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 .
Claims 1-5 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “communication unit” and control unit” in claims 1-5.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ryo JP 2022034888A (hereinafter “Ryo).
As to claim 1, Ryo teaches a charge management device (FIG. 1 shows a charging management system) comprising: a communication unit that communicates with a terminal device of an operator who delivers a charger for charging a vehicle of a user to a location desired by the user and collects the charger (paragraph 0021 and FIG. 1 “terminal 100 of the providing side user U1 and the receiving side terminal 200 of the receiving side user U2 are connected to the server 30 via the communication network N. The mobile terminals 300 of the battery carrier C are constructed by communicating with each other. Then, the server 30 determines that the matching between the providing side user U1 and the receiving side user U2 is established, and the battery carrier C carries the battery Bt”); and a control unit that transmits a collection instruction that instructs collection of the charger to the terminal device via the communication unit based on charging information that indicates a state of charge to the vehicle from the charger (paragraph 0021 and 0040-0042 “power receiving location 20, and the battery collector receives the collection request from the server 30 and goes to the collection, that is, the server 30 sends a collection instruction to the terminal device via the communication unit based on the charging information indicating the charging state from the charger to the vehicle. It is described that control is performed to transmit a recovery instruction for instructing the recovery of the charger to the terminal device via a communication unit” and FIG. 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryo JP 2022034888A (hereinafter “Ryo) in view of Ehrenhalt USPGPUB 2022/0258632 (hereinafter “Ehrenhalt”).
As to claim 2, Ryo teaches all the limitation of the base claims as outlined above.
Ryo does not explicitly teach wherein the control unit acquires charging rate data that indicates a charging rate of the vehicle as the charging information, determines whether a charging rate indicated by the acquired charging rate data is equal to or higher than a charging threshold value, and transmits a normal collection instruction as the collection instruction when determination is made that the charging rate is equal to or higher than the charging threshold value.
However, Ehrenhalt teaches wherein the control unit acquires charging rate data that indicates a charging rate of the vehicle as the charging information, determines whether a charging rate indicated by the acquired charging rate data is equal to or higher than a charging threshold value, and transmits a normal collection instruction as the collection instruction when determination is made that the charging rate is equal to or higher than the charging threshold value (paragraph 0102-0103 “item 1750, upon charging being complete, the plug 212 can automatically disengage and the cable 215 can automatically recoil” and FIG. 17).
Ryo and Ehrenhalt are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and functional similarities. They both relate to charge management system.
Therefore at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above charge management system, as taught by Ryo, and incorporating transmits a normal collection instruction as the collection instruction when determination is made that the charging rate is equal to or higher than the charging threshold value, as taught by Ehrenhalt.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve monitoring, controlling charge management system and it would be beneficial to provide a robotic charging technology which effectively addresses, as suggested by Ehrenhalt (paragraph 0002-0005).
As to claim 3, Ryo teaches all the limitation of the base claims as outlined above.
Ryo does not explicitly teach wherein the control unit acquires connection data that indicates a connection state between the charger and the vehicle as the charging information, determines whether the charger is connected to the vehicle based on the acquired connection data, and transmits a preferential collection instruction that instructs preferential collection of the charger as the collection instruction when determination is made that the charger is not connected to the vehicle.
However, Ehrenhalt teaches wherein the control unit acquires connection data that indicates a connection state between the charger and the vehicle as the charging information, determines whether the charger is connected to the vehicle based on the acquired connection data, and transmits a preferential collection instruction that instructs preferential collection of the charger as the collection instruction when determination is made that the charger is not connected to the vehicle (paragraph 0090-0103 “robotic charging system 118 can wait until the user couples the plug 212 into the vehicle's charge port. In other embodiments, the robotic charging system 118 can obtain image data from the camera to locate the vehicle's charge port and activate a robotic arm 602 to position the plug near the vehicle's charge port” and FIG. 17).
As to claim 4, the combination of Ryo and Ehrenhalt teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Ehrenhalt further teaches wherein the control unit further acquires position data that indicates a position of the charger when determination is made that the charger is not connected to the vehicle, and further transmits the position data when a distance between a position indicated by the acquired position data and the location is equal to or greater than a distance threshold value (FIG. 17 and paragraph 0099-0103 “robotic charging system 118 determines a charge status. The charge status can be “ready for charging,” “charging in progress,” “charging complete,” “charging error,” etc”).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryo JP 2022034888A (hereinafter “Ryo) in view of Ehrenhalt USPGPUB 2022/0258632 (hereinafter “Ehrenhalt”) further in view Goei USP 12,151582 (hereinafter “Goei’).
As to claim 5, the combination of Ryo and Ehrenhalt teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
The combination does not explicitly teach wherein the control unit further acquires access data that indicates whether to enter the location when determination is made that the charger is not connected to the vehicle, determines whether to enter the location based on the acquired access data, and lowers priority of the collection of the charger when determination is made that entry is not possible.
However, Goei teaches wherein the control unit further acquires access data that indicates whether to enter the location when determination is made that the charger is not connected to the vehicle, determines whether to enter the location based on the acquired access data, and lowers priority of the collection of the charger when determination is made that entry is not possible (col 13 lines 50-65 “Databases within the charging controller server 804 comprise databases that provide data for performing complex real-time matching of the location of an electric vehicle on the road and searching for a charging unit 806 to determine the charging unit that is closest to the vehicle using the charger locator” and col. 20 line 30 col. 26 line 15 “charging unit 1614, an authentication sequence will be initiated at step 2116. The progress of the authentication sequence is displayed on the users mobile application 1616 and may comprise verifying the personal mobility device identification (e.g. registered serial number), verifying the make model and power specification of the personal mobility device (which requires a user's affirmative action to ensure that the personal mobility device”) .
Ryo, Ehrenhalt and Goei are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and functional similarities. They both relate to charge management system.
Therefore at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above charge management system, as taught by Ryo and Ehrenhalt, and incorporating acquired access data, and lowers priority of the collection of the charger when determination is made that entry is not possible, as taught by Goei.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve monitoring, controlling charge management system and it would be beneficial to provide a robotic charging technology which effectively addresses, as suggested by Ehrenhalt (paragraph 0002-0005).
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and listed on the attached PTO Form 892 but not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee et al USP 11,518,264 a vehicle and a method of controlling the vehicle. It is possible to determine whether the charger is normal or abnormal for each charger of the charging station, to guide the path to the charging station based on determination information, and to share the determination information with other users for the convenience of the users. The method of controlling the vehicle includes obtaining, by a receiver, information of a charger, information of a charging vehicle, and information of charging history of the charger and the charging vehicle; calculating, by a calculator, an expected output and an actual output of the charger based on the obtained information; and classifying, by a controller, the charger as an abnormal charger when the actual output of the charger is smaller than the expected output of the charger.
Mitsutani USPGPUB 2011/0101915 teaches a charging system of a vehicle for charging a vehicle-mounted power storage device includes a charger configured to receive electric power from a power supply external to the vehicle for charging the power storage device, a charging power sensing portion for sensing charging power supplied to the power storage device, and a charging control device for performing control on the charger by generating a power command value for the charger based on a target value. The charging control device detects a difference between charging power sensed by the charging power sensing portion and the target value and determines presence/absence of abnormality of the charger based on the detected difference.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZIAUL KARIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3279. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00-4:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mohammad Ali can be reached on 571 272 4105. 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.
/ZIAUL KARIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119