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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 20, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the patent application filed on April 20, 2026. Claims 1-13 are currently pending.
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 April 20, 2026 overcome the 35 USC 101 and prior art rejections final rejection February 27, 2026. However, new prior art rejections are made in view of US 2020/0156494 A1, to Niikawa et al., hereafter Niikawa (previously of record).
The double patenting rejection is also withdrawn due to the terminal disclaimer being filed on April 20, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 6-12, filed April 20, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-13 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 2020/0156494 A1, to Niikawa et al., hereafter Niikawa (previously of record).
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 1, 3, 8-13 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 2020/0156494 A1, to Niikawa et al., hereafter Niikawa (previously of record).
Regarding Claim 1, Maeda discloses A charging system, that controls charging of a plurality of vehicles that deliver packages using a plurality of chargers, the charging system comprising a processor that and a non-transitory recording medium having a computer-readable program recorded thereon, and the processor is configured to execute the following processes in accordance with the program (Maeda [0031], [0037], [0054], & Fig. 1, Examiner Note: Maeda discloses a cooperative charging station (i.e. system) which includes a processor which performs instructions (i.e. processes) and memory. Fig. 1 further shows a charging station with two (i.e. multiple chargers)):
obtain 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);
perform 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 a connection status between the vehicle and the corresponding charger (Maeda [0078], Examiner Note: Maeda discloses an identification module, 502, which identifies engagement and/or disengagement (i.e. connection status) of the charging link, 114); and…
However Maeda does not specifically disclose …in a case where the processor receives, from at least one of the plurality of vehicles, error information indicating an interruption of charging due to a disconnection between the vehicle and the corresponding charger during a scheduled charging time slot of the charging plan, revises the charging plan in response to receiving a notification that the vehicle and the corresponding charger have been reconnected.
Niikawa, in the same field of endeavor, teaches …in a case where the processor receives, from at least one of the plurality of vehicles, error information indicating an interruption of charging due to a disconnection between the vehicle and the corresponding charger during a scheduled charging time slot of the charging plan, revises the charging plan in response to receiving a notification that the vehicle and the corresponding charger have been reconnected (Niikawa [0050]-[0057], [0073] & Fig. 2, Examiner Note: Niikawa teaches a scenario for a schedule A (i.e. scheduled timing slot) in which a connector is disconnected during charging (e.g. t31) and reconnected (e.g. t32). Here, resume conditions must be met in order to resume charging. If resume conditions are not met, the user is notified (i.e. error) via the notification device, 170, that the charging has been stopped part of the way through. Then the user must set another charging schedule (i.e. revises the 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 rescheduling charging schedule in case of disconnection on Niikawa in order to enhance user convenience (Niikawa [0057]).
Regarding Claim 3, Maeda in view of Niikawa teaches 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 in view of Niikawa teaches 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 in view of Niikawa teaches 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 in view of Niikawa teaches 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 in view of Niikawa teaches 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).
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) in view of US 2020/0156494 A1, to Niikawa et al., hereafter Niikawa (previously of record) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2023/0118740 A1, to Iguchi et al., hereafter Iguchi (previously of record).
Regarding Claim 2, Maeda in view of Niikawa teaches 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 in view of Niikawa 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 in view of Niikawa teaches 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 in view of Niikawa 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) in view of US 2020/0156494 A1, to Niikawa et al., hereafter Niikawa (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 in view of Niikawa teaches 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 in view of Niikawa 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) in view of US 2020/0156494 A1, to Niikawa et al., hereafter Niikawa (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 in view of Niikawa teaches 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 in view of Niikawa 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 2020/0156494 A1, to Niikawa et al., hereafter Niikawa (previously of record) further 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 Niikawa teaches and further 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 Niikawa teaches and further 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
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
Prosecution Insights