1 and 4: Cha et al. teaches server for providing battery display status of an electric vehicle, which includes collecting vehicle data {herein vehicle information collector 112} of a power supply target vehicle to evaluate a state of a battery {herein vehicle information includes battery charge information, battery status input/output parts 21/23} of the power supply target vehicle (¶ 66+); calculating, from an evaluation result {herein calculation results}, at least one of a period and cost needed for charging the battery (¶ 40-44+, 70-74+, 81-83+); determining a power supply source vehicle that supplies power to the power supply target vehicle (¶ 41-46+, 71-82+); and when determination is made that a charging method by a user of the power supply target vehicle is a charging method that reduces deterioration {herein battery degradation level} of a battery of the power supply source vehicle (¶ 12-23, 41-54+, 71-82+).
Cha et al. fails to specifically teach giving an incentive to the user of the power supply target vehicle, wherein the incentive includes a discount on an electricity bill, a discount on a rental car fee, a discount on a lease fee, or a point.
Ambrosio et al. teaches electric vehicle charging transaction interface for managing electric vehicle charging transactions, which includes giving an incentive {herein incentive service 405} to the user of the power supply target vehicle, wherein the incentive includes a discount on an electricity bill, a discount on a rental car fee, a discount on a lease fee, or a point (¶ 62+, 112-118+).
In view of Ambrosio et al.’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ into the teachings of Cha et al. giving an incentive to the user of the power supply target vehicle so as to entice the driver to participate in electric battery charging at certain/specific locations/vendors. Such modification would be beneficial by generating a customized plan governing the charging transaction and curtailed to a discounted rate including other benefits affiliated with third parties.
Re Claim 2: Cha as modified by Ambrosio et al. teaches a device, wherein the information processing method includes: presenting a plurality of options for a charging method to the user to receive a selection for one option; determining whether a charging method selected by the user is the charging method that reduces the deterioration of the battery of the power supply source vehicle; and when determination is made that the selected charging method is the charging method that reduces the deterioration of the battery of the power supply source vehicle, giving the incentive to the user (¶ 18-24+, 41-49+, 71-83+).
Re Claim 3: Cha as modified by Ambrosio et al. teaches a device, wherein: the options for the charging method include quick charge and normal charge {herein slow charging or fast charging}; and the method that reduces the deterioration of the battery of the power supply source vehicle is the normal charge (¶ 41+, 71+,82+).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record fails to specifically teach that the information processing method includes, when determination is made that a second power supply target vehicle driven by a second user has arrived at a location of the power supply target vehicle, giving the incentive to the second user. These limitations in conjunction with other limitations in the claimed invention were not shown by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fukuhara et al. (US 2019/0286843) teaches data delivery control device, information processing device, and method for data delivery control.
Surace (US 2021/0082208) teaches system and method for detecting vehicle or environmental changes from automated vehicles.
Gilbert-Eyres et al. (US 2025/0162458) teaches vehicle system.
Chiba (US 2026/0027937) teaches charging support system and charging support method.
Maeda et al. (US 2023/0234468) teaches system and method for selecting a charging entity based on occupancy status.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWYN LABAZE whose telephone number is (571)272-2395. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Mr. STEVE PAIK can be reached at 571-272-2404. 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.
/EDWYN LABAZE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights