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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the patent application filed on December 12, 2025. Claims 1-15 are currently pending. Claims 14 & 15 are new.
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 December 12, 2025 do not overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection of the non-final rejection from September 26, 2025. While the addition of a processor is appropriate, an addition of a non-transitory computer readable medium is required.
The prior art rejections are overcome in view of the amendments made December 12, 2025. However, a new prior art rejection is made (see Response to Arguments)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 11-14, filed December 12, 2025, 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 2023/0264582 A1, to Maeda et al., hereafter Maeda.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 & 10-13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 & 10-13 of copending Application No. 18/595,498 (reference application), respectively. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the issued patents noted above additionally recite limitations not included in the instant application thus rendering the scope of the independent claims of this application broader than the corresponding issued patents. In other words, the entire scope of the references claims falls within the scope of the examined claims (see In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). To put it differently, the species or sub-genus in U.S. Patent Application Nos. 18/595,498 and 18/595,660 anticipates the claimed genus in the instant application and, therefore, a patent to the genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the species or sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the species or sub-genus.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because it is not falling under any of the four statutory categories of invention (processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter). Specifically, the claimed “system” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses a computer program per se (often referred to as “signal per se”) thus not having a physical or tangible form (MPEP § 2106.03). Although random-access memory and magnetic tape are statutory media, carrier waves are not because they are signals similar to the transitory, propagating signals held to be non-statutory in Nuijten. 851 F.3d at 1294, 112 USPQ2d at 1133 (citing In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). Accordingly, because the BRI of the claims covered both subject matter that falls within a statutory category (the random-access memory), as well as subject matter that does not (the carrier waves), the claims as a whole were not directed to a statutory category and thus failed the first criterion for eligibility. Correction is requested to remedy this deficiency (e.g. by [excluding transitory signals]). Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed toward a non-statutory category of invention.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 6-7, & 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2023/0264882 A1, to Maeda et al., hereafter Maeda (previously of record).
Regarding Claim 1, Maeda discloses A charging system that controls charging of a plurality of vehicles that deliver packages, the charging system comprising a processor that (Maeda [0037], [0054], & Fig. 1, Examiner Note: Maeda discloses a cooperative charging station (i.e. system) which includes a processor and memory):
obtains operation plan information including a scheduled departure time of each vehicle and a target state level of charge (SOC) of a battery of each vehicle, the remaining SOC of the battery of each vehicle, and charging parameters related to 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); and
performs the charging of each vehicle in accordance with the charging plan (Maeda [0071]-[0072], Examiner Note: Maeda discloses providing the host vehicle and proximate vehicle with a charge based on the schedule).
Regarding Claim 2, Maeda discloses 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 6, Maeda discloses The charging system according to Claim 1wherein the processor obtains a scheduled work time of at least one of the plurality of vehicles, and sets the charging plan such that the charging of the at least one of the plurality of vehicles is completed until a time earlier by at least the scheduled work time than the scheduled departure time (Maeda [0090]-[0091], Examiner Note: Maeda discloses determining the order of charging (i.e. charging plan) priority which based on being completed before the scheduled departure time).
Regarding Claim 7, Maeda discloses 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 11, Maeda discloses 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 discloses 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).
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.
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) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2024/0177544 A1, to Matsuda (previously of record).
Regarding Claim 3, Maeda discloses The charging system according to Claim 1,
However, Maeda does not specifically disclose 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 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) 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 discloses The charging system according to Claim 1,
However, Maeda does not specifically disclose 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 with the total charging maximum of Shirasu in order to prevent a blackout in the facility (Shirasu [0018]).
Claims 8-9 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) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2022/0144121 A1, to Grunkemeyer et al., hereafter Grunkemeyer (previously of record).
Regarding Claim 8, as shown above, Maeda discloses The charging system according to Claim 7,
However, Maeda does not specifically disclose 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, in the same field of endeavor, 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 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 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)).
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) 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 discloses 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, 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 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 15 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) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2025/0033517 A1, to Hancock et al., hereafter Hancock (newly of record).
Regarding Claim 15, Maeda discloses The charging system according to claim 1,
However, Maeda does not specifically disclose 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, in the same field of endeavor, 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 order to optimize delivery management for shipping needs and energy needs (Hancock [0139])
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
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