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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by MATSUDA et al. (US 2022/0289065 A1, hereinafter MATSUDA).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 9 (claim 1 is considered representative for limitation matching purposes), MATSUDA discloses a charging system, comprising:
an obtaining section that obtains a scheduled departure time (See Par.56, discloses receiving vehicle departure time) and work time, during which a certain operation is performed (See Par.62, discloses receiving work time for a vehicle, the work time is defined as the remaining travel time), of each of a plurality of vehicles;
a setting section that sets a charging plan including a charging period and a charging time such that both charging and the certain operation for the plurality of vehicles are completed by the scheduled departure time (See Par.56, discloses the charging plan is based on the amount of power needed and charge completion time. Also discloses that charging plan is generated such that charging is completed before the departure time. Par.62 further discloses that charging completion time is estimated by subtracting the remaining work from a return time. Therefore charging is performed to both allow charging and the remaining work to be performed. Par.58 discloses that charging rate is determined by dividing the amount of charging that is needed by the charging period, therefore the charging period is clearly considered and the charging starting time is set according to the needed charging period i.e. subtracting the charging period from the charging completion time that allows the charging and the remaining work to be completed. Fig.1, discloses a plurality of vehicles 3); and
a control section that controls the charging of the battery of each of the plurality of vehicles in accordance with the charging plan (See Pars.67-68, disclose the management server 1 transmits the charging plan using its communication unit [Fig.2, Item#113] and the vehicle controller [Fig.3, Item#30] then transmits the current rate as a current command to the charger [Fig.1, Item#4] and the charger supplies the vehicle under the command of the vehicle controller 30. It is implicit that charger 4 comprises a controller section which controls charging according to the receive data from the vehicle controller 30).
Regarding claim 3, MATSUDA discloses the charging system according to Claim 1 as discussed above, wherein the work time includes a period for loading a package onto the vehicle (See MATSUDA, Par.62, disclose the creating unit 11 adds a time required for delivery or loading), and wherein the setting section sets the charging time on the basis of the work time (See Par.62, discloses the charging plan is set such that a charging completion time is determined by subtracting the travel time plus the delivery and loading time from the scheduled time of returning to the office).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MATSUDA in view of TSUDA (US 12,291,122 B2, hereinafter TSUDA).
Regarding claim 2, MATSUDA discloses the charging system according to Claim 1 as discussed above, However, MATSUDA does not disclose further comprising: a notification section that notifies a start time and an end time of the charging, and a start time and an end time of the certain operation.
TSUDA discloses a charging assistance system comprising a notification section (See Fig.11, and Col.12 , lines 23-29, disclose a vehicle display screen 200 which displays a charging plan) that notifies a start time and an end time of the charging (See Fig.11, discloses a displa screen 200 with a display area 201 for displaying a charging start and stop time, see grey shaded areas), and a start time and an end time of the certain operation (See Fig.11, area 201 discloses power consumption time in the dark shaded areas, the power consumption time is related to travelling a road link which in this case is interpreted as the “certain operation”).
MATSUDA and TSUDA are analogous art since they both deal with vehicle charging management systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclose by MATSUDA with the teachings of TSUDA adding a notification section to notify the driver of the start time and end time of the charging and the start time and end time of a certain operation for the benefit of informing the driver of the charging plan such that the driver may implement it.
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MATSUDA in view of SUN (US 2021/0213848 A1, hereinafter SUN).
Regarding claim 4, MATSUDA discloses the charging system according to Claim 1 as discussed above, However MATSUDA does not disclose wherein the setting section sets the charging period or the charging time in accordance with a number, weight, or type of a package or packages.
SUN discloses a method and system for facilitating electric vehicle charging comprising setting the charging period in accordance with weight of a package or packages (See Par.52, discloses considering load weight to determine the battery level needed for the vehicle to complete the next job or route. The examiner explains that MATSUDA as modified by SUN discloses a charging system which considers load weight in determining the amount of power needed, the charging period is directly proportional to the amount of power needed).
MATSUDA and SUN are analogous art since they both deal with vehicle charging management.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by MATSUDA with the teachings of SUN by setting the charging period based on the weight of the packages for the benefit of developing an accurate charging plan (as the load increases the energy consumption increases, therefore the amount of charge and the charging time also increase).
Regarding claim 5, MATSUDA discloses the charging system according to Claim 1 as discussed above, However MATSUDA does not disclose further comprising: an energy efficiency estimation section that estimates energy efficiency in accordance with a skill level of a driver, a type of house in a delivery area, or the presence or absence of a fixture.
SUN discloses a method and system for facilitating electric vehicle charging comprising an energy efficiency estimation section that estimates energy efficiency in accordance with a skill level of a driver (See Par.52, discloses considering driver driving efficiency to determine the battery level needed for the vehicle to complete the next job or route).
MATSUDA and SUN are analogous art since they both deal with vehicle charging management.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by MATSUDA with the teachings of SUN by setting the charging period based on estimated driver efficiency for the benefit of developing an accurate charging plan (as the driver efficiency increases the energy consumption decreases, therefore the amount of charge and the charging time also decrease).
Regarding claim 6, MATSUDA discloses a charging system wherein the vehicle comprises a controller which sends charging control data to the charger (See Pars.67-68, discloses the vehicle sends the required charging current rate based on the amount of charge and the target completion time). However, MATSUDA does not disclose a management terminal connectable to the charging system according to Claim 1 as discussed above, the management terminal comprising: a function section that presents the scheduled departure time, the target level of charge, or a preparation work time of 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.
SUN discloses a method and system for facilitating electric vehicle charging comprising a management terminal connectable to the charging system, a function section that presents 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. (See Fig.3, discloses user device 1 and user device 2 connectable to charging system comprising reservation system and EVSE. Fig.5, discloses the reservation request including charging parameters is sent to reservation system and then forwarded to EVSE stations, par.49, discloses the charging parameters include parameters such as charging start time, charging end time and location).
MATSUDA and SUN are analogous art since they both deal with vehicle charging management.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by MATSUDA with the teachings of SUN by using a terminal to present the charging start time and the charging end time to the to the charging system for the benefit of allowing the user to initiate a charging plan using a mobile terminal device.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MATSUDA in view of CHANDER et al. (US 2011/0043355 A1, hereinafter CHANDER).
Regarding claim 7, MATSUDA discloses a vehicle connectable to the charging system according to Claim 1 as discussed above, However MATSUDA does not disclose 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 a target level of charge.
CHANDER discloses a vehicle comprising a display section that displays a rate of progress indicating a charge amount with respect to a full charge (See Fig.2 and Par.37 a display assembly 24 comprising a plurality of lights 26. The more lights 26 that are illuminated the closer the battery is full charge).
MATSUDA and CHANDER are analogous art since they both deal with vehicle charging.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by MATSUDA with the teaching of CHANDER by adding the display section for the benefit of allowing the user to identify the charging status of the vehicle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHMED H OMAR whose telephone number is (571)270-7165. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 am -7:00 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, Drew Dunn can be reached at 571-272-2312. 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.
/AHMED H OMAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights