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
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 parent Application No. JP2023-034854, filed on 03/07/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/12/2024, 08/01/2024, and 11/06/2024 have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitation “wherein, even when at least one of the plurality of vehicles and the at least one charger are connected to each other in a period for which the charging plan is set, the control section does not perform charging with the charging power supplied from the at least one charger when present time is within a charging stop period in the charging plan.” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1:
a setting section that sets;
a control section that controls.
Claim 2:
an obtaining section that obtains;
the setting section obtains.
Claim 3:
the setting section obtains.
Claim 4:
the setting section adjusts.
Claim 5:
a function section that presents;
a function section that obtains.
Claim 6:
a display section that displays.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The setting section, control section, and obtaining section are processor functions [see Paragraph 0042 of Applicants disclosure].
The function section does not have a corresponding structure described in the specification.
The display section is a liquid crystal display (LDC) [see Paragraph 0029 of Applicants disclosure].
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 5 is 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.
Claim limitation “function section” in claim 5 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification repeats the same language as the claim, without specifying the corresponding structure. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
For the purposes of compact prosecution and the prior art, the function section is being interpreted as any software or hardware module for handling the limitations functions.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichishi (U.S. Publication No. 2010/0217485 A1) hereinafter Ichishi in view of Mallia et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0109375 A1) hereinafter Mallia.
Regarding claim 1, Ichishi discloses a charging system that controls a plurality of vehicles and at least one charger that supplies a charging power to the plurality of vehicles [see Paragraph 0117 – discusses a charging system 400 that controls charging of batteries in a plurality of vehicles, the charging system includes a control unit for charging the vehicles and the vehicles are charged using charging cable], the charging system comprising:
a setting section that sets, for the plurality of vehicles, a charging plan indicating a charging start time and a charging end time [see Paragraphs 0008 and 0117 – discusses that the charging system 400 includes a charging schedule setting unit that determines a charging schedule of a charging time period (indicates a start and end time) for each vehicle (of a plurality of vehicles)]; and
a control section that controls charging of a battery of each of the plurality of vehicles based on the charging plan [see Paragraphs 0008 and 0117 - discusses a control unit that causes a power storage device mounted on the vehicle to be charged according to the charging schedule]
Mallia discloses wherein, even when at least one of a plurality of vehicles and at least one charger are connected to each other in a period see Paragraphs 0276-0277 - discusses a control device determines a charge-restriction event that is initiated during a first time period (charging stop period), the charge restriction event restricts charging from a first charge rate to a second charge rate (see Paragraph 0235 - discusses that the second charge rate is 0, where charging is disabled), this is based on the plurality of vehicles which are connected to a respective charging station (see Paragraph 0271)].
Mallia suggests that when a service area is expected to exceed a power output capacity for said service area, a charge restriction event is initiated to curb power usage to prevent power outages or damage [see Paragraph 0276] and alleviates strain or burden on power distribution networks and infrastructure [see Paragraph 0253].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the charging plan, set by the charging system, as taught by Ichishi to include charging stop period in which a vehicle is connected to a respective charging station but the charger does not perform charging as taught by Mallia in order to prevent power outages or damage when a service area is expected to exceed a power output capacity [Mallia, see Paragraph 0276] alleviates strain or burden on power distribution networks and infrastructure [Mallia, see Paragraph 0253].
Regarding claim 4, Ichishi and Mallia disclose the invention with respect to claim 1. Ichishi further discloses wherein the setting section adjusts a charging period or a charging time in accordance with see Paragraphs 0106-0111 and 0119 – discusses air conditioning (fixture) and the charging control device sets the charging schedule (using the charging schedule setting unit) based on the air conditioning instruction].
Claims 7 and 8 are analogous to claim 1 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichishi in view of Mallia.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichishi in view of Mallia further in view of Shimizu et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0047862 A1) hereinafter Shimizu.
Regarding claim 2, Ichishi and Mallia disclose the invention with respect to claim 1.
However, the combination of Ichishi and Mallia fails to disclose an obtaining section that obtains a charging condition including a target level of charge and a scheduled departure time for each of the plurality of vehicles, wherein the setting section sets the charging plan including a charging period and a charging time based on the charging condition.
Shimizu discloses an obtaining section that obtains a charging condition including a target level of charge and a scheduled departure time for each of the plurality of vehicles [see Paragraph 0068 - discusses a journey estimation module determines a departure time for a vehicle, and see Paragraphs 0070-0071 - the journey estimation module sends the departure time to a state determination module, the state determination module determines a target state of charge for the vehicle so that charging completion time is no later than the departure time], wherein a setting section sets a charging plan including a charging period [see Paragraph 0096 – discusses a charging time slot as a period (5:00 PM to 8:00PM and 12:00AM to 7:40 AM)] and a charging time [see Paragraph 0096 – discusses 5:00 PM and 12:00 AM as the charging time] based on the charging condition [see Paragraph 0076 – discusses that the state determination module sends the target state of charge to a scheme determination module, see Paragraph 0077 – discusses that the scheme determination module determines when and how to charge the vehicle using the charging time slots – the scheme determination module determines when and how to charge the vehicle using the charging time slots (periods) and charging time(s) based on the state determination module data of the target state of charge based on the departure time].
Shimizu suggests that by knowing the target state of charge for a future journey (at a departure time), sufficient power for the vehicle is determined so that the future journey is completed [see Paragraphs 0071-0072].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the charging system as taught by Ichishi to include an obtaining section that obtains a charging condition including a target level of charge and a scheduled departure time for each of the plurality of vehicles, wherein a setting section sets a charging plan including a charging period and a charging time based on the charging condition as taught by Shimizu in order to have sufficient power for the vehicle so that a future a journey (at a departure time) is completed [Shimizu, see Paragraphs 0071-0072].
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichishi in view of Mallia further in view of Nishiguchi et al. (JP Publication No. 2022118575) hereinafter Nishiguchi.
Regarding claim 3, Ichishi and Mallia disclose the invention with respect to claim 1.
However, the combination of Ichishi and Mallia fails to disclose wherein the setting section obtains a time for preparation work for each of the plurality of vehicles and sets the charging plan such that the preparation work for the plurality of vehicles is completed by the scheduled departure time.
Nishiguchi discloses wherein a setting section obtains a time for preparation work for each of a plurality of vehicles and sets a charging plan such that the preparation work for the plurality of vehicles is completed by a scheduled departure time [Applicants’ specification has not provided a concise definition for preparation work. In the relevant paragraph [0181], the specification mentions: “In addition, in charging system CS according to the present embodiment, the setting section obtains a time for preparation work for each of the plurality of vehicles and sets a charging plan such that the preparation work for the plurality of vehicles is completed by scheduled departure times of the plurality of vehicles. As a result, since the work time is a major component of operation plan information, a charging plan can be accurately set on the basis of the work time.” As such, the preparation work is considered to be the time that is required for assigning a charger and the charging time of the vehicle – see Paragraphs 0044-0045 The plan creation unit 13 assigns a charger 42 and a charging time to each vehicle 5 so that the charging time of each vehicle 5 is not concentrated in one time slot. The plan creation unit 13 assigns a charger 42 and a charging time to each vehicle 5 using the return time of the vehicle 5 on that day and the operation plan for the next day. At this time, the plan creation unit 13 assigns a charging time to each vehicle 5 so that each vehicle 5 is charged between the return time and the time when the vehicle 5 is in time for its first operation on the following day. The operation plan for the next day is the scheduled departure time. As mentioned above, the vehicles are charged before its first operation on the following day. That is, the preparation work for the plurality of vehicles is completed by the scheduled departure time.]
Nishiguchi suggests that evenly allocating charging time to allow the vehicle to be prepared for operation for the next day [see Paragraph 0045].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the setting section as taught by Ichishi to include obtaining a time for preparation work for each of a plurality of vehicles and sets a charging plan such that the preparation work for the plurality of vehicles is completed by a scheduled departure time as taught by Shimizu in order to evenly allocate charging time to allow the vehicles to be prepared for operation for the next day [Nishiguchi, see Paragraph 0045].
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichishi in view of Mallia further in view of Windstrup et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2012/0169511 A1) hereinafter Windstrup.
Regarding claim 5, Ichishi and Mallia disclose the invention with respect to claim 1.
However, the combination of Ichishi and Mallia fails to disclose a management terminal connectable to the charging system according to Claim 1, the management terminal comprising: a function section that presents a scheduled departure time, a target level of charge, 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.
Windstrup discloses a management terminal connectable to a charging system [see Paragraphs 0043, and 0047-0048 - discusses a terminal device connected to a charging system], the management terminal comprising: see Paragraphs 0047-0048 - discusses that a terminal device 100 receives data over a network from a charging system 720, the data that is received is related to current battery charge level, a charge start time (scheduled connection time), and an end time (scheduled charge end time)].
Windstrup suggests that having a terminal device allows a user to monitor the status of charging their electric vehicle [see Paragraph 0041].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the charging system as taught by Ichishi to be connected to a management terminal, the management terminal comprising: 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 obtaining a time for preparation work for each of a plurality of vehicles and sets a charging plan such that the preparation work for the plurality of vehicles is completed by a scheduled departure time as taught by Shimizu in order to allow a user to monitor the status of charging their electric vehicle battery [Windstrup, see Paragraph 0041].
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichishi in view of Mallia further in view of Nelson et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0037136 A1) hereinafter Nelson.
Regarding claim 6, Ichishi and Mallia disclose the invention with respect to claim 1. Ichishi further discloses a vehicle connectable to the charging system [see Paragraph 0117].
However, the combination of Ichishi and Mallia fails to disclose a display section that displays a percentage of a charge amount with respect to a full charge or a percentage of the charge amount with respect to a target level of charge.
Nelson discloses a display section that displays a percentage of a charge amount with respect to a full charge [see Paragraph 0044 - discusses displaying a charge amount as a percentage of battery with respect to a full charged battery].
Nelson suggests that the percentage of battery remaining is displayed to a user [see Paragraph 0044].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the vehicle as taught by Ichishi to include a display section that displays a percentage of a charge amount with respect to a full charge as taught by Nelson in order to display the percentage information to a user of the vehicle [Nelson, see Paragraph 0044].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shayne M Gilbertson whose telephone number is (571)272-4862. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday - Friday: 10:30 AM - 9:30 PM EST.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at 571-272-4190. 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.
/SHAYNE M. GILBERTSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3665