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 .
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant's arguments filed 12 March 2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The new limitations are disclosed by the cited references as detailed in the rejection below.
Claim Interpretation
2. The limitation “used for delivering packages” holds no patentable weight because it is recited only in the preamble of the claims and is not necessary to give life, meaning, or vitality to the claim. The body of the claims define a structurally complete invention that is not further limited by the preamble. Furthermore, the preamble is merely a statement of intended use that does not distinguish over the prior art. In this case, the prior art is perfectly capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble. (MPEP 2111.02 R-3)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
4. Claims 1-11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al. (Japanese Patent Application Publication # JP 2012-147651, see also corresponding U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2012/0161692) in view of Park (Korean Patent Application Publication # KR 10-1870285), and further in view of Sjeggestad et al. (Norwegian Patent Application Publication # NO 20220274).
Regarding claims 1 and 7-11, Kobayashi discloses a charging system that controls a charging of a plurality of vehicles that may be used for delivering packages, the charging system ([0130] - [0132], etc), comprising:
a setting section 111 that sets, based on an operation plan information including a scheduled departure time 1233 and a target level of charge set 1222 for each of the plurality of vehicles 30 (Figs. 1, 3, 14, [0027], [0030] - [0031], and [0130] - [0132], etc: the "start time 1233" and the "charge level 1222" correspond to the "scheduled departure time" and the "target level of charge", respectively), a remaining capacity (SOC) of a battery installed in each of the plurality of the vehicles (Figs. 2-3, 6A-7, 10-11, etc), and a charging parameter related to a charger (Figs. 3, 9-11, etc: such as suppliable electric power amount), a charging plan including a charging start time and a charging end time such that charging of the plurality of vehicles is completed by the scheduled departure time (Figs. 2-3, 6A, 10-11, 13-14, [0035], [0131] - [0139], US P51, 103, 137, etc);
a control section 114 that performs the charging of the respective vehicles in accordance with the charging plan (Fig. 3, [0035], etc); and
a presentation section 450 that displays, for each of the plurality of vehicles, a percentage of the current charge amount with respect to a full charge (Figs. 7, 1, 14, [0029], [0032], and [0139], etc).
Kobayashi fails to disclose that the plurality of vehicles are used for delivering packages (although this limitation is a statement of intended use that holds no patentable weight because it is recited only in the preamble of the claims and is not necessary to give life, meaning, or vitality to the claim); simultaneously displaying a percentage of a current charge amount with respect to the target level of charge; or that the target level of charge of the battery is set based at least on a planned travel route, an estimated travel distance and an outside temperature included in the operation plan information for the corresponding vehicle.
In the same field of endeavor, Park discloses that the target level of charge of the battery is set based at least on a planned travel route, an estimated travel distance and an outside temperature included in the operation plan information for the corresponding vehicle (abstract, claim 1, etc).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kobayashi to do so, as taught by Park, in order to improve the efficiency and/or safety of trips by more accurately predicting a required level of charge for the trips, with predictable results.
In the same field of endeavor, Sjeggestad discloses simultaneously displaying a percentage of a current charge amount with respect to the target level of charge and a percentage of the current charge amount with respect to a full charge (abstract, Figs. 1 and 3, claim 1, etc: "Alternatively, in another embodiment of the charger 1, the percentage bar can for example show, e.g. in green, a feedback regarding the percentage of present charged level of the vehicle at the moment, e.g. about 25%, while the percentage bar can in addition show, e.g. in blue, a desired charging level that is to be reached, e.g. 75%". By displaying on the same scale the percentage of a current charge amount and the percentage of the target level of charge, the percentage of a current charge amount with respect to the target level of charge is implicitly displayed by visual comparison. This percentage of a current charge amount with respect to the target level of charge is simultaneously displayed with the percentage of the current charge amount with respect to a full charge).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kobayashi to do so, as taught by Sjeggestad, in order to facilitate user management of vehicles based on their target charge level, with predictable results.
In the same field of endeavor, Nasr discloses that the plurality of vehicles are used for delivering packages (P39, etc: delivery vehicles with cargo areas); and that the setting section sets the charging plan for each of the plurality of vehicles in a variation suppression mode that sets the charging plan so as to reduce variation in the remaining battery capacity among the plurality of vehicles in each time period (P147, etc).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kobayashi to do so, as taught by Nasr, in order to minimize the risk of vehicles with a SOC that is too low, to maximize the number of vehicles available for deliveries, and/or to balance the charge across all of the vehicles in the vehicle fleet, with predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Kobayashi in view of Sjeggestad further discloses that the presentation section selectively presents the percentage of the charge amount with respect to the full charge and the percentage of the charge amount with respect to the target level of charge in accordance with a request from an external terminal (Fig. 7, etc; Sjeggestad abstract, Figs. 1 and 3, claim 1, etc).
Regarding claim 3, Kobayashi further discloses that the presentation section presents the percentage or notifies a registered terminal of the percentage while at least one of the plurality of vehicles is connected to a charger or at least one of the plurality of vehicles is operating (Figs. 7, 1, 14, [0029], [0032], and [0139], etc).
Regarding claim 4, Kobayashi further discloses that 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 of the plurality of vehicles is completed by the scheduled departure time (Fig. 9 and corresponding text, etc: preparation, planning, and/or setting/input steps).
Regarding claim 5, Kobayashi fails to disclose that the setting section adjusts a charging period or a charging time 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.
However, it was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust a charging period or a charging time 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. The Examiner hereby takes Official Notice of this fact.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Kobayashi to do so, as well known in the art, in order to optimize vehicle management by considering factors that could impact the charging period or time, with predictable results.
Regarding claim 6, Kobayashi further discloses a management terminal connectable to the charging system according to Claim 1, the management terminal comprising: a function section 410 that presents the scheduled departure time, the 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 410 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 (Figs. 2-3, 6A, 7, 10-11, 14, [0131] - [0139], etc).
5. Claims 1-11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al. (Japanese Patent Application Publication # JP 2012-147651, see also corresponding U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2012/0161692) in view of Park (Korean Patent Application Publication # KR 10-1870285), and further in view of Tanaka et al. (Japanese Patent Application Publication # JP 2021-083187).
Regarding claims 1 and 7-11, Kobayashi discloses a charging system that controls a charging of a plurality of vehicles that may be used for delivering packages, the charging system ([0130] - [0132], etc), comprising:
a setting section 111 that sets, based on an operation plan information including a scheduled departure time 1233 and a target level of charge set 1222 for each of the plurality of vehicles 30 (Figs. 1, 3, 14, [0027], [0030] - [0031], and [0130] - [0132], etc: the "start time 1233" and the "charge level 1222" correspond to the "scheduled departure time" and the "target level of charge", respectively), a remaining capacity (SOC) of a battery installed in each of the plurality of the vehicles (Figs. 2-3, 6A-7, 10-11, etc), and a charging parameter related to a charger (Figs. 3, 9-11, etc: such as suppliable electric power amount), a charging plan including a charging start time and a charging end time such that charging of the plurality of vehicles is completed by the scheduled departure time (Figs. 2-3, 6A, 10-11, 13-14, [0035], [0131] - [0139], US P51, 103, 137, etc);
a control section 114 that performs the charging of the respective vehicles in accordance with the charging plan (Fig. 3, [0035], etc); and
a presentation section 450 that displays, for each of the plurality of vehicles, a percentage of the current charge amount with respect to a full charge (Figs. 7, 1, 14, [0029], [0032], and [0139], etc).
Kobayashi fails to disclose that the plurality of vehicles are used for delivering packages (although this limitation is a statement of intended use that holds no patentable weight because it is recited only in the preamble of the claims and is not necessary to give life, meaning, or vitality to the claim); simultaneously displaying a percentage of a current charge amount with respect to the target level of charge; or that the target level of charge of the battery is set based at least on a planned travel route, an estimated travel distance and an outside temperature included in the operation plan information for the corresponding vehicle.
In the same field of endeavor, Park discloses that the target level of charge of the battery is set based at least on a planned travel route, an estimated travel distance and an outside temperature included in the operation plan information for the corresponding vehicle (abstract, claim 1, etc).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kobayashi to do so, as taught by Park, in order to improve the efficiency and/or safety of trips by more accurately predicting a required level of charge for the trips, with predictable results.
In the same field of endeavor, Tanaka discloses simultaneously displaying a percentage of a current charge amount with respect to the target level of charge and a percentage of the current charge amount with respect to a full charge ([0025], [0034], [0045] - [0046], [0054] - [0055], and [0058] - [0061], and Figs. 4 and 6-8, etc: "F" at the upper end indicates that the power storage device 16 is in a fully charged state, "E" at the lower end indicates that the SOC of the power storage device 16 is depleted (SOC is 0%), the line 42 indicates the actual SOC of the power storage device 16, and the region 44 indicates the target range of the SOC, which is an SOC display of the display device 30. The percentage is displayed visually: by displaying on the same scale the percentage of a current charge amount and the percentage of the target level of charge, the percentage of a current charge amount with respect to the target level of charge is implicitly displayed by visual comparison. This percentage of a current charge amount with respect to the target level of charge is simultaneously displayed with the percentage of the current charge amount with respect to a full charge).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kobayashi to do so, as taught by Tanaka, in order to facilitate user management of vehicles based on their target charge level, with predictable results.
In the same field of endeavor, Nasr discloses that the plurality of vehicles are used for delivering packages (P39, etc: delivery vehicles with cargo areas); and that the setting section sets the charging plan for each of the plurality of vehicles in a variation suppression mode that sets the charging plan so as to reduce variation in the remaining battery capacity among the plurality of vehicles in each time period (P147, etc).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kobayashi to do so, as taught by Nasr, in order to minimize the risk of vehicles with a SOC that is too low, to maximize the number of vehicles available for deliveries, and/or to balance the charge across all of the vehicles in the vehicle fleet, with predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Kobayashi in view of Tanaka further discloses that the presentation section selectively presents the percentage of the charge amount with respect to the full charge and the percentage of the charge amount with respect to the target level of charge in accordance with a request from an external terminal (Fig. 7, etc; Tanaka [0025], [0034], [0045] - [0046], [0054] - [0055], and [0058] - [0061], and Figs. 4 and 6-8, etc).
Regarding claim 3, Kobayashi further discloses that the presentation section presents the percentage or notifies a registered terminal of the percentage while at least one of the plurality of vehicles is connected to a charger or at least one of the plurality of vehicles is operating (Figs. 7, 1, 14, [0029], [0032], and [0139], etc).
Regarding claim 4, Kobayashi further discloses that 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 of the plurality of vehicles is completed by the scheduled departure time (Fig. 9 and corresponding text, etc: preparation, planning, and/or setting/input steps).
Regarding claim 5, Kobayashi fails to disclose that the setting section adjusts a charging period or a charging time 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.
However, it was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust a charging period or a charging time 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. The Examiner hereby takes Official Notice of this fact.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Kobayashi to do so, as well known in the art, in order to optimize vehicle management by considering factors that could impact the charging period or time, with predictable results.
Regarding claim 6, Kobayashi further discloses a management terminal connectable to the charging system according to Claim 1, the management terminal comprising: a function section 410 that presents the scheduled departure time, the 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 410 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 (Figs. 2-3, 6A, 7, 10-11, 14, [0131] - [0139], etc).
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHELLEY CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1330. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays through Fridays.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone. 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 Bishop can be reached at (571) 270-3713. 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.
/Shelley Chen/
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3665
April 4, 2026