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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09/14/2026 and 02/29/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The Examiner recommends incorporating the inventive features of the independent claims, for example, capturing the concept of obtaining a usage history of an external mobile device for selecting of a charging vehicle.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-12 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.
With respect to claims 1 and 12, the claim recites “for each power storage respectively mounted to a plurality of vehicles”. The claim is worded such that it gives the impression a power storage device 31 of is able to be mounted to multiple different vehicles 30a. However, this is not what the specification supports and appears to be a translation or wording issue. Rather, it appears the thrust of the claim was intended to recite that the obtainer gathers information from a plurality of power storage devices that are each mounted to a vehicle, which is what the specification supports. Therefore, the claim is examined in that context until the claim is amended to be clearer.
Claims 2-11 depend from claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons.
With respect to claims 5 and 12, the limitation the selector “reflects” timing for maintenance is unclear. This appears to be a translation error and the as best understood by the examiner is interpreted to mean a transmission of data signal.
With respect to claim 12, again the claim recites a demand predictor obtains a demand prediction and then “reflects” to the demand prediction. This limitation is unclear and even with the interpretation above that “reflects” means transmission or communication of data it is still unclear how data, i.e. a demand prediction can reflect “to the demand prediction” as claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) “an obtainer to obtain” and “a demand predictor that obtains”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the two devices are mere data collectors that do not perform any function or operation with the data they are collecting. For example, compared to claim 1 where the information obtained is used to actually select a power storage for charging and discharging, which integrates the data collection into a practical application of performing charging/discharging. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the obtainers are routine/conventional computer functions.
Allowable Subject Matter
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Specifically, prior arts such as 11,987,146 to Tsuchiya et al. discloses power management based on user desires where charging information is feed through servers and also a user’s mobile phone is utilized for apps with charging schedules. And US 2024/0051429 to Jo et al. discloses a prediction system for electric vehicle charging wherein behavior features and rules are used. In all cases, including the two arts cited above there was no disclosure or suggestions of “an obtainer configured to obtain, for each power storage respectively mounted to a plurality of vehicles, a usage history of an external power storage associated with the power storage; and a selector configured to estimate charging and discharging trends between each power storage and an electric power network based on the usage history of the external power storage and, in accordance with an estimation result, select from among a plurality of the power storages a power storage to be subject to charging or discharging from or to the electric power network.” Therefore, assuming the 112 issue with claims 1 and 12 and 101 issue with claim 12 (i.e. incorporating the practical limitations of claim 1 into claim 12) are corrected, the claims would appear allowable with respect to prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL R PELTON whose telephone number is (571)270-1761. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 5pm.
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, Julian Huffman can be reached at 571-272-2147. 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.
/NATHANIEL R PELTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights