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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the patent application filed on December 12, 2025. Claims 1-13 are currently pending. Claims 11-13 are new.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in Application No. JP2023-034836, filed on March 7, 2023. Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
No action the part of the applicant is required at this time.
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the claims submitted on December 12, 2025 do not overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection of the non-final rejection from September 26, 2025. While the addition of a processor is appropriate, an addition of a non-transitory computer readable medium is required.
The prior art rejections are overcome in view of the amendments made December 12, 2025. However, a new prior art rejection is made (see Response to Arguments)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 11-14, filed December 12, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-10 under 35 USC 102 & 35 USC 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 US 2023/0264582 A1, to Maeda et al., hereafter Maeda.
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 & 10-13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 & 10-13 of copending Application No. 18/595,660 (reference application), respectively. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the issued patents noted above additionally recite limitations not included in the instant application thus rendering the scope of the independent claims of this application broader than the corresponding issued patents. In other words, the entire scope of the references claims falls within the scope of the examined claims (see In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). To put it differently, the species or sub-genus in U.S. Patent Application Nos. 18/595,498 and 18/595,660 anticipates the claimed genus in the reference application and, therefore, a patent to the genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the species or sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the species or sub-genus.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because it is not falling under any of the four statutory categories of invention (processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter). Specifically, the claimed "system" under the broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses a computer program per se (often referred to as "signal per se") thus not having a physical or tangible form (MPEP § 2106.03). Although random-access memory and magnetic tape are statutory media, carrier waves are not because they are signals similar to the transitory, propagating signals held to be non-statutory in Nuijten. 851 F.3d at 1294, 112 USPQ2d at 1133 (citing In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). Accordingly, because the BRI of the claims covered both subject matter that falls within a statutory category (the random-access memory), as well as subject matter that does not (the carrier waves), the claims as a whole were not directed to a statutory category and thus failed the first criterion for eligibility. Correction is requested to remedy this deficiency (e.g. by [excluding transitory signals]). Therefore, claim 1 rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed toward a non-statutory category of invention.
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)(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, 3, 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2023/0264882 A1, to Maeda et al., hereafter Maeda (previously of record).
Regarding Claim 1, Maeda discloses A charging system, that controls charging of a plurality of vehicles that deliver packages, the charging system comprising a processor that (Maeda [0037], [0054], & Fig. 1, Examiner Note: Maeda discloses a cooperative charging station (i.e. system) which includes a processor and memory):
obtains operation plan information including a scheduled departure time of each vehicle and a target state of charge (SOC) of a battery of each vehicle, the remaining SOC of the battery of each vehicle, and charging parameters related to the chargers (Maeda [0094], Examiner Note: Maeda discloses creating a host vehicle charging schedule (i.e. charging plan) based on the relative departure times of vehicles and the desired SOC (i.e. target SOC) of the host vehicle and the proximate vehicle. The scheduling also takes into consideration the current SOC. [0084] The scheduling further takes into consideration the draw of the vehicle on the charging station and patterns of voltage variation from the charger (i.e. charging parameters related to chargers));
sets, based on the obtained information, a charging plan including a charging start time and a charging end time of each vehicle such that charging of each vehicle is completed by the corresponding scheduled departure time (Maeda [0094], Examiner Note: Maeda discloses creating a host vehicle charging schedule (i.e. charging plan) based on the relative departure times of vehicles and the desired SOC (i.e. target SOC) of the host vehicle and the proximate vehicle. [0071] Maeda further discloses taking into consideration charging start time into the charging schedule);
performs the charging of each vehicle through the corresponding charger in accordance with the charging plan; and (Maeda [0071]-[0072], Examiner Note: Maeda discloses providing the host vehicle and proximate vehicle with a charge based on the schedule);
receives information about connection to one of the chargers from each vehicle (Maeda [0037], Examiner Note: Maeda discloses transmitting and receiving from the host vehicle and proximate vehicle to the charging station); and
revises the charging plan when receiving a charging error related to interruption of the charging from at least one of the plurality of vehicles (Maeda [0089], Examiner Note: Maeda discloses adjusting an existing charging schedule if, for example, the host vehicle is being charged by a host charging schedule, the charging may be interrupted (i.e. error) to be replaced by a cooperative charging schedule with the proximate vehicle (from at least one of the plurality of vehicles)).
Regarding Claim 3, Maeda discloses The charging system according to Claim 1, wherein the setting section changes the scheduled departure time of at least one of the plurality of vehicles with the charging error and revises the charging plan (Maeda [0089]-[0090], Examiner Note: Maeda discloses the interruption (i.e. error) occurring when the host vehicle is on its own charging schedule (e.g. Departure Time A) and is changed to a cooperative charging schedule (e.g. Departure Time B). Maeda further shows the departure times between the two schedules being different).
Regarding Claim 8, Maeda discloses A vehicle connectable to the charging system according to Claim 1, the vehicle comprising: a display section that displays a rate of progress indicating a charge amount with respect to a full charge or a rate of progress indicating the charge amount with respect to the target level of charge (Maeda [0110], Examiner Note: Maeda discloses the operator of the host vehicle being alerted of a proximate vehicle schedule including charging speed (i.e. rate of progress of charge)).
Regarding Claim 9, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 1, and it has been determined that claim 9 does not teach or define any new limitations in view of claim 1. Therefore, claim 9 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 10, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 1, and it has been determined that claim 10 does not teach or define any new limitations in view of claim 1. Therefore, claim 10 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 11, Maeda discloses The charging system according to Claim 1 wherein the processor resets the charging plan when, after receiving the charging error, the processor receives from the at least one of the plurality of vehicles a notification that the vehicle and the charger have been reconnected (Maeda [0089], Examiner Note: Maeda discloses adjusting an existing charging schedule if, for example, the host vehicle is being charged by a host charging schedule, the charging may be interrupted (i.e. error) to be replaced by a cooperative charging schedule (i.e. reset) with the proximate vehicle (from at least one of the plurality of vehicles). The charging station then charges (i.e. notification) based on the cooperative charging schedule).
Regarding Claim 12, Maeda discloses The charging system according to Claim 1, wherein the processor notifies a terminal device of the charging plan including the target SOC for each vehicle, and the charging plan can be edited by a user using the terminal device (Maeda [0125], Examiner Note: Maeda discloses the host vehicle and the proximate vehicle communicating with the charging station (i.e. terminal device) each other’s schedules and desired state of charge (i.e. target SOC). Maeda further the capability of users to control the charging station).
Regarding Claim 13, Maeda discloses The charging system according to Claim 1, wherein the processor sets the charging plan based on a priority mode associated with a charging method set by a user (Maeda [0091], Examiner Note: Maeda discloses creating the order of charging based on which vehicle is expected to depart first (i.e. priority mode). [0052] these preferences for charging schedules may be made by the user via the user interface in the vehicles).
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.
Claims 2 & 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0264882 A1, to Maeda et al., hereafter Maeda (previously of record) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2023/0118740 A1, to Iguchi et al., hereafter Iguchi (newly of record).
Regarding Claim 2, Maeda discloses The charging system according to Claim 1,
However, Maeda does not specifically disclose wherein, when receiving the charging error, the processor notifies the charging error of a registered terminal.
Iguchi, directed to the same problem, teaches wherein, when receiving the charging error, the processor notifies the charging error of a registered terminal. (Iguchi [0020], [0043] & Fig. 1, Examiner Note: Iguchi teaches a display terminal (i.e. registered terminal) which is notified when a nonattainment error occurs during a charging plan).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the charging schedule for cooperative vehicles of Maeda with the capability of sending an error to a terminal of Iguchi in order to allow a terminal user to respond and re-plan due to the notification of the error (Iguchi [0043]).
Regarding Claim 7, Maeda discloses A management terminal connectable to the charging system according to Claim 1,
However, Maeda does not specifically disclose the management terminal comprising: a function section that presents the scheduled departure time, target SOC, or a time for preparation work for at least one of the plurality of vehicles to the charging system or a function section that obtains, from the charging system, a charge amount of at least one of the plurality of vehicles or a scheduled connection time at which at least one of the plurality of vehicles is scheduled to be connected to the charging system, and a scheduled charging end time of at least one of the plurality of vehicles in the charging plan.
Iguchi teaches the management terminal comprising: a function section that presents the scheduled departure time, target SOC, or a time for preparation work for at least one of the plurality of vehicles to the charging system or a function section that obtains, from the charging system, a charge amount of at least one of the plurality of vehicles or a scheduled connection time at which at least one of the plurality of vehicles is scheduled to be connected to the charging system, and a scheduled charging end time of at least one of the plurality of vehicles in the charging plan (Iguchi [0045], Examiner Note: Iguchi discloses the display terminal displaying information regarding the delivery plan, charging result, and charging plan).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the charging schedule for cooperative vehicles of Maeda with the presentation of charging data on the display terminal of Iguchi in order to allow a terminal user to see and respond to any notification (Iguchi [0043]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0264882 A1, to Maeda et al., hereafter Maeda (previously of record) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP 2021129459 A, to Horiuchi et al., hereafter Horiuchi.
Regarding Claim 4, as shown above, Maeda discloses The charging system according to Claim 1,
However, Maeda does not specifically disclose wherein the processor revises the charging plan based on a new operation plan for distributing a package or packages of at least one of the plurality of vehicles with the charging error to another one or more of the plurality of vehicles.
Horiuchi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the processor revises the charging plan based on a new operation plan for distributing a package or packages of at least one of the plurality of vehicles with the charging error to another one or more of the plurality of vehicles (Horiuchi [0074], Examiner Note: Horiuchi teaches when there is a conflict (i.e. charging error) in the existing operation plan, it is possible for a driver to use a different vehicle, which would then create a new charging period in response to the new operation plan).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the charging schedule for cooperative vehicles of Maeda with the capability to create a new operation plan of Horiuchi in order to allow a means for transportation for the user of another vehicle with high priority (Horiuchi [0074]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0264882 A1, to Maeda et al., hereafter Maeda (previously of record) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2014/0361745 A1, to Nishita et al., hereafter Nishita.
Regarding Claim 5, as shown above, Maeda discloses The charging system according to Claim 1,
However, Maeda does not specifically disclose wherein the processor obtains a time for preparation work for each of the plurality of vehicles and sets the charging plan such that the preparation work for each vehicle is completed by the scheduled departure time..
Nishita, directed to the same problem, teaches wherein the processor obtains a time for preparation work for each of the plurality of vehicles and sets the charging plan such that the preparation work for each vehicle is completed by the scheduled departure time. (Nishita [0044] & Fig. 2, Examiner Note: Nishita teaches that the preparation process is considered when determining a charging plan which includes reservation information, level of power demand, minimization of charging loss, and power consumption from certain power companies and municipalities. Since these would be required prior to charging finishing, the preparation work would be complete by the time the charging finishes. Claim 22 teaches that this planning occurs with more than one vehicles).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the charging schedule for cooperative vehicles of Maeda with the preparation process of Nishita in order to achieve leveling of electric power demand (Nishita [0008]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0264882 A1, to Maeda et al., hereafter Maeda (previously of record) in view of US 2014/0361745 A1, to Nishita et al., hereafter Nishita as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of US 2023/0226942 A1, to Yang et al., hereafter Yang.
Regarding Claim 6, Maeda in view of Nishita, as shown above, teaches The charging system according to Claim 5,
However, the modification does not specifically teach wherein the processor adjusts the charging plan in accordance with a number, weight, or type of a package or packages, a skill level of a driver, a type of house in a delivery area, or the presence or absence of a fixture.
Yang, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the processor adjusts the charging plan in accordance with a number, weight, or type of a package or packages, a skill level of a driver, a type of house in a delivery area, or the presence or absence of a fixture (Yang [0104] & [0108], Examiner Note: Yang teaches considering the weight of an article as well as the article quantity to be delivered when generating a charging schedule).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the charging schedule for cooperative vehicles of Maeda in view of Nishita with the consideration of the contents of the delivery when making a charging schedule in order to charge a plurality of mobile vehicles in an appropriate order so that the mobile vehicles are charged in a limited time period from a service finish to a service start time (Yang [0025]-[0026]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T DOWLING whose telephone number is (703)756-1459. The examiner can normally be reached M-T: 8-5:30, First F: Off, Second F: 8-4:30.
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, ERIN PIATESKI can be reached at (571)-270-7429. 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.
/MICHAEL T DOWLING/Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669