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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 10, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the patent application filed on June 10, 2026. Claims 1-4 & 7-15 are currently pending. Claims 5 & 6 are cancelled.
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. JP2023-034814, 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). Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
No action the part of the applicant is required at this time.
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the claims submitted on June 10, 2026 do overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection of the final rejection filed March 11, 2026.
The amendments to the claims also overcome the Double Patenting rejection of the final rejection filed March 11, 2026.
The prior art rejections are overcome in view of the amendments made June 10, 2026. However, a new prior art rejection is made (see Response to Arguments) in view of Grunkemeyer and Hancock.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 6-11, filed June 10, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-15 under 35 USC 10 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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, in view of US 2022/0144121 A1, to Grunkemeyer et al., hereafter Grunkemeyer (previously of record) and US 2025/0033517 A1, to Hancock et al., hereafter Hancock (previously of record).
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.
Claims 1-4 & 7-15 are 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 1 recites …a target state of charge (SOC) of a battery of each vehicle… and …the remaining state of charge (SOC) of a battery of each vehicle… it is not clear if the two “a battery” instances are two separate batteries or one single battery where the second instance should be “the battery”. For examination on the merits, it will be interpreted as one battery.
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 1-2, 7-9, & 11-15 are 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 2022/0144121 A1, to Grunkemeyer et al., hereafter Grunkemeyer (previously of record) and US 2025/0033517 A1, to Hancock et al., hereafter Hancock (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 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 [0037], [0053]-[0054], & Fig. 1, Examiner Note: Maeda discloses a cooperative one or more charging stations (i.e. system) which includes a processor and memory which runs instructions):
obtains operation plan information including a scheduled departure time of each vehicle,…a target state of charge (SOC) of a battery of each vehicle,…the remaining state of charge (SOC) of a 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 operation plan information, a charging plan including a charging start 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); and
performs the charging of each vehicle in accordance with the corresponding charging plan using the corresponding charger (Maeda [0071]-[0072], Examiner Note: Maeda discloses providing the host vehicle and proximate vehicle with a charge based on the schedule).
However, the modification does not specifically teach …a scheduled work time for preparation work to be performed before the scheduled departure time of each vehicle,…and a scheduled travel distance of each vehicle in a next operation,… and a charging end time of each vehicle such that charging of each vehicle is completed by a time earlier by at least the scheduled work time than the corresponding scheduled departure time; and
Grunkemeyer, in the same field of endeavor, teaches …a scheduled work time for preparation work to be performed before the scheduled departure time of each vehicle and a charging end time of each vehicle such that charging of each vehicle is completed by a time earlier by at least the scheduled work time than the corresponding scheduled departure time; and (Grunkemeyer [0072], Examiner Note: Grunkemeyer teaches a start time, end time, and a preparation period around both times for the charging station (i.e. time for preparation work) when creating the charging schedule to be used),…
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 preparation period of Grunkemeyer in order to minimize the energy usage by adjusting polling frequency (Grunkemeyer [0070]).
Hancock, in the same field of endeavor, teaches…and a scheduled travel distance of each vehicle in a next operation (Hancock [0150], Examiner Note: Hancock teaches fleet data which consists data relevant to future delivery schedules (i.e. next operation) including total distance that each vehicle needs to travel (i.e. a scheduled travel distance of each vehicle),…
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 fleet data of Hancock for optimization and facility logistics (Hancock [0142])
Regarding Claim 2, Maeda in view of Grunkemeyer and Hancock teaches The charging system according to Claim 1, a wherein the processor receives a user input of information regarding the target SOC of the battery of at least one of the plurality of vehicles (Maeda [0105] & Fig. 7, Examiner Note: Maeda discloses a host vehicle receiving a broadcast message from a vehicle occupant (i.e. user input of information) which may include desired charging parameters in order to create a schedule).
Regarding Claim 7, Maeda in view of Grunkemeyer and Hancock teaches The charging system according to Claim 1, wherein, when the charging of at least one of the plurality of vehicles based on the set charging plan is interrupted, the processor revises the charging plan (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 8, as shown above, Maeda in view of Grunkemeyer and Hancock The charging system according to Claim 7,
However, the modification does not specifically teach wherein, in a case where the setting section revises the charging plan, the setting section sets the charging plan such that no charging is performed for a certain period of time for the at least one of the plurality of vehicles whose charging has been interrupted.
Grunkemeyer teaches wherein, in a case where the setting section revises the charging plan, the setting section sets the charging plan such that no charging is performed for a certain period of time for the at least one of the plurality of vehicles whose charging has been interrupted (Grunkemeyer [0046], Examiner Note: Grunkemeyer teaches when the electric vehicle stops charging, the electric vehicle will begin charging again at another time (i.e. a certain period of time) which can be overnight (i.e. when the work is not occurring)).
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 Grunkemeyer and Hancock with the charging reschedule of Grunkemeyer in order to minimize the electrical load and peak capacity impacts (Grunkemeyer [0003]).
Regarding Claim 9, as shown above, Maeda in view of Grunkemeyer and Hancock teaches The charging system according to Claim 8, wherein the certain period of time is a scheduled work time set for the at least one of the plurality of vehicles whose charging has been interrupted (Grunkemeyer [0046], Examiner Note: Grunkemeyer teaches when the electric vehicle stops charging, the electric vehicle will begin charging again at another time (i.e. a certain period of time) which can be overnight (i.e. when the work is not occurring)).
Regarding Claim 11, Maeda in view of Grunkemeyer and Hancock 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 a 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 12, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 1, and it has been determined that claim 12 does not teach or define any new limitations in view of claim 1. Therefore, claim 12 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 13, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 1, and it has been determined that claim 13 does not teach or define any new limitations in view of claim 1. Therefore, claim 13 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 14, Maeda in view of Grunkemeyer and Hancock The charging system according to claim 1, wherein the processor notifies a terminal device of the set charging plan for each vehicle, and if there is a vehicle among the plurality of vehicles that cannot be charged to reach the target SOC by the scheduled departure time, notifies the terminal device of error information (Maeda [0116], Examiner Note: Maeda discloses that when the host vehicle is not capable of reaching the desired SOC, the cooperative charging schedule may send a counter-parameter (i.e. error information) to reduce the charging speed of the proximate vehicle to compensate).
Regarding Claim 15, Maeda in view of Grunkemeyer and Hancock The charging system according to claim 1,
However, the modification does not specifically teach wherein the target SOC of the battery of a vehicle that is equipped with a refrigeration system is set higher than the target SOC of the battery of a vehicle that is not equipped with the refrigeration system.
Hancock teaches wherein the target SOC of the battery of a vehicle that is equipped with a refrigeration system is set higher than the target SOC of the battery of a vehicle that is not equipped with the refrigeration system (Hancock [0139], Examiner Note: Hancock discloses considering freight management specific needs such as refrigeration when adding energy from 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 with the freight management specific needs of Hancock in view of Grunkemeyer and Hancock in order to optimize delivery management for shipping needs and energy needs (Hancock [0139]).
Claim 3 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 2022/0144121 A1, to Grunkemeyer et al., hereafter Grunkemeyer (previously of record) and US 2025/0033517 A1, to Hancock et al., hereafter Hancock (previously of record) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2024/0177544 A1, to Matsuda (previously of record).
Regarding Claim 3, Maeda in view of Grunkemeyer and Hancock teach The charging system according to Claim 1,
However, the modification does not specifically teach wherein the processor obtains the target SOC of the battery of each vehicle based on the operation plan including at least one of a planned travel route, a scheduled travel distance, and/or a scheduled travel time of each of the plurality of vehicles in a next operation.
wherein the processor obtains the target SOC of the battery of each vehicle based on the operation plan including at least one of a planned travel route, a scheduled travel distance, and/or a scheduled travel time of each of the plurality of vehicles in a next operation (Matsuda [0101] & Fig. 12, Examiner Note: Matsuda teaches delivery route being used in order to determine the charging schedule and therefore the state of charge region (i.e. target level of charge)).
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 Grunkemeyer and Hancock with the collection of target level of charge based on the delivery route of Matsuda in order to ensure the high reliability that the target state of charge of the vehicle will be successful (Matsuda [0101]).
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 2022/0144121 A1, to Grunkemeyer et al., hereafter Grunkemeyer (previously of record) and US 2025/0033517 A1, to Hancock et al., hereafter Hancock (previously of record) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP 2015186338 A, to Shirasu (previously of record).
Regarding Claim 4, as shown above, Maeda in view of Grunkemeyer and Hancock The charging system according to Claim 1,
However, the modification does not specifically teach wherein the processor sets a charging plan of each vehicle such that a total charging power for the plurality of vehicles does not exceed a threshold.
Shirasu, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the processor sets a charging plan of each vehicle such that a total charging power for the plurality of vehicles does not exceed a threshold (Shirasu [0018], Examiner Note: Shirasu teaches having an upper limit of total charging power of each vehicle, and therefore total cumulative charging power which can be decreased which would result in setting a shorter charging period for each vehicle).
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 Grunkemeyer and Hancock with the total charging maximum of Shirasu in order to prevent a blackout in the facility (Shirasu [0018]).
Claim 10 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 2022/0144121 A1, to Grunkemeyer et al., hereafter Grunkemeyer (previously of record) and US 2025/0033517 A1, to Hancock et al., hereafter Hancock (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 10, Maeda in view of Grunkemeyer and Hancock A management terminal connectable to the charging system according to Claim 1,
However, the modification does not specifically teach the management terminal comprising: a function section that presents the scheduled departure time, the target level of charge, or a time for preparation work of each 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 Grunkemeyer and Hancock 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]).
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
Prosecution Insights