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 Application
This action is in reply to the amendments filed 10 November 2025.
Claims 1-4, 6 have been amended.
Claims 7-12 are new.
Claims 1 – 12 are pending and elected for examination.
The examiner respectfully rescinds the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection on claims 1-6.
Claims 7 & 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 USC §119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in the present application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 5, 2024, has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Nelson US 2018/0037136 A1in view of Takahashi US 2016/0138925 A1 and in further view of Storm US 2016/0311423 A1.
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.
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.
Claim(s) Claim(s) 1, 5, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0037136 A1, hereinafter Nelson in view of Takahashi US 2016/0138925 A1 and in further view of Storm US 2016/0311423 A1.
Claim(s) 1, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2018/0037136 A1, hereinafter Nelson.
Claim 1 & 6. Nelson teaches A charging system comprising a vehicle and a server, the vehicle comprising a battery that is configured to be charged in a contactless manner from a power transmission device installed in a road (see at least Nelson P0004: inductive charging systems may be imbedded in the ground ( e.g., concrete or asphalt) below a parking spot in a garage or parking lot. Electricity flowing through the inductive charging system may inductively charge a battery in the electric vehicle. Inductive charging system may also be imbedded in roadways and charge electric vehicles while the vehicles are traveling on the roadways), the server being configured to communicate with the vehicle (see at least Nelson P0025: one or more vehicles 124a, 124b, ... 124n are connected to the server 125 though the network 127), one or more processors; and one or more memories storing instructions causing the one or more processors to: calculate an electric power amount for the vehicle to arrive at the destination (see at least Nelson P0068: When a particular vehicle has a battery level sufficient for a route from the origin to the destination, the shortest route is selected and P0107: The greenest route may be the route that uses the smallest carbon footprint in traveling to the destination. The greenest route may be the route that requires the least non-renewable energy. The greenest route may include the most charging stations or the most charging station per unit length the examiner interprets comparison of battery level and carbon footprints as an example of power amount calculation); determine whether entry into the charging lane in which the power transmission device is installed is possible, based on the calculated travel-time charge amount (see at least Nelson P0030: The lane charging command may provide routing to the vehicle in order to take a path that is conducive to charging the vehicle or meets the needs of the vehicle based on the planned route. The lane charging command may instruct the vehicle to change lanes at certain times to provide adequate charging to the electric vehicle the examiner interprets a routing to take a path for charging as an example of entry being possible); and a navigator configured to navigate the vehicle to enter the charging lane when the entry into the charging lane is determined to be possible (see at least Newman P0031: The lane charging command may instruct the electric vehicle to move toward or away from charging lanes based on the electricity grid).
Nelson does not teach the following, however Takahashi does teach:
calculate a travel-time charge amount at a charging lane by subtracting the transit-point charge amount and a remaining amount of the battery from the electric power amount for the vehicle to arrive at the destination (See Takahashi para. P0092: Moreover, if the total of the sectional distances of the candidate charging lanes for supply of power is less than the “charging lane running distance”, if no charging lane exists in the direction from the candidate charging lane for supply of power to the destination at which it is possible to arrive without performing charging at a charging spot, then the searching unit 750 extracts a found charging spot at which the moving body MV is capable of arriving as a charging spot for supply of power. And the searching unit 750 formulates a charging plan for performing charging up of the battery to the extent required for traveling to the closest found charging lane by passing via that charging spot for supply of power, and by using that charging spot for supply of power. Subsequently, the searching unit 750 takes that closest found charging lane as the candidate charging lane for supply of power, and derives a charging lane travel section on the basis of the amount of charge based upon the charging plan that employs this charging spot and the estimated remaining energy amount at that time point.) (P0207: On the other hand, if the result of the decision in the step S41 is negative (N in the step S41), then the flow of control is transferred to a step S43. In the step S43, the found charging spot located between the current position and the found charging lane in the direction toward the destination that is the closest and moreover via which it is possible for the vehicle CR to reach the destination with the remaining amount at the present time point, are extracted as a charging spot for supply of power. And the control unit 110A formulates a charging plan in which, by using this charging spot for supply of power, battery charging is performed to the amount required for traveling to the closest found charging lane. Subsequently, the control unit 110A searches for a route to go to this closest found charging lane via the charging spot for supply of power. Then, the flow of control proceeds to the step S44.) (P0257: Accordingly, in the first example, it is possible to enhance the convenience for the user by performing route searching that includes a charging plan in which both charging lanes and also charging spots are effectively utilized.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to [combine/modify] the method of Takahashi with the technique of Nelson to increase the efficiency of the route guidance system such that the user can prioritize charging lanes and charging spots based on charge amounts and travel preferences. Therefore, the design incentives of increased efficiency provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
Nelson and Takahashi do not disclose the following, however Storm does teach:
acquire information on a destination, a transit point, and a stay time input by a user of the vehicle, the stay time being a predicted time that the vehicle stays at the transit point (Storm P0022: User interface 37 accepts user input from user 36 such as destinations and possibly other driver specific parameters affecting vehicle performance. User interface 37 can also be used by user 36 to signal processor 46 to calculate a range prediction based on resource availability and consumption, or optionally to request range predictions recur repeatedly at predetermined intervals until otherwise directed by the user or the system.) (P0081: In yet another example, user interface 37 offers user 36 a display with resource replenishment options such as charging stations, fuel stations, and the like for those situations where the vehicle likely cannot complete the journey before charging the battery, refueling the vehicle, or both. User interface 37 may give directions, maps, or both to nearby charging stations as well as map, location, and contact information for mobile charging service vehicles currently operating in the area. User interface 37 may also indicate the approximate additional time added to the trip due to the need for additional fuel, battery energy, or other resources. It may also, for example, indicate how long vehicle 21 will need to charge at each location to fully recharge (or refuel) given that a fixed charging station may have a different charging capacity than a mobile one. However, this embodiment of user interface 37 also allows the user to specify a maximum charging time in cases where time is limited. User interface 37 respondents by initiating probability calculations for each battery charging service available and updates user interface 37 with a display indicating the probability of successfully completing the entire trip after charging the battery at each location for the available time entered by the user. These are several embodiments of user interface 37, but others are envisioned.)
calculate a transit point charge amount with which the battery is chargeable at the transit point, based on facility information of the transit point and the stay time (Storm P0081: In yet another example, user interface 37 offers user 36 a display with resource replenishment options such as charging stations, fuel stations, and the like for those situations where the vehicle likely cannot complete the journey before charging the battery, refueling the vehicle, or both. User interface 37 may give directions, maps, or both to nearby charging stations as well as map, location, and contact information for mobile charging service vehicles currently operating in the area. User interface 37 may also indicate the approximate additional time added to the trip due to the need for additional fuel, battery energy, or other resources. It may also, for example, indicate how long vehicle 21 will need to charge at each location to fully recharge (or refuel) given that a fixed charging station may have a different charging capacity than a mobile one. However, this embodiment of user interface 37 also allows the user to specify a maximum charging time in cases where time is limited. User interface 37 respondents by initiating probability calculations for each battery charging service available and updates user interface 37 with a display indicating the probability of successfully completing the entire trip after charging the battery at each location for the available time entered by the user. These are several embodiments of user interface 37, but others are envisioned.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to [combine/modify] the method of Storm with the technique of Nelson & Takahashi to increase the efficiency of the vehicle resource management system such that an accurate prediction of the resources required to make it the destination can be determined. Therefore, the design incentives of increased efficiency provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
Claim 2 & 8. Nelson, Takahashi &Storm teach the limitations of claim 6. Nelson teaches Nelson does not teach wherein the one or more processors are further cause to: when the calculated travel-time charge amount is greater than or equal to a threshold value, determine that the entry into the charging lane is possible. However Takahashi does teach P0209: Subsequently, in a step S45, the control unit 110A calculates the estimated remaining amount of energy after having traveled via the charging lane travel section candidate, and, on the basis of that estimated amount, makes a decision as to whether or not it is possible to arrive at the destination with the third predetermined amount of energy remaining. Here, from the standpoint of saving charging up costs in charging up lanes in the “toll route searching processing #1 utilizing charging lanes”, the “third predetermined amount” may be around 15% of full charge. If the result of the decision is negative (N in the step S45), then the flow of control proceeds to a step S46. In the step S46, “searching for a route utilizing the next found charging lane” is performed. And, when the processing of the step S46 ends, the flow of control returns to the step S45. The details of the processing in the step S46 will be described hereinafter. P0211: If the result of the decision in the step S47 is affirmative (Y in the step S47), then the flow of control proceeds to a step S48. In the step S48, from among the route plans to the destination that include plans for charging up the battery via the found charging lane which in the step S41 was determined as being one which it was possible to reach, the control unit 110A determines that route whose traveling time to the destination is the shortest, as being the first route (#1 thereof).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to [combine/modify] the method of Takahashi with the technique of Nelson to increase the efficiency of the route guidance system such that the user can prioritize charging lanes and charging spots based on charge amounts and travel preferences. Therefore, the design incentives of increased efficiency provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
Claim 3 & 9. Nelson teaches the limitations of claim 6, wherein the one or more processors are further cause to: update the threshold value, based on a total number of vehicles traveling on a road including the charging lane and a number of vehicles traveling in the charging lane (see at least Nelson P0067: The charging management system 121 may sum the weighted values of vehicles traveling on a road segment or projected to travel on a road segment. The summed value is indicative of the total demand for energy by the electric vehicles that will be or likely will be charging with a set of stations 181. The charging management system 121 may compare the summed value to a threshold to determine whether or not to tum on the stations 181. The charging management system 121 may compare the sum value to multiple ranges to determine how many stations 181 to activate (e.g., a first threshold may correspond to a first quantity of stations, a second threshold may correspond to a second quantity of stations, and so on).).
Claim 4 & 10 Nelson teaches the limitations of claim 3 wherein the one or more processors are further cause to: update the threshold value at predetermined time intervals (see at least Nelson P0026: The charging management system 121 may iterate through all or the subset of roadways at particular time intervals in order to update the charging status of the roadways the examiner interprets updating the charging status as an example of a change in the quantity of stations and corresponding the usage of different thresholds described in P0067).
Claim 5 & 12. Nelson teaches the limitations of claim 1 & 6 and the facility information comprises information on charging equipment (see at least Nelson P0082: The speed of charge lanes may be determined by the type of equipment in charging device 151), a congestion state of the charging equipment, and information on weather at the transit point (see at least Nelson P0092: The external factor 194 may be based on a current level of traffic or weather, or a predicted level of traffic or weather).
Claims 6, 8-10 & 12 are directed toward a charging system that performs the steps recited in the systems of claims 1-5. The cited portions of the reference(s) used in the rejections of claims 1 teach the steps recited in the systems of claims 6, 8-10 & 12. Therefore, claim 6 is rejected under the same rationale used in the rejections of claims 1-5.
Conclusion
Related References
The related art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2023/0116469 A1 by Hau describes charging fleet management system.
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 KITO R ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3921. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, James Trammell can be reached at (571) 272-6712. 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.
/KITO R ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights